But gay marriage is not at all equivalent to non-consensual relationships? It does not follow that anyone of any reasonable mind would ever consider paedophilia as a legitimate form of relationship, considering one party can never understand what they are expected to be involved in.
Oh, by the way, the other day, when attempting to access your site on my laptop, McAfee threw up a warning. Unfortunately I can’t recall what it said! Something about a parsal code?
I’m slightly concerned that you are not allowing the next phase of this discussion through. Why does the allowance of consensual relationships somehow mean that non-consensual ones would somehow become acceptable?
I remain concerned that you appear unwilling to provide any justification for your cause and effect claim regarding same-sex relationships and paedophilia. I trust you are aware that there is no evidence linking one to the other and that there is no basis for connecting consensual relationships to non-consensual one’s?
I think the point being made here is that there are people who are now calling for the legalization of pedophilia because “love is love”. And there are also people calling for acceptance of incestual relationships because “love is love”. If that is the excuse people use to accept gay marriage, then it certainly is difficult to argue against pedophilia or incest either as long as you use that same excuse. If two people “love” each other and happen to be closely related, then who can argue against it? That is the sick excuse being used to justify all sorts of sexual deviancy.
I am not aware of *anyone* from the LGBT community (certainly no one legitimate at least) who is attempting to equate same-sex consensual relationships with non-consensual ones. It is false equivalence to put the two in the same category and in fact a dishonest distortion of the ‘love is love’ message, used by homophobic elements of society to demonise the LGBT community. Thankfully, people of prudent thought can see through such obvious behaviour, and any reasonable person would not make such false equivalent claims in the first place.
That may perhaps apply to pedophilia but not necessarily incest. What if two people who are related want to be in a “consensual” relationship because, as the perennial “wisdom” states, “love is love”?
//equivalent to non-consensual relationships?//
What does that mean in the world of atheism? The world according to the atheistic view is jut a mass, energy, and movement. That’s it! On which base you decide that some relationships are “non-consensual”?
I would ask, for the second time (since my comments and questions seem to keep disappearing or getting stuck in moderation), what relevance the subject of atheism has to the question of consent?
You, an atheist, are arguing about the difference between “consensual” and “non-consensual” relationships, and using that difference as the basis for supporting one form of sexual deviancy (gay marriage) while denouncing other forms (pedophilia; incest). As Abdullah said, in the atheistic worldview, we are all just mass, energy and movement, or put another way, just one big cosmic accident. All of our feelings and emotions are due to chemical reactions in out bodies. So on what basis do you decide what is “consensual” and what is not?
Firstly, am not an atheist. Secondly, who says atheists have no values? It’s hinted at by people of faith all the time (who seem to obsess over atheism, the LGBT community and other religions), but it’s hardly accurate and remains irrelevant to this discussion. I have yet to see a single piece of reasoning from any of you thus far as to why we should equate consensual relationships between consenting adults with non-consensual relationships. Or, to put it another way, why the red herring at work that tries to have us equate homosexuals with paedophiles? This is known as false equivalence.
Maybe you should have said that before instead of providing vague and defensive answers. If you are not an atheist, then obviously the question does not apply to you.
It could end there but then you still tried to defend the atheistic position. Oy vei! OK, so let’s get into that. No one said atheists cannot have values. That is a strawman. I said that, according to the atheistic worldview, we are all just cosmic accidents and all of our “morals” and “values” are simply the result of complex chemical reactions in our bodies. Since you are now defending this worldview, despite not being an atheist, I ask again: on what basis do you decide what is consensual/nonconsensual, moral/immoral, etc.?
I also already responded to your fair point about comparing gay marriage to pedophilia by pointing out that such a comparison could be made with incest. If two people are in an incestual relationship consensually, because “love is love”, then why would you not support that? You can try to avoid this question, but your refusal to answer would speak louder than words.
I would not declare my answer on whether or not I am an atheist vague – it’s an assertion I have made several times on this site, yet it has gotten ignored repeatedly or deleted. Perhaps you should pay more attention next time?
Actually, the implication from Abdullah was precisely that atheism has no morals. If we are all just energy and whatnot, then what makes one activity okay and another not okay? That’s pretty much his argument in a nutshell.
Plus, whatever basis I or anyone chooses for what is consensual etc, is not the topic at hand, but is a gigantic red herring, a diversion from the original attempt to suggest homosexuality and paedophilia are somehow linked. By introducing the subject of incest you are continuing to mislead – instead of understanding what the ‘love is love’ mantra is about (it is clearly a rallying cry for the LGBT community), opponents of the LGBT community, those who would demonise them and seek to deny them rights because of religious beliefs which are not shared, try to twist and pervert the meaning of the expression. Hence the false, misleading connection between homosexuality and paedophilia.
“I would not declare my answer on whether or not I am an atheist vague – it’s an assertion I have made several times on this site, yet it has gotten ignored repeatedly or deleted. Perhaps you should pay more attention next time?”
LOL, so I am supposed to run over each of your posts with a fine-tooth comb? I don’t know you so perhaps you should be more clear next time?
“Actually, the implication from Abdullah was precisely that atheism has no morals. If we are all just energy and whatnot, then what makes one activity okay and another not okay? That’s pretty much his argument in a nutshell.”
I am still not seeing an actual response. Do you deny that if one believes that such things as “emotions” or “morals” are simply the result of complex chemical reactions, then there is no real basis for stating what is or isn’t “moral/immoral” or “consensual/nonconsensual”?
“Plus, whatever basis I or anyone chooses for what is consensual etc, is not the topic at hand, but is a gigantic red herring, a diversion from the original attempt to suggest homosexuality and paedophilia are somehow linked. By introducing the subject of incest you are continuing to mislead – instead of understanding what the ‘love is love’ mantra is about (it is clearly a rallying cry for the LGBT community), opponents of the LGBT community, those who would demonise them and seek to deny them rights because of religious beliefs which are not shared, try to twist and pervert the meaning of the expression. Hence the false, misleading connection between homosexuality and paedophilia.”
And still no answer. I think you realize your conundrum and don’t want to admit it. So it seems that you are a waste of time.
So the point of thread stands. People want acceptance for a plethora of sexual deviancies, so that now you have pedophiles and practitioners of incest clamoring for their “rights”, just as homosexuals have done, and they all use the same excuse…love is love. The apologists for these deviancies are then left with a conundrum. They either consistently defend all such deviancies or hypocritically pick and choose which ones to defend and which ones to denounce.
As I said before, I’ve made it clear I’m not an atheist on several occasions, whether you have bothered to pay attention or not is not down to me.
Regarding the rest of your post, it merely perpetuates the red herrings and misdirection that seeks to sweep the original point of the original post under the carpet – a classic case of moving the goalposts mid-match. It is in fact a form of dishonesty and I believe you are therefore committing either shirk or a haram act in perpetuating it. Perhaps you would care to properly connect why someone’s religious values (or lack thereof) have *any* bearing on why there is a game of false equivalence going on regarding homosexuality and paedophilia? The co-opting of the love is love slogan (which was obviously regarding consensual adult relationships) by other forces – including the conservative religious right (who love to set up false flags such as these) ignores – as you are doing – consent. It is easier for you to do so and create a false connection between homosexuals and paedophiles than it is to accept that there is in fact no cause to claim such a connection, and that it is done in the name of the hysterical religious right, who are upset they cannot so easily impose whichever version of whichever faith upon everyone, anymore.
By the way, pedophilia is increasingly being seen as a “sexual orientation” by many psychologists. It cannot be cured or changed. What does that remind you of?
Another red herring. Whether it is classed as an orientation or not, it doesn’t suddenly follow it will be deemed acceptable to society. There is a *massive* difference between consensual relationships and non-consensual ones, and you clearly need o educate yourself on what that difference is.
“Another red herring. Whether it is classed as an orientation or not, it doesn’t suddenly follow it will be deemed acceptable to society. There is a *massive* difference between consensual relationships and non-consensual ones, and you clearly need o educate yourself on what that difference is.”
How is a “red herring”? I think you simply dismiss any response when you don’t have any reasonable rebuttal.
Since you keep coming back to “consensual vs nonconsensual”, again I have to ask: then what about consensual incestual relationships? Now don’t run away again by harping about “red herrings”!
You keep dragging incest into this like it’s some kind of trump card, when it’s merely another act of dishonesty. No one has been able to successfully argue that the LGBT community deserves to be equated with paedophiles in any way shape or form, despite the dishonest and misleading efforts to smear them via pictures like the one in the original post. Instead, you have sought to divert and distract from the actual discussion by introducing several fallacies. This appears typical of the religious right, regardless of the actual faith – ‘demonise, distract and lie’.
I’ve given you answers, just not to the misleading and dishonest nature of the irrelevant questions posed. A better set of questions would actually concern the subject matter of the original post, which no one aside from me actually appears to want to discuss. When you decide you want to have a discussion that concerns the false equivalence between homosexuality and paedophilia that the religious right is determined to create, via trying to take over and misuse the love is love slogan, and by utterly failing to understand that no one in the LGBT community would ever push to normalise non-consensual relationships like that, then we can have a meaningful discussion. Until then, all your misdirection (and indeed, dishonesty) is being archived on my site and elsewhere.
Okay, so it seems you will keep harping. I already said you made a fair point about equating homosexuality and pedophilia vis a vis consensual relationships, so I asked about cases where people are in a consensual relationship. Apparently realizing the conundrum you are in, you refuse to deal with that question. Of course, your refusal itself speaks volumes.
On a related note, since pedophilia is defined as a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, what about cases where there is a post-pubescent minor involved? Say a 35 year old male is in a relationship with a 13 year old girl, and it is consensual. Or vice versa as well. What then? Now I know what your response is going to be. You will harp about “red herrings”.
Regarding pedophilia as a sexual orientation, the point I was making was that a pedophile cannot help but have a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. This is the same argument that homosexuals make about their attractions. The only difference is one is consensual and one is not. But on what basis does consent make it okay to have a particular lifestyle? That is why I asked about incest.
All the questions regarding incest are misleading – why can’t you see that? I won’t be addressing any further arguments/comments regarding something that you injected into a discussion about homosexuality and paedophilia for the purpose of… what?
Paedophilia is also seen in the eyes of the law as any sexual interaction between a legal adult (18 or over here in the UK) and a minor (anyone under that age). There are clear legal guidelines concerning what is and is not acceptable under the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of the law, a 13 year-old cannot give consent to a relationship with a 35 year old as he or she is not considered psychologically or emotionally capable of understanding what they are involved in. A consensual relationship is between two people who are legally considered adults. This is all very obvious, easily accessible legal fact.
I find it ironic, as a side-note, that so many of the religious right insist homosexuality is a choice and reject scientific notions when it suits. Moving on…
If two adults of the same sex happen to become involved in a relationship, who is getting hurt? Are you getting harmed by their consent to one another to enter into a relationship? Obviously not. No one is. However a child is not capable of understanding what they are being expected to do and it is physically, emotionally and psychologically damaging, with consequences that can last for a life time. These are again, known facts. It is irrelevant as to whether or not a paedophile cannot help being attracted – if they act upon that impulse and cause that kind of harm to a child, they have committed a horrible act against someone who cannot be reasonably expected to know why they were forced/coerced into it.
Between adults, both parties have the understanding and knowledge to enter into a relationship and understand what to expect from it. The two situations are completely different, despite the best spin-doctoring efforts of the religious right. As for incest – you know what? If it happens to be between two consenting adults, what matter would it make to you? Why are you so concerned about someone else’s bedroom? What *business* is it of yours, or anyone’s to inject your faith into a place where it is not wanted and has historically caused harm, not least of all through demonisation?
“All the questions regarding incest are misleading – why can’t you see that? I won’t be addressing any further arguments/comments regarding something that you injected into a discussion about homosexuality and paedophilia for the purpose of… what?”
How are they “misleading”? You mentioned the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia being the presence or absence of consent. I responded by pointing out that there are people who have consensual incestuous relationships. You keep running away from that. Why?
“Paedophilia is also seen in the eyes of the law as any sexual interaction between a legal adult (18 or over here in the UK) and a minor (anyone under that age). There are clear legal guidelines concerning what is and is not acceptable under the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of the law, a 13 year-old cannot give consent to a relationship with a 35 year old as he or she is not considered psychologically or emotionally capable of understanding what they are involved in. A consensual relationship is between two people who are legally considered adults. This is all very obvious, easily accessible legal fact.”
That’s my point. How do you determine at what age a person is capable of giving consent?
What if the law changed and the age of consent was reduced? What is the correct age of consent? How is it determined?
“I find it ironic, as a side-note, that so many of the religious right insist homosexuality is a choice and reject scientific notions when it suits. Moving on…”
Strawman. Moving on…
“If two adults of the same sex happen to become involved in a relationship, who is getting hurt? Are you getting harmed by their consent to one another to enter into a relationship? Obviously not. No one is. However a child is not capable of understanding what they are being expected to do and it is physically, emotionally and psychologically damaging, with consequences that can last for a life time. These are again, known facts. It is irrelevant as to whether or not a paedophile cannot help being attracted – if they act upon that impulse and cause that kind of harm to a child, they have committed a horrible act against someone who cannot be reasonably expected to know why they were forced/coerced into it. ”
Oh for the love of God…I already acknowledged your fair point about pedophilia! What are you not getting? What I am saying is if you feel that consent between two people of the same sex makes it okay, then why with incest as well?
“Between adults, both parties have the understanding and knowledge to enter into a relationship and understand what to expect from it. The two situations are completely different, despite the best spin-doctoring efforts of the religious right. As for incest – you know what? If it happens to be between two consenting adults, what matter would it make to you? Why are you so concerned about someone else’s bedroom? What *business* is it of yours, or anyone’s to inject your faith into a place where it is not wanted and has historically caused harm, not least of all through demonisation?”
Ah finally! Darth Timon finally gathers the courage to respond to the incest conundrum!
So it must be limited to their bedroom? What if they want to marry and get state benefits? Would you oppose that?
To clarify, I couldn’t care less if two people sodomize each other in the privacy of their own bedroom. They will answer to God. What I am opposed to is them asking for marriage rights and state benefits, the right to “adopt” children, and the right to force their lifestyle on the greater public and insisting on “acceptance”.
Darthtimon, it is very relevant to question your worldview when it is the very lens through which you argue, in this case on the morality of consentual and non consentual relationships. In a naturalistic universe, there is no objective right or wrong, no “oughts”. With this in mind, to argue on moral grounds as an atheist is to abandon your own worldview, revealing its inadequacy to deal with life’s questions.even the non-material concept of consent does not comport with atheism.
[How are they “misleading”? You mentioned the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia being the presence or absence of consent. I responded by pointing out that there are people who have consensual incestuous relationships. You keep running away from that. Why?]
The original topic at hand was the false connection between homosexuality and LGBT relationships and paedophilia. A connection you yourself have acknowledged (and I accept you have have acknowledged) to be a false connection. The difference between LGBT relationships and paedophilia is that one set of relationships is between consenting adults, as defined by law, and one set isn’t. As you yourself are aware, children cannot give consent (and cannot be reasonably expected to give consent) to the sort of relationships we are discussing. By introducing incest, you are introducing an irrelevant strawman to the subject. It is a distraction, and one which, later on, you ironically reveal that you don’t care about anyway.
[That’s my point. How do you determine at what age a person is capable of giving consent?
What if the law changed and the age of consent was reduced? What is the correct age of consent? How is it determined?]
I would wager that the laws we have in place are the result of decades (if not longer) of understanding that a child’s mind is not capable of understanding certain things, and that a child is not emotionally or physically ready for certain things. In the end though, what-if-ism is pointless, and I cannot envision any stage where society will declare paedophilia acceptable, least of all because of same-sex marriage. Any attempt to connect the two, as like has been done via the original post, is, as you have already acknowledged, a blatant falsehood. Worse, it is an argument that has been refuted before, but I suspect it is one that be returned to.
[Strawman. Moving on…]
I find it ironic that you now evade a point when this is about something *you* brought into the discussion. I wonder if you will pluck up the courage (after all, it’s perfectly respectful to question someone’s courage in your eyes, so I guess it’s fair for me to do likewise) to address the point? Will you acknowledge that if orientation is something someone doesn’t choose, all the talk about choosing to be gay is absurd?
[Oh for the love of God…I already acknowledged your fair point about pedophilia! What are you not getting? What I am saying is if you feel that consent between two people of the same sex makes it okay, then why with incest as well?]
What you have persistently failed to do is explain why incest has anything to do with the subject of the false connection between homosexuality and paedophilia. Whether you’ve acknowledged anything (and I admit you have) is almost beside the point when you continue to be obtuse in introducing a third element.
[To clarify, I couldn’t care less if two people sodomize each other in the privacy of their own bedroom. They will answer to God. What I am opposed to is them asking for marriage rights and state benefits, the right to “adopt” children, and the right to force their lifestyle on the greater public and insisting on “acceptance”.]
Whether or not two people of the same sex get married is none of your business either. Marriage is not a religious institution. Likewise with benefits and adoption. It is most telling that you speak of forcing lifestyles and acceptance, when organised religion has historically (and in fact continues to) to try and force itself into as many arenas as possible.
“The original topic at hand was the false connection between homosexuality and LGBT relationships and paedophilia. A connection you yourself have acknowledged (and I accept you have have acknowledged) to be a false connection. The difference between LGBT relationships and paedophilia is that one set of relationships is between consenting adults, as defined by law, and one set isn’t. As you yourself are aware, children cannot give consent (and cannot be reasonably expected to give consent) to the sort of relationships we are discussing. By introducing incest, you are introducing an irrelevant strawman to the subject. It is a distraction, and one which, later on, you ironically reveal that you don’t care about anyway.”
This is really pathetic. Yes, I acknowledged the association between homosexuality and pedophilia is tenuous, if consent is the issue. So I then brought in a better comparison, which meets your parameter of having consent. So I still fail to see how it is a “distraction”. I brought it up precisely to show that it makes LGBTQ apologists such as yourself rather uncomfortable because it exposes your hypocrisy.
“I would wager that the laws we have in place are the result of decades (if not longer) of understanding that a child’s mind is not capable of understanding certain things, and that a child is not emotionally or physically ready for certain things.”
True, but again, what if our understanding changes? What if societal views change? What if the laws are themselves inconsistent? For example, in the US, eighteen is generally considered to be the age when one is no longer a minor. So, an 18 year-old can register to vote and also enlist in the army and is also considered old enough to give consent. However, the law states that this person is NOT old enough to purchase alcoholic beverages! And now, at least in some states, the tobacco laws have also been amended to prohibit purchase until age 21. So let me get this straight. A person is old enough to fight and die in the armed forces or to vote in the presidential election or to give consent for sexual relations, but NOT old enough to drink or smoke?
Also, coming back to the issue of consent, it also varies. Different countries have different standards. For example, in Europe, the ages vary from as young as 14 to as high as 18: https://www.ageofconsent.net/continent/europe
So are you telling me that in Germany, one is considered a “child” at age 13, whereas in Vatican City, one is considered a “child” at age 17 (at 18, they become an adult)? Why is there so much inconsistency?
” In the end though, what-if-ism is pointless, and I cannot envision any stage where society will declare paedophilia acceptable, least of all because of same-sex marriage. Any attempt to connect the two, as like has been done via the original post, is, as you have already acknowledged, a blatant falsehood. Worse, it is an argument that has been refuted before, but I suspect it is one that be returned to.”
I don’t know why you keep clinging to the pedophilia issue when I have already said that I am not talking about that and acknowledged the unfair comparison to homosexuality. I am also merely pointing out that laws change and they are, more often than not, contradictory. And that brings us back to the question I asked before: what if a 14 year old wants to be in a relation with a 40 year old? Would you be supportive of that? And if the law prohibits such a relationship, would you be in favor of changing the law?
“I find it ironic that you now evade a point when this is about something *you* brought into the discussion. I wonder if you will pluck up the courage (after all, it’s perfectly respectful to question someone’s courage in your eyes, so I guess it’s fair for me to do likewise) to address the point? Will you acknowledge that if orientation is something someone doesn’t choose, all the talk about choosing to be gay is absurd?”
Yes, I do acknowledge that, which is why I said that it was a strawman to talk about the “religious right”. You just assumed my position without even asking what it was. So here is my position: having sexual attraction to a member of the same sex is not itself sinful. If a person can’t help but have those feelings, that is a psychological issue which cannot be treated or cured. But acting on those urges is a sin, and that is something a person can control.
“What you have persistently failed to do is explain why incest has anything to do with the subject of the false connection between homosexuality and paedophilia. Whether you’ve acknowledged anything (and I admit you have) is almost beside the point when you continue to be obtuse in introducing a third element.”
I already explained this. I am trying to establish if you would apply the same standards to another form of sexual deviancy so long as “consent” is present. It is a perfectly legitimate comparison, because your parameter has been met. And whether you like it not, it is getting more attention. It might be unbelievable, but it IS a thing! For example, see here: https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/relationships/a35098/genetic-sexual-attraction-incest-sibling-relationship/
“Whether or not two people of the same sex get married is none of your business either. Marriage is not a religious institution. Likewise with benefits and adoption. It is most telling that you speak of forcing lifestyles and acceptance, when organised religion has historically (and in fact continues to) to try and force itself into as many arenas as possible.”
LOL!! First of all, I noticed that you abruptly ended your response WITHOUT answering my questions about incestual couple being limited to the “bedroom”. You truly are a coward! I guess you don’t have the “courage” to speak up, eh? So I will repeat my questions:
So it (consensual incest) must be limited to their bedroom? What if they want to marry and get state benefits? Would you oppose that?
Second, I can see why you are afraid to answer these questions. It’s because you realize the uncomfortable position it puts you in, since on the one hand, you act like the high and might spokesperson for LGBTQ people, but on the other hand, don’t quite want to extend that passionate defense for consensual incest couples. Of course, I don’t blame you for being weirded out by the whole thing. It IS disgusting and sick. And that’s the point. Sexual deviancy is weird and sick, but people like you hypocritically pick and choose which ones to support and which ones to denounce or completely avoid talking about. I, on the other hand, and most other religious people, are at least consistent in out denunciation of ALL forms of sexual deviancy.
And yes, it IS my business because things like state benefits and adoption are funded by taxes. Just as I wouldn’t want my tax dollars being used to fund a bloated military budget which is used to bomb poor countries, I also wouldn’t want my tax dollars being used to help homosexual couples adopt a child.
Now I have answered all of your questions. Do you have the “courage” to answer mine?
Yes, a lot of this is indeed pathetic. I will be forced to speak to you as if you are a child if you continue your inability to understand that a discussion about the link between homosexuality and paedophilia and the difference between consensual and non-consenual relationships IN THAT CONTEXT has no bearing or relevance to the strawman of incest that you are now beating to death. It is dishonest of you, obtuse of you and frankly boring at this point. Perhaps I should indeed question your particular frame of mind, given your obsession with injecting extra, irrelevant elements into discussions.
Perhaps I’ll make it simpler anyway, though given the dramatic increase in rhetoric (I urge you to get your anger under control, it seems you are losing your temper), I am not certain of success, but here goes.
Paul posted an erronenous connection between homosexuality and paedophilia, under the guise of ‘love is love’ being used, dishonestly, by certain parties, to suggest allowing consensual same-sex relationships between adults will somehow lead to relationships between adults and children, which are NON-consensual. You and I agree that this is a false equivalence position. That should be the end of the discussion, yet you introduced what’s known as a non-sequitur into the equation (namely, that it does not follow IN THE CONTEXT OF THE THREAD to introduce incest into the discussion). Even when I’ve gone on to address your irrelevant side-show of a subject, you have ramped up your angry rhetoric, despite even admitting you don’t care!
I cannot speak for the laws of various countries, only for UK law, as the UK is where I live. Generally speaking though, the age of consent for sexual activity is 16 or 18 for the majority of countries around the world. Would I support a 14 year old wanting to be in a relationship with a 40 year old? No. Can a 14 year old be reasonably expected to understand everything regarding such a commitment? Not in the eyes of the law, and all the what-ifs in the world won’t change how that law, as perceived here in the UK, currently stands. Nor is anyone (anyone of reasonable mind at least) making any attempt to change those laws.
I see you have made your coward jibe again. I feel no particular compulsion to jump through hopes for someone as dishonest as you, nor any justification for why I missed that question. Since your belligerence will likely get worse if I don’t answer it, so be it.
I actually know of cousins who are in relationships, who are in fact married. I could not care less if they are or if they claim any marriage benefits, in much the same way that I couldn’t care less if same-sex couples do so. My question would be why do YOU care so much, given that no, it does NOT affect you. You whine about taxes yet in the end, that is merely a cover story – as your remarks about deviancy show. You appear to have a great desire to interfere in the lives of others, even if they actually have no meaningful impact upon your own, whilst at the same time complaining about forcing lifestyles upon others. That is possibly your most ironic statement yet!
“Yes, a lot of this is indeed pathetic. I will be forced to speak to you as if you are a child if you continue your inability to understand that a discussion about the link between homosexuality and paedophilia and the difference between consensual and non-consenual relationships IN THAT CONTEXT has no bearing or relevance to the strawman of incest that you are now beating to death. It is dishonest of you, obtuse of you and frankly boring at this point. Perhaps I should indeed question your particular frame of mind, given your obsession with injecting extra, irrelevant elements into discussions.”
It keeps getting more and more pathetic as you seem incapable of mustering up the courage to discuss this issue, instead of beating the homosexuality/pedophilia horse to death, even though that is not even an issue at this point!
And you know that you are a coward when you start claiming “oh, this conversation is boring”. You just don’t want to be put into a corner due to your double standards and hypocrisy. I think that has been sufficiently proven.
“Perhaps I’ll make it simpler anyway, though given the dramatic increase in rhetoric (I urge you to get your anger under control, it seems you are losing your temper), I am not certain of success, but here goes.”
LOL!! Speak for yourself. Don’t give me your silly advice. Apply it to yourself. I am actually thoroughly enjoying this conversation. Now let’s see what you have…
“Paul posted an erronenous connection between homosexuality and paedophilia…”
Oh boy, you’re STILL stuck on this? Oy vei!
“That should be the end of the discussion, yet you introduced what’s known as a non-sequitur into the equation (namely, that it does not follow IN THE CONTEXT OF THE THREAD to introduce incest into the discussion). Even when I’ve gone on to address your irrelevant side-show of a subject, you have ramped up your angry rhetoric, despite even admitting you don’t care!”
So would you be happy if a NEW thread was opened? Would that help you make the transition, even though it shouldn’t even be an issue?
And you’ve actually NOT “addressed” the issue at all. You are still ignoring my questions.
“I cannot speak for the laws of various countries, only for UK law, as the UK is where I live. Generally speaking though, the age of consent for sexual activity is 16 or 18 for the majority of countries around the world. Would I support a 14 year old wanting to be in a relationship with a 40 year old? No. Can a 14 year old be reasonably expected to understand everything regarding such a commitment? Not in the eyes of the law, and all the what-ifs in the world won’t change how that law, as perceived here in the UK, currently stands. Nor is anyone (anyone of reasonable mind at least) making any attempt to change those laws.”
And what makes you think that a person can suddenly be “reasonably expected to understand everything regarding such a commitment” when they turn 16? What is this age limit based on?
“I see you have made your coward jibe again. I feel no particular compulsion to jump through hopes for someone as dishonest as you, nor any justification for why I missed that question. Since your belligerence will likely get worse if I don’t answer it, so be it.”
Boo hoo, quit your whining. You asked if I had the…ahem…”courage” to speak up about homosexuality and how it’s not a “choice”. You like to PRETEND that you are respectful, and then accuse others of being disrespectful. That just shows that you like to look down on others, while sitting on your high horse. Don’t be shocked when people call you out.
“I actually know of cousins who are in relationships, who are in fact married. I could not care less if they are or if they claim any marriage benefits, in much the same way that I couldn’t care less if same-sex couples do so.”
I am not talking about cousins and you know it. Why are you so dishonest? I am talking about brother/sister or father/daughter couples, etc. So I ask again:
Consensual incest must be limited to their bedroom? What if they want to marry and get state benefits? Would you oppose that?
“My question would be why do YOU care so much, given that no, it does NOT affect you. You whine about taxes yet in the end, that is merely a cover story – as your remarks about deviancy show. You appear to have a great desire to interfere in the lives of others, even if they actually have no meaningful impact upon your own, whilst at the same time complaining about forcing lifestyles upon others. That is possibly your most ironic statement yet!”
Why would I want my taxes supporting something that I oppose? That seems like a legitimate concern that any reasonable person would have. If you want other reasons why I oppose gay marriage, here is one: Can same-sex couples have their own children? No, of course not. They have to use some other means, such as adopting a child or using donor gametes. In the case of the latter, one of the same-sex parents will NEVER be a biological parent. The donor would be the parent and would NEVER actually see that child and would never know him/her.
Does it affect me personally? No, of course not. But it DOES affect society. And it is a violation of God’s laws. It also contradicts the natural law, which is created by God. That is why I oppose it. All of these are good reasons to oppose gay marriage.
I love how you make continued jibes about my courage to discuss the issue, even when I AM discussing the issue. It’s hardly my fault you continue to fail to misunderstand how you have introduced a fallacy into the original discussion then spun it for all its worth. For the record, start a separate thread regarding the subject of incest/consent and I will gladly participate. I have after all addressed it several times in this thread, despite it being irrelevant to the original thrust of Paul’s original post. That should put to bed any further jibes from you about cowardice, now I wonder if you will work on stopping your rampant dishonesty?
[I am not talking about cousins and you know it. Why are you so dishonest? I am talking about brother/sister or father/daughter couples, etc. So I ask again:]
You weren’t clear. Don’t be obtuse and then expect others to magically know what you mean. I know that’s hard for you, but please do try.
And again, I don’t care. What happens between consenting adults is their business. For the record, I would not be so accepting of a brother/sister father/daughter relationship – certainly, I would not be prepared to accept marriage/etc for them.
BUT, what is the relevance of that concerning same-sex marriage, between two consenting adults who are unrelated? If you’re using your position to tout the slippery slope fallacy that one must inevitably lead to the other, you must demonstrate this is likely.
To spin back to the law part again, in terms of age of consent etc, I cannot speak for how those laws are created, but for whatever reason, the powers that be have decided there are slightly differing ages for when certain things come into play. Certainly in the UK, the age differences between consensual adult sex and voting/purchasing alcohol are minor.
More to the point though, would you not agree that a set, legal, age of consent to protect minors is a necessary thing? What set of criteria would you use?
[Why would I want my taxes supporting something that I oppose? That seems like a legitimate concern that any reasonable person would have. If you want other reasons why I oppose gay marriage, here is one: Can same-sex couples have their own children? No, of course not. They have to use some other means, such as adopting a child or using donor gametes. In the case of the latter, one of the same-sex parents will NEVER be a biological parent. The donor would be the parent and would NEVER actually see that child and would never know him/her.]
I cannot speak for donor gametes, as I am unfamiliar with how that works, but in respect of adoption, I believe whether same-sex couple or otherwise, the situation there is at least the same for both parties. An adopted child will never be biologically related to the parents in either case. Of course, as someone who has step-children, who I nonetheless love and have helped look after, I can speak in a small way on the subject. Whether they are biologically mine has no bearing on whether or not I would fight for them and die for them. Of course I would. I won’t pretend to be an expert on adoption itself, or gametes, but there are plenty of biological parents out there who have given up their kids for adoption for various reasons, and their children will never know them. That doesn’t mean they won’t be loved by their adopted parents, regardless of whether they’re same-sex or not.
[Does it affect me personally? No, of course not. But it DOES affect society. And it is a violation of God’s laws. It also contradicts the natural law, which is created by God. That is why I oppose it. All of these are good reasons to oppose gay marriage.]
In what way has gay marriage affected society? It’s existed for some time now, in various countries, and I am unaware of any kind of societal collapse taking place in those countries. It seems to me, when you start speaking of God’s law and natural law, that you are assuming those laws should govern everyone, whether or not they are shared. Which version of God’s law should be triumphant in that case? Shia or Sunni? Roman Catholic or Protestant? Should it be some form of Judaism? What about Hinduism? Who decides which version of which faith is the basis upon what laws get imposed upon everyone else?
“I love how you make continued jibes about my courage to discuss the issue, even when I AM discussing the issue.”
Except that you aren’t. You keep dodging the question, as with your “cousins” example.
” It’s hardly my fault you continue to fail to misunderstand how you have introduced a fallacy into the original discussion then spun it for all its worth. For the record, start a separate thread regarding the subject of incest/consent and I will gladly participate. I have after all addressed it several times in this thread, despite it being irrelevant to the original thrust of Paul’s original post. That should put to bed any further jibes from you about cowardice, now I wonder if you will work on stopping your rampant dishonesty?”
LOL, oh man! Again, so you feel better if a new thread was opened? If you are that insistent of nitpicking, then perhaps we can ask Paul to open a new thread. I don’t see what the difference is, but if you are that insistent, then I am game…
“You weren’t clear. Don’t be obtuse and then expect others to magically know what you mean. I know that’s hard for you, but please do try.”
Um, I gave a link to an article which talked about a woman having feelings of attraction to her half-brother. Don’t ignore what others say and then expect them to not call you out for your evasiveness. I know that’s hard for you, but please do try.
“And again, I don’t care. What happens between consenting adults is their business. For the record, I would not be so accepting of a brother/sister father/daughter relationship – certainly, I would not be prepared to accept marriage/etc for them.”
YES! FINALLY! Hallelujah!
So you would not to be “so accepting” of a CONSENSUAL relationship between siblings or other incestual couples, but you insist on tolerating homosexuality and rejecting pedophilia because one is consensual and the other isn’t. Thank you for proving my point. You clearly have double standards. I only wish you would have been more forthcoming and honest much earlier. It would have saved both of us some time.
“BUT, what is the relevance of that concerning same-sex marriage, between two consenting adults who are unrelated? If you’re using your position to tout the slippery slope fallacy that one must inevitably lead to the other, you must demonstrate this is likely.”
So now you are moving the goalpost? Now you are setting a new parameter: a couple has to be “unrelated” in order to be accepted or tolerated?
And by the way, it IS leading to the other! That was the whole point I was making from the start! Incestual couples are also using the “love is love” argument. On what basis do you oppose them but not homosexuals?
“To spin back to the law part again, in terms of age of consent etc, I cannot speak for how those laws are created, but for whatever reason, the powers that be have decided there are slightly differing ages for when certain things come into play. Certainly in the UK, the age differences between consensual adult sex and voting/purchasing alcohol are minor.”
Double standards, yet again. So you are not as passionate in being consistent. It seems to me that there is no rhyme or reason for these inconsistencies, other than ignorance, deliberate dishonesty or political correctness.
You can’t speak for the laws in other countries, just the UK, you said. But now, you can’t even speak for those laws! This is getting really bad for you Darth. You must be getting frustrated. 🙂
“More to the point though, would you not agree that a set, legal, age of consent to protect minors is a necessary thing? What set of criteria would you use?”
I think the current criteria, if they exist at all, are subjective and arbitrary. That is why there are variations in the age between countries. No one can agree on the parameters. It certainly is a complex issue, which requires more research. I think it would be more beneficial if there was consistency. For example, if you are going to set an age of consent at a certain age, then that same age should be set for other things, such as voting, enlisting in the army, etc. What that age is specifically is an open-ended question.
“I cannot speak for donor gametes, as I am unfamiliar with how that works, but in respect of adoption, I believe whether same-sex couple or otherwise, the situation there is at least the same for both parties. An adopted child will never be biologically related to the parents in either case.”
You are correct, but in Islam, adoption is not even a thing. Islam encourages foster care, but not full-on adoption. Caring for orphans is of course a great deed in Islam, but it recognizes that adoptive parents will NEVER be the biological parents, and it also recognizes the potential problems that might arise in adoption cases, such as inheritance. Would it be fair to give less inheritance to one’s biological children in order to divide the money between the biological children and the adoptive child?
Of course, that would not apply in cases where parents are childless and unable to conceive. Even then, the child would never be biologically theirs. I can see potential problems there as well: what if there an attraction between the adoptive child (after sexual maturity of course) and one of the adoptive parents? It’s probably rare, but it could happen.
As for the donor gametes, here is a scenario:
Two lesbians want to have a child. Obviously, they cannot impregnate each other. So they would have to get a donor to provide sperm to fertilize one of their eggs. In this way, one of them can become pregnant and give birth to a child. It would be her child, but it would be unrelated to her partner. The other parent would never be known to that child.
Now if you multiply that by potentially dozens of children being born as a result of the donor’s sperm, that would mean that the donor has dozens of children that he does not know. I find that horrific.
“In what way has gay marriage affected society? It’s existed for some time now, in various countries, and I am unaware of any kind of societal collapse taking place in those countries.”
I just showed you. If thousands of gay couples were to use artificial insemination, you could have thousands of children whose real biological parent would be unknown to them. What if they happened to meet (and yes it has happened) and actually became a couple?
“It seems to me, when you start speaking of God’s law and natural law, that you are assuming those laws should govern everyone, whether or not they are shared. Which version of God’s law should be triumphant in that case? Shia or Sunni? Roman Catholic or Protestant? Should it be some form of Judaism? What about Hinduism? Who decides which version of which faith is the basis upon what laws get imposed upon everyone else?”
It seems to me that natural law, which is God’s law, would be shared by everyone. Can homosexuals have children naturally? Even once? No. Heterosexual couples can. This is the natural law. It seems pretty simple to me.
The whole first section of your post merely demonstrates that you do NOT understand the third wheel element you introduced, nor why it represents at this point pathological dishonesty on your part. I have already said I am more than happy to discuss it in a new thread, so if you actually capable of discussing the actual subject of THIS thread, let’s be about it eh?
You accuse me of double standards on discussion of law, but I never claimed to be an expert who understood all the ins and outs of even U.K. law. I understand it better than other laws, but I never claimed more than that, and unless you happen to be an expert this is simply arrogant posturing on your part. You may feel the ages of consent are arbitrary, but they are the result of research and study from people far more qualified than you or I. I also note you failed to answer properly, my question. Is a legal age of consent necessary to protect minors, yes or no?
As for the rest, I am due at work soon so will reply when I have more time.
“The whole first section of your post merely demonstrates that you do NOT understand the third wheel element you introduced, nor why it represents at this point pathological dishonesty on your part. I have already said I am more than happy to discuss it in a new thread, so if you actually capable of discussing the actual subject of THIS thread, let’s be about it eh?”
Ugh, are we still on this? LOL! I have no idea why you are such a stickler. As has been explained like 50 times now, once you introduced the “consent” issue, I logically redirected the topic to a form of sexual deviancy where consent is present. I don’t why I have to keep explaining this to you.
“You accuse me of double standards on discussion of law, but I never claimed to be an expert who understood all the ins and outs of even U.K. law. I understand it better than other laws, but I never claimed more than that, and unless you happen to be an expert this is simply arrogant posturing on your part. You may feel the ages of consent are arbitrary, but they are the result of research and study from people far more qualified than you or I. I also note you failed to answer properly, my question. Is a legal age of consent necessary to protect minors, yes or no?”
It seems to me that you just don’t like being put on the spot. It is obvious that you hold views that fall apart under scrutiny and you don’t like that. I have legitimate arguments which you seem incapable of responding to. The evasiveness has not yet fully left you.
What “research” are you referring to exactly? What “research” decided that a 16 year old is old enough to give consent to sex but not to vote in an election? Do tell. Remember, you made the claim, so I am asking you to back it.
And I did answer your question. I said that that there should be consistency. If you think a 16 year old is old enough to give consent, then they are old enough to decide who to vote for in an election or if they want to smoke or enlist in the army. A legal age should be set, but it should be based on facts, not arbitrary or politically correct views.
Narrated Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234
Waleed, if the purpose of your post is suggest Islam condones paedophilia, I should note that here and now, not ONE of the Muslim posters here has said or done ANYTHING to suggest to me they condone it.
Gasp! “Sahih Bukhari”? What’s that? I mean must be an ignorant Muslim to not know that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) consummated his marriage to Aisha (ra) when she was 9, as girls were married at young ages in those days. Menstruation had always been seen as a sign of sexual maturity in EVERY ancient culture. There was nothing abnormal about that.
Right, now that I have a bit of spare time (yay!) let us continue eh quranandbibleblog?
Firstly, I actually wish to offer an apology. I am aware that this discussion, by it’s very nature, can become quite heated, and I dare say I over-stepped the mark, for which I am sorry.
Secondly, I will however maintain that in the context of the original post, whereby I was clearly referring to same-sex relationships, in the subject of consent, bringing incest into the equation was misleading. We are clearly not going to agree on that, so very simply, all the cards on the table, so to speak.
I have no issue with same-sex marriage (I think that’s pretty obvious lol). I do not care if cousins wish to marry. I don’t care about polygamous arrangements. None of them affect me in any way shape or form. Am I *comfortable* with more extreme forms of incest? No. Does that make me a hypocrite because I approve of some forms of consensual adult relationships but not others? Perhaps, but no more so than anyone else who approves of some but not others – like approving of relationships between people of opposite sex but not approving simply because another couple has matching genitalia.
Regarding law, you say it’s a complex issue, and it is, and neither of us claim to be experts, so we have to place a bit of faith in the established laws of this country, and also remember that ages of consent are in fact pretty uniform across most of the world. Those laws are in place to protect minors, and whether or not the laws around voting/drinking/etc differ to the age of consent for sex, is again, the result of decades, if not centuries, of understanding and consideration and experience from law makers who have in turn studied these fields for many years. A quick Google search as to why 16 is the age of consent here in the UK didn’t actually turn up any meaningful answers, but I will endeavour to see if more details are out there (there must be).
Perhaps it is worth asking, why do you feel the existing age of consent is arbitrary? What sort of research would you recommend and what do you believe ages of consent should actually be?
On the subject of donor gametes, to clarify, are you against the donation of eggs/sperm for use by same-sex couples only, or against it for anyone that might want/need to use such donations?
Regarding what could happen to society if thousands of same-sex couples starting using donations, as you said, ‘what if’? The bottom line, this doesn’t mean that the children won’t have loving homes, and sperm donors rarely if ever have any knowledge of any children their sperm is used to have. Likewise, vice versa, the children rarely if ever have any knowledge of the donor. This applies equally to hetreosexual couples that have need of such services. This doesn’t make the children any less loved in the eyes of the parents, whilst your point about possible sexual attraction is, to be honest, both a piece of scare-mongering and something that you admit is rare. What has actually happened, so far, in countries that have legalised same-sex marriage, to remotely suggest a collapse of society, or a drive toward legalising anything even remotely approaching anything like paedophilia?
Finally, you raised the issue of your taxes funding state benefits and adoption for same-sex couples and disapprove of that. Do you approve of state funding for religious schools? A third of all state-funded schools here in the UK are religious schools – should my taxes be funding schools that indoctrinate into belief systems I fundamentally disagree with?
“Firstly, I actually wish to offer an apology. I am aware that this discussion, by it’s very nature, can become quite heated, and I dare say I over-stepped the mark, for which I am sorry.”
No harm done, Darth.
“Secondly, I will however maintain that in the context of the original post, whereby I was clearly referring to same-sex relationships, in the subject of consent, bringing incest into the equation was misleading. We are clearly not going to agree on that, so very simply, all the cards on the table, so to speak.”
So let’s just move on, then.
“I have no issue with same-sex marriage (I think that’s pretty obvious lol). I do not care if cousins wish to marry. I don’t care about polygamous arrangements. None of them affect me in any way shape or form. Am I *comfortable* with more extreme forms of incest? No. Does that make me a hypocrite because I approve of some forms of consensual adult relationships but not others? Perhaps, but no more so than anyone else who approves of some but not others – like approving of relationships between people of opposite sex but not approving simply because another couple has matching genitalia.”
Thank you for your honesty. My point was precisely this, though. People who support gay marriage do so on the basis of rather subjective reasons. That is precisely why I brought up the issue. You had said that consent was the key, so naturally I brought up the numerous cases of consensual incest. Since consent is present, then why is it so offensive to you?
At least in this regard, people who oppose gay marriage at being consistent. They oppose ALL forms of sexual deviancy, and don’t pick and choose.
“Regarding law, you say it’s a complex issue, and it is, and neither of us claim to be experts, so we have to place a bit of faith in the established laws of this country, and also remember that ages of consent are in fact pretty uniform across most of the world.”
But they clearly arent’t. How are they “uniform” when many countries have set the age at 14, while others have set it as high as 18? That’s a big difference.
” Those laws are in place to protect minors, and whether or not the laws around voting/drinking/etc differ to the age of consent for sex, is again, the result of decades, if not centuries, of understanding and consideration and experience from law makers who have in turn studied these fields for many years.”
I have yet to see any evidence that these arbitrary and contradictory laws are the result of “centuries” of “understanding and consideration”. Lawmakers are fallible people. They are usually driven by popular opinion rather than objective facts. And why not? If they want to be reelected, they have to listen to their constituents.
“Perhaps it is worth asking, why do you feel the existing age of consent is arbitrary? What sort of research would you recommend and what do you believe ages of consent should actually be?”
Because there is no consistency. Who decided that a 16 year old is old enough to have sex but not vote in an election? Sexual intercourse is not to be taken lightly, and could result in catastrophic consequences, so why is it allowed but not voting in an election? It makes no sense to me.
“On the subject of donor gametes, to clarify, are you against the donation of eggs/sperm for use by same-sex couples only, or against it for anyone that might want/need to use such donations?”
I am against using donor sperm/eggs for anyone. It would be the same problem as I explained before. Even if a heterosexual couple used those services (let’s say the husband was infertile), one of the parents would NEVER be the biological parent. I mean using some other man’s sperm to impregnate your wife? It sounds horrific.
“The bottom line, this doesn’t mean that the children won’t have loving homes, and sperm donors rarely if ever have any knowledge of any children their sperm is used to have. Likewise, vice versa, the children rarely if ever have any knowledge of the donor. This applies equally to hetreosexual couples that have need of such services. This doesn’t make the children any less loved in the eyes of the parents, whilst your point about possible sexual attraction is, to be honest, both a piece of scare-mongering and something that you admit is rare. What has actually happened, so far, in countries that have legalised same-sex marriage, to remotely suggest a collapse of society, or a drive toward legalising anything even remotely approaching anything like paedophilia?”
Sure, they might be loved, but the fact would remain that they would truly only have known one of their biological parents. The third parent would be just some random person who happened to be involved.
I admitted that sexual attraction between an adoptive parent and the adoptive child might be rare. That does not mean it could not happen. Are you saying it could never happen? If it could happen, do you deny that it would not have happened if the service had not been available in the first place?
“Finally, you raised the issue of your taxes funding state benefits and adoption for same-sex couples and disapprove of that. Do you approve of state funding for religious schools? A third of all state-funded schools here in the UK are religious schools – should my taxes be funding schools that indoctrinate into belief systems I fundamentally disagree with?”
I think religious communities should fund their own schools, if they can. Furthermore, there is a danger in getting government aid because the government could then try to dictate what is taught in those schools. If religious schools remain independent and do not utilize government services, then such a danger is eliminated.
Right, as I have a bit of time to reply (well, technically I’m at work but it’s an horrendously slow day), I can try to reply to at least part of this.
[Thank you for your honesty. My point was precisely this, though. People who support gay marriage do so on the basis of rather subjective reasons. That is precisely why I brought up the issue. You had said that consent was the key, so naturally I brought up the numerous cases of consensual incest. Since consent is present, then why is it so offensive to you?]
I cannot offer up a cast-iron set of reasons as to why father/daughter incestual relations would make me uncomfortable and other forms of adult, consensual relationships would not. In the end, none of it actually affects me on any level, so whilst it makes me uncomfortable, I am not actually certain I could oppose it without being a hypocrite. On the other hand, to oppose consensual relationships between unrelated adults who just happen to have the same reproductive organs (and then class that as deviancy) seems to me to be unfair (especially when it does not in fact affect anyone outside of that relationship). Is that subjective? Perhaps. Will I nonetheless continue to argue in favour of same-sex marriage? Yes. Most of the same-sex people who want to get married are not religious yet are expected to be bound to religious rules and accept it, even as they continue to face various negative stereotypes (and in the case of recent developments, the death penalty for sexual activity, in Brunei). The manner in which certain parties (and I don’t mean you) lump homosexuals in with paedophiles is something we agree is unfair, yet it is all too common, and I suspect the parties who perpetuate those stereotypes will continue to do so. Maybe that’s a little bit off topic, but Paul has made that kind of false equivalence argument before and I suspect will make it again. It would be nice if such falsehoods could not be made, but the LGBT community faces this on a routine basis, along with the threat of death in certain countries and communities, all for something they haven’t chosen.
I will say this, you are correct that your position is certainly internally consistent.
[But they clearly arent’t. How are they “uniform” when many countries have set the age at 14, while others have set it as high as 18? That’s a big difference.]
I will mention that I didn’t claim things were completely uniform, but broadly speaking, it is *pretty* consistent. Most countries have consent laws based on either 16 or 18 – relatively few are outside those two ages. In terms of whether they are arbitrary (and whether or not there is consistency in respect of other aspects like voting age etc), what would you propose as an alternative system for establishing ages of consent, and what would make that system better than what we have now? Whilst you are correct that lawmakers are not infallible, could that not be said for any group of people that were tasked with determining laws around this issue?
[I am against using donor sperm/eggs for anyone. It would be the same problem as I explained before. Even if a heterosexual couple used those services (let’s say the husband was infertile), one of the parents would NEVER be the biological parent. I mean using some other man’s sperm to impregnate your wife? It sounds horrific.]
I cannot speak for whether I personally would consider such an option, but for many couples out there, it represents an opportunity to have kids that may be their only opportunity. It has no bearing on whether or not that child would be have a loving home.
[Sure, they might be loved, but the fact would remain that they would truly only have known one of their biological parents. The third parent would be just some random person who happened to be involved.]
There’s more to being a parent than biology, my own personal circumstances being a case in point. I actually have a granddaughter, and although she is not biologically related to me, she calls me Grandad and to me, she *is* my granddaughter. I don’t love her any less because we don’t share blood, so to speak, and this is true for millions of people worldwide.
[I admitted that sexual attraction between an adoptive parent and the adoptive child might be rare. That does not mean it could not happen. Are you saying it could never happen? If it could happen, do you deny that it would not have happened if the service had not been available in the first place?]
In theory it’s *possible* that the biological father/mother of young children may become sexually attracted to their children. In fact, there are documented cases of this happening. Should we consider it unwise for anyone to have kids via any means, because of what *might* happen? Society at large would be paralysed if we fell prey to such forms of thinking.
[I think religious communities should fund their own schools, if they can. Furthermore, there is a danger in getting government aid because the government could then try to dictate what is taught in those schools. If religious schools remain independent and do not utilize government services, then such a danger is eliminated.]
I agree there should be separation here. My reasoning is somewhat different (I would rather what I find to be the indoctrination of children to *not* be state-funded). Generally speaking, I prefer separation of religion and state anyway. After all, and especially in an era where people of various faiths all live in the same country, which version of which faith should be the dominant one in consideration of law, much less state benefits? It’s better not to have that interference, for there will be consensus as to which faith should have the greatest on society (and those who are not religious should not be bound to religious laws, nor religious ideas as to what they can or cannot receive from the state).
Upon what basis do you assume this behaviour will ever be acceptable?
Our degenerate society has accepted ‘gay marriage’, transsexualism, and other deviants. Next stop incest and paodopholia.
But gay marriage is not at all equivalent to non-consensual relationships? It does not follow that anyone of any reasonable mind would ever consider paedophilia as a legitimate form of relationship, considering one party can never understand what they are expected to be involved in.
Oh, by the way, the other day, when attempting to access your site on my laptop, McAfee threw up a warning. Unfortunately I can’t recall what it said! Something about a parsal code?
I’m slightly concerned that you are not allowing the next phase of this discussion through. Why does the allowance of consensual relationships somehow mean that non-consensual ones would somehow become acceptable?
I remain concerned that you appear unwilling to provide any justification for your cause and effect claim regarding same-sex relationships and paedophilia. I trust you are aware that there is no evidence linking one to the other and that there is no basis for connecting consensual relationships to non-consensual one’s?
I think the point being made here is that there are people who are now calling for the legalization of pedophilia because “love is love”. And there are also people calling for acceptance of incestual relationships because “love is love”. If that is the excuse people use to accept gay marriage, then it certainly is difficult to argue against pedophilia or incest either as long as you use that same excuse. If two people “love” each other and happen to be closely related, then who can argue against it? That is the sick excuse being used to justify all sorts of sexual deviancy.
I am not aware of *anyone* from the LGBT community (certainly no one legitimate at least) who is attempting to equate same-sex consensual relationships with non-consensual ones. It is false equivalence to put the two in the same category and in fact a dishonest distortion of the ‘love is love’ message, used by homophobic elements of society to demonise the LGBT community. Thankfully, people of prudent thought can see through such obvious behaviour, and any reasonable person would not make such false equivalent claims in the first place.
That may perhaps apply to pedophilia but not necessarily incest. What if two people who are related want to be in a “consensual” relationship because, as the perennial “wisdom” states, “love is love”?
So how do you justify gay marriage but not incest, if the argument is the same (“love is love”)?
//equivalent to non-consensual relationships?//
What does that mean in the world of atheism? The world according to the atheistic view is jut a mass, energy, and movement. That’s it! On which base you decide that some relationships are “non-consensual”?
A better question would be ‘why do you bring up atheism into the subject when it is a red herring/strawman?
the question is of the essence
It was a fair question. Why don’t you try to answer it?
How is it a fair question? What does atheism have to do with consensual relationships?
I would ask, for the second time (since my comments and questions seem to keep disappearing or getting stuck in moderation), what relevance the subject of atheism has to the question of consent?
You, an atheist, are arguing about the difference between “consensual” and “non-consensual” relationships, and using that difference as the basis for supporting one form of sexual deviancy (gay marriage) while denouncing other forms (pedophilia; incest). As Abdullah said, in the atheistic worldview, we are all just mass, energy and movement, or put another way, just one big cosmic accident. All of our feelings and emotions are due to chemical reactions in out bodies. So on what basis do you decide what is “consensual” and what is not?
Firstly, am not an atheist. Secondly, who says atheists have no values? It’s hinted at by people of faith all the time (who seem to obsess over atheism, the LGBT community and other religions), but it’s hardly accurate and remains irrelevant to this discussion. I have yet to see a single piece of reasoning from any of you thus far as to why we should equate consensual relationships between consenting adults with non-consensual relationships. Or, to put it another way, why the red herring at work that tries to have us equate homosexuals with paedophiles? This is known as false equivalence.
Maybe you should have said that before instead of providing vague and defensive answers. If you are not an atheist, then obviously the question does not apply to you.
It could end there but then you still tried to defend the atheistic position. Oy vei! OK, so let’s get into that. No one said atheists cannot have values. That is a strawman. I said that, according to the atheistic worldview, we are all just cosmic accidents and all of our “morals” and “values” are simply the result of complex chemical reactions in our bodies. Since you are now defending this worldview, despite not being an atheist, I ask again: on what basis do you decide what is consensual/nonconsensual, moral/immoral, etc.?
I also already responded to your fair point about comparing gay marriage to pedophilia by pointing out that such a comparison could be made with incest. If two people are in an incestual relationship consensually, because “love is love”, then why would you not support that? You can try to avoid this question, but your refusal to answer would speak louder than words.
I would not declare my answer on whether or not I am an atheist vague – it’s an assertion I have made several times on this site, yet it has gotten ignored repeatedly or deleted. Perhaps you should pay more attention next time?
Actually, the implication from Abdullah was precisely that atheism has no morals. If we are all just energy and whatnot, then what makes one activity okay and another not okay? That’s pretty much his argument in a nutshell.
Plus, whatever basis I or anyone chooses for what is consensual etc, is not the topic at hand, but is a gigantic red herring, a diversion from the original attempt to suggest homosexuality and paedophilia are somehow linked. By introducing the subject of incest you are continuing to mislead – instead of understanding what the ‘love is love’ mantra is about (it is clearly a rallying cry for the LGBT community), opponents of the LGBT community, those who would demonise them and seek to deny them rights because of religious beliefs which are not shared, try to twist and pervert the meaning of the expression. Hence the false, misleading connection between homosexuality and paedophilia.
“I would not declare my answer on whether or not I am an atheist vague – it’s an assertion I have made several times on this site, yet it has gotten ignored repeatedly or deleted. Perhaps you should pay more attention next time?”
LOL, so I am supposed to run over each of your posts with a fine-tooth comb? I don’t know you so perhaps you should be more clear next time?
“Actually, the implication from Abdullah was precisely that atheism has no morals. If we are all just energy and whatnot, then what makes one activity okay and another not okay? That’s pretty much his argument in a nutshell.”
I am still not seeing an actual response. Do you deny that if one believes that such things as “emotions” or “morals” are simply the result of complex chemical reactions, then there is no real basis for stating what is or isn’t “moral/immoral” or “consensual/nonconsensual”?
“Plus, whatever basis I or anyone chooses for what is consensual etc, is not the topic at hand, but is a gigantic red herring, a diversion from the original attempt to suggest homosexuality and paedophilia are somehow linked. By introducing the subject of incest you are continuing to mislead – instead of understanding what the ‘love is love’ mantra is about (it is clearly a rallying cry for the LGBT community), opponents of the LGBT community, those who would demonise them and seek to deny them rights because of religious beliefs which are not shared, try to twist and pervert the meaning of the expression. Hence the false, misleading connection between homosexuality and paedophilia.”
And still no answer. I think you realize your conundrum and don’t want to admit it. So it seems that you are a waste of time.
So the point of thread stands. People want acceptance for a plethora of sexual deviancies, so that now you have pedophiles and practitioners of incest clamoring for their “rights”, just as homosexuals have done, and they all use the same excuse…love is love. The apologists for these deviancies are then left with a conundrum. They either consistently defend all such deviancies or hypocritically pick and choose which ones to defend and which ones to denounce.
As I said before, I’ve made it clear I’m not an atheist on several occasions, whether you have bothered to pay attention or not is not down to me.
Regarding the rest of your post, it merely perpetuates the red herrings and misdirection that seeks to sweep the original point of the original post under the carpet – a classic case of moving the goalposts mid-match. It is in fact a form of dishonesty and I believe you are therefore committing either shirk or a haram act in perpetuating it. Perhaps you would care to properly connect why someone’s religious values (or lack thereof) have *any* bearing on why there is a game of false equivalence going on regarding homosexuality and paedophilia? The co-opting of the love is love slogan (which was obviously regarding consensual adult relationships) by other forces – including the conservative religious right (who love to set up false flags such as these) ignores – as you are doing – consent. It is easier for you to do so and create a false connection between homosexuals and paedophiles than it is to accept that there is in fact no cause to claim such a connection, and that it is done in the name of the hysterical religious right, who are upset they cannot so easily impose whichever version of whichever faith upon everyone, anymore.
By the way, pedophilia is increasingly being seen as a “sexual orientation” by many psychologists. It cannot be cured or changed. What does that remind you of?
https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/pessimism-about-pedophilia
Another red herring. Whether it is classed as an orientation or not, it doesn’t suddenly follow it will be deemed acceptable to society. There is a *massive* difference between consensual relationships and non-consensual ones, and you clearly need o educate yourself on what that difference is.
“Another red herring. Whether it is classed as an orientation or not, it doesn’t suddenly follow it will be deemed acceptable to society. There is a *massive* difference between consensual relationships and non-consensual ones, and you clearly need o educate yourself on what that difference is.”
How is a “red herring”? I think you simply dismiss any response when you don’t have any reasonable rebuttal.
Since you keep coming back to “consensual vs nonconsensual”, again I have to ask: then what about consensual incestual relationships? Now don’t run away again by harping about “red herrings”!
You keep dragging incest into this like it’s some kind of trump card, when it’s merely another act of dishonesty. No one has been able to successfully argue that the LGBT community deserves to be equated with paedophiles in any way shape or form, despite the dishonest and misleading efforts to smear them via pictures like the one in the original post. Instead, you have sought to divert and distract from the actual discussion by introducing several fallacies. This appears typical of the religious right, regardless of the actual faith – ‘demonise, distract and lie’.
Still no answers. Just a distraction.
I’ve given you answers, just not to the misleading and dishonest nature of the irrelevant questions posed. A better set of questions would actually concern the subject matter of the original post, which no one aside from me actually appears to want to discuss. When you decide you want to have a discussion that concerns the false equivalence between homosexuality and paedophilia that the religious right is determined to create, via trying to take over and misuse the love is love slogan, and by utterly failing to understand that no one in the LGBT community would ever push to normalise non-consensual relationships like that, then we can have a meaningful discussion. Until then, all your misdirection (and indeed, dishonesty) is being archived on my site and elsewhere.
Okay, so it seems you will keep harping. I already said you made a fair point about equating homosexuality and pedophilia vis a vis consensual relationships, so I asked about cases where people are in a consensual relationship. Apparently realizing the conundrum you are in, you refuse to deal with that question. Of course, your refusal itself speaks volumes.
On a related note, since pedophilia is defined as a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, what about cases where there is a post-pubescent minor involved? Say a 35 year old male is in a relationship with a 13 year old girl, and it is consensual. Or vice versa as well. What then? Now I know what your response is going to be. You will harp about “red herrings”.
Regarding pedophilia as a sexual orientation, the point I was making was that a pedophile cannot help but have a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. This is the same argument that homosexuals make about their attractions. The only difference is one is consensual and one is not. But on what basis does consent make it okay to have a particular lifestyle? That is why I asked about incest.
All the questions regarding incest are misleading – why can’t you see that? I won’t be addressing any further arguments/comments regarding something that you injected into a discussion about homosexuality and paedophilia for the purpose of… what?
Paedophilia is also seen in the eyes of the law as any sexual interaction between a legal adult (18 or over here in the UK) and a minor (anyone under that age). There are clear legal guidelines concerning what is and is not acceptable under the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of the law, a 13 year-old cannot give consent to a relationship with a 35 year old as he or she is not considered psychologically or emotionally capable of understanding what they are involved in. A consensual relationship is between two people who are legally considered adults. This is all very obvious, easily accessible legal fact.
I find it ironic, as a side-note, that so many of the religious right insist homosexuality is a choice and reject scientific notions when it suits. Moving on…
If two adults of the same sex happen to become involved in a relationship, who is getting hurt? Are you getting harmed by their consent to one another to enter into a relationship? Obviously not. No one is. However a child is not capable of understanding what they are being expected to do and it is physically, emotionally and psychologically damaging, with consequences that can last for a life time. These are again, known facts. It is irrelevant as to whether or not a paedophile cannot help being attracted – if they act upon that impulse and cause that kind of harm to a child, they have committed a horrible act against someone who cannot be reasonably expected to know why they were forced/coerced into it.
Between adults, both parties have the understanding and knowledge to enter into a relationship and understand what to expect from it. The two situations are completely different, despite the best spin-doctoring efforts of the religious right. As for incest – you know what? If it happens to be between two consenting adults, what matter would it make to you? Why are you so concerned about someone else’s bedroom? What *business* is it of yours, or anyone’s to inject your faith into a place where it is not wanted and has historically caused harm, not least of all through demonisation?
“All the questions regarding incest are misleading – why can’t you see that? I won’t be addressing any further arguments/comments regarding something that you injected into a discussion about homosexuality and paedophilia for the purpose of… what?”
How are they “misleading”? You mentioned the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia being the presence or absence of consent. I responded by pointing out that there are people who have consensual incestuous relationships. You keep running away from that. Why?
“Paedophilia is also seen in the eyes of the law as any sexual interaction between a legal adult (18 or over here in the UK) and a minor (anyone under that age). There are clear legal guidelines concerning what is and is not acceptable under the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of the law, a 13 year-old cannot give consent to a relationship with a 35 year old as he or she is not considered psychologically or emotionally capable of understanding what they are involved in. A consensual relationship is between two people who are legally considered adults. This is all very obvious, easily accessible legal fact.”
That’s my point. How do you determine at what age a person is capable of giving consent?
What if the law changed and the age of consent was reduced? What is the correct age of consent? How is it determined?
“I find it ironic, as a side-note, that so many of the religious right insist homosexuality is a choice and reject scientific notions when it suits. Moving on…”
Strawman. Moving on…
“If two adults of the same sex happen to become involved in a relationship, who is getting hurt? Are you getting harmed by their consent to one another to enter into a relationship? Obviously not. No one is. However a child is not capable of understanding what they are being expected to do and it is physically, emotionally and psychologically damaging, with consequences that can last for a life time. These are again, known facts. It is irrelevant as to whether or not a paedophile cannot help being attracted – if they act upon that impulse and cause that kind of harm to a child, they have committed a horrible act against someone who cannot be reasonably expected to know why they were forced/coerced into it. ”
Oh for the love of God…I already acknowledged your fair point about pedophilia! What are you not getting? What I am saying is if you feel that consent between two people of the same sex makes it okay, then why with incest as well?
“Between adults, both parties have the understanding and knowledge to enter into a relationship and understand what to expect from it. The two situations are completely different, despite the best spin-doctoring efforts of the religious right. As for incest – you know what? If it happens to be between two consenting adults, what matter would it make to you? Why are you so concerned about someone else’s bedroom? What *business* is it of yours, or anyone’s to inject your faith into a place where it is not wanted and has historically caused harm, not least of all through demonisation?”
Ah finally! Darth Timon finally gathers the courage to respond to the incest conundrum!
So it must be limited to their bedroom? What if they want to marry and get state benefits? Would you oppose that?
To clarify, I couldn’t care less if two people sodomize each other in the privacy of their own bedroom. They will answer to God. What I am opposed to is them asking for marriage rights and state benefits, the right to “adopt” children, and the right to force their lifestyle on the greater public and insisting on “acceptance”.
Darthtimon, it is very relevant to question your worldview when it is the very lens through which you argue, in this case on the morality of consentual and non consentual relationships. In a naturalistic universe, there is no objective right or wrong, no “oughts”. With this in mind, to argue on moral grounds as an atheist is to abandon your own worldview, revealing its inadequacy to deal with life’s questions.even the non-material concept of consent does not comport with atheism.
[How are they “misleading”? You mentioned the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia being the presence or absence of consent. I responded by pointing out that there are people who have consensual incestuous relationships. You keep running away from that. Why?]
The original topic at hand was the false connection between homosexuality and LGBT relationships and paedophilia. A connection you yourself have acknowledged (and I accept you have have acknowledged) to be a false connection. The difference between LGBT relationships and paedophilia is that one set of relationships is between consenting adults, as defined by law, and one set isn’t. As you yourself are aware, children cannot give consent (and cannot be reasonably expected to give consent) to the sort of relationships we are discussing. By introducing incest, you are introducing an irrelevant strawman to the subject. It is a distraction, and one which, later on, you ironically reveal that you don’t care about anyway.
[That’s my point. How do you determine at what age a person is capable of giving consent?
What if the law changed and the age of consent was reduced? What is the correct age of consent? How is it determined?]
I would wager that the laws we have in place are the result of decades (if not longer) of understanding that a child’s mind is not capable of understanding certain things, and that a child is not emotionally or physically ready for certain things. In the end though, what-if-ism is pointless, and I cannot envision any stage where society will declare paedophilia acceptable, least of all because of same-sex marriage. Any attempt to connect the two, as like has been done via the original post, is, as you have already acknowledged, a blatant falsehood. Worse, it is an argument that has been refuted before, but I suspect it is one that be returned to.
[Strawman. Moving on…]
I find it ironic that you now evade a point when this is about something *you* brought into the discussion. I wonder if you will pluck up the courage (after all, it’s perfectly respectful to question someone’s courage in your eyes, so I guess it’s fair for me to do likewise) to address the point? Will you acknowledge that if orientation is something someone doesn’t choose, all the talk about choosing to be gay is absurd?
[Oh for the love of God…I already acknowledged your fair point about pedophilia! What are you not getting? What I am saying is if you feel that consent between two people of the same sex makes it okay, then why with incest as well?]
What you have persistently failed to do is explain why incest has anything to do with the subject of the false connection between homosexuality and paedophilia. Whether you’ve acknowledged anything (and I admit you have) is almost beside the point when you continue to be obtuse in introducing a third element.
[To clarify, I couldn’t care less if two people sodomize each other in the privacy of their own bedroom. They will answer to God. What I am opposed to is them asking for marriage rights and state benefits, the right to “adopt” children, and the right to force their lifestyle on the greater public and insisting on “acceptance”.]
Whether or not two people of the same sex get married is none of your business either. Marriage is not a religious institution. Likewise with benefits and adoption. It is most telling that you speak of forcing lifestyles and acceptance, when organised religion has historically (and in fact continues to) to try and force itself into as many arenas as possible.
“The original topic at hand was the false connection between homosexuality and LGBT relationships and paedophilia. A connection you yourself have acknowledged (and I accept you have have acknowledged) to be a false connection. The difference between LGBT relationships and paedophilia is that one set of relationships is between consenting adults, as defined by law, and one set isn’t. As you yourself are aware, children cannot give consent (and cannot be reasonably expected to give consent) to the sort of relationships we are discussing. By introducing incest, you are introducing an irrelevant strawman to the subject. It is a distraction, and one which, later on, you ironically reveal that you don’t care about anyway.”
This is really pathetic. Yes, I acknowledged the association between homosexuality and pedophilia is tenuous, if consent is the issue. So I then brought in a better comparison, which meets your parameter of having consent. So I still fail to see how it is a “distraction”. I brought it up precisely to show that it makes LGBTQ apologists such as yourself rather uncomfortable because it exposes your hypocrisy.
“I would wager that the laws we have in place are the result of decades (if not longer) of understanding that a child’s mind is not capable of understanding certain things, and that a child is not emotionally or physically ready for certain things.”
True, but again, what if our understanding changes? What if societal views change? What if the laws are themselves inconsistent? For example, in the US, eighteen is generally considered to be the age when one is no longer a minor. So, an 18 year-old can register to vote and also enlist in the army and is also considered old enough to give consent. However, the law states that this person is NOT old enough to purchase alcoholic beverages! And now, at least in some states, the tobacco laws have also been amended to prohibit purchase until age 21. So let me get this straight. A person is old enough to fight and die in the armed forces or to vote in the presidential election or to give consent for sexual relations, but NOT old enough to drink or smoke?
Also, coming back to the issue of consent, it also varies. Different countries have different standards. For example, in Europe, the ages vary from as young as 14 to as high as 18: https://www.ageofconsent.net/continent/europe
So are you telling me that in Germany, one is considered a “child” at age 13, whereas in Vatican City, one is considered a “child” at age 17 (at 18, they become an adult)? Why is there so much inconsistency?
” In the end though, what-if-ism is pointless, and I cannot envision any stage where society will declare paedophilia acceptable, least of all because of same-sex marriage. Any attempt to connect the two, as like has been done via the original post, is, as you have already acknowledged, a blatant falsehood. Worse, it is an argument that has been refuted before, but I suspect it is one that be returned to.”
I don’t know why you keep clinging to the pedophilia issue when I have already said that I am not talking about that and acknowledged the unfair comparison to homosexuality. I am also merely pointing out that laws change and they are, more often than not, contradictory. And that brings us back to the question I asked before: what if a 14 year old wants to be in a relation with a 40 year old? Would you be supportive of that? And if the law prohibits such a relationship, would you be in favor of changing the law?
“I find it ironic that you now evade a point when this is about something *you* brought into the discussion. I wonder if you will pluck up the courage (after all, it’s perfectly respectful to question someone’s courage in your eyes, so I guess it’s fair for me to do likewise) to address the point? Will you acknowledge that if orientation is something someone doesn’t choose, all the talk about choosing to be gay is absurd?”
Yes, I do acknowledge that, which is why I said that it was a strawman to talk about the “religious right”. You just assumed my position without even asking what it was. So here is my position: having sexual attraction to a member of the same sex is not itself sinful. If a person can’t help but have those feelings, that is a psychological issue which cannot be treated or cured. But acting on those urges is a sin, and that is something a person can control.
“What you have persistently failed to do is explain why incest has anything to do with the subject of the false connection between homosexuality and paedophilia. Whether you’ve acknowledged anything (and I admit you have) is almost beside the point when you continue to be obtuse in introducing a third element.”
I already explained this. I am trying to establish if you would apply the same standards to another form of sexual deviancy so long as “consent” is present. It is a perfectly legitimate comparison, because your parameter has been met. And whether you like it not, it is getting more attention. It might be unbelievable, but it IS a thing! For example, see here: https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/relationships/a35098/genetic-sexual-attraction-incest-sibling-relationship/
“Whether or not two people of the same sex get married is none of your business either. Marriage is not a religious institution. Likewise with benefits and adoption. It is most telling that you speak of forcing lifestyles and acceptance, when organised religion has historically (and in fact continues to) to try and force itself into as many arenas as possible.”
LOL!! First of all, I noticed that you abruptly ended your response WITHOUT answering my questions about incestual couple being limited to the “bedroom”. You truly are a coward! I guess you don’t have the “courage” to speak up, eh? So I will repeat my questions:
So it (consensual incest) must be limited to their bedroom? What if they want to marry and get state benefits? Would you oppose that?
Second, I can see why you are afraid to answer these questions. It’s because you realize the uncomfortable position it puts you in, since on the one hand, you act like the high and might spokesperson for LGBTQ people, but on the other hand, don’t quite want to extend that passionate defense for consensual incest couples. Of course, I don’t blame you for being weirded out by the whole thing. It IS disgusting and sick. And that’s the point. Sexual deviancy is weird and sick, but people like you hypocritically pick and choose which ones to support and which ones to denounce or completely avoid talking about. I, on the other hand, and most other religious people, are at least consistent in out denunciation of ALL forms of sexual deviancy.
And yes, it IS my business because things like state benefits and adoption are funded by taxes. Just as I wouldn’t want my tax dollars being used to fund a bloated military budget which is used to bomb poor countries, I also wouldn’t want my tax dollars being used to help homosexual couples adopt a child.
Now I have answered all of your questions. Do you have the “courage” to answer mine?
Yes, a lot of this is indeed pathetic. I will be forced to speak to you as if you are a child if you continue your inability to understand that a discussion about the link between homosexuality and paedophilia and the difference between consensual and non-consenual relationships IN THAT CONTEXT has no bearing or relevance to the strawman of incest that you are now beating to death. It is dishonest of you, obtuse of you and frankly boring at this point. Perhaps I should indeed question your particular frame of mind, given your obsession with injecting extra, irrelevant elements into discussions.
Perhaps I’ll make it simpler anyway, though given the dramatic increase in rhetoric (I urge you to get your anger under control, it seems you are losing your temper), I am not certain of success, but here goes.
Paul posted an erronenous connection between homosexuality and paedophilia, under the guise of ‘love is love’ being used, dishonestly, by certain parties, to suggest allowing consensual same-sex relationships between adults will somehow lead to relationships between adults and children, which are NON-consensual. You and I agree that this is a false equivalence position. That should be the end of the discussion, yet you introduced what’s known as a non-sequitur into the equation (namely, that it does not follow IN THE CONTEXT OF THE THREAD to introduce incest into the discussion). Even when I’ve gone on to address your irrelevant side-show of a subject, you have ramped up your angry rhetoric, despite even admitting you don’t care!
I cannot speak for the laws of various countries, only for UK law, as the UK is where I live. Generally speaking though, the age of consent for sexual activity is 16 or 18 for the majority of countries around the world. Would I support a 14 year old wanting to be in a relationship with a 40 year old? No. Can a 14 year old be reasonably expected to understand everything regarding such a commitment? Not in the eyes of the law, and all the what-ifs in the world won’t change how that law, as perceived here in the UK, currently stands. Nor is anyone (anyone of reasonable mind at least) making any attempt to change those laws.
I see you have made your coward jibe again. I feel no particular compulsion to jump through hopes for someone as dishonest as you, nor any justification for why I missed that question. Since your belligerence will likely get worse if I don’t answer it, so be it.
I actually know of cousins who are in relationships, who are in fact married. I could not care less if they are or if they claim any marriage benefits, in much the same way that I couldn’t care less if same-sex couples do so. My question would be why do YOU care so much, given that no, it does NOT affect you. You whine about taxes yet in the end, that is merely a cover story – as your remarks about deviancy show. You appear to have a great desire to interfere in the lives of others, even if they actually have no meaningful impact upon your own, whilst at the same time complaining about forcing lifestyles upon others. That is possibly your most ironic statement yet!
“Yes, a lot of this is indeed pathetic. I will be forced to speak to you as if you are a child if you continue your inability to understand that a discussion about the link between homosexuality and paedophilia and the difference between consensual and non-consenual relationships IN THAT CONTEXT has no bearing or relevance to the strawman of incest that you are now beating to death. It is dishonest of you, obtuse of you and frankly boring at this point. Perhaps I should indeed question your particular frame of mind, given your obsession with injecting extra, irrelevant elements into discussions.”
It keeps getting more and more pathetic as you seem incapable of mustering up the courage to discuss this issue, instead of beating the homosexuality/pedophilia horse to death, even though that is not even an issue at this point!
And you know that you are a coward when you start claiming “oh, this conversation is boring”. You just don’t want to be put into a corner due to your double standards and hypocrisy. I think that has been sufficiently proven.
“Perhaps I’ll make it simpler anyway, though given the dramatic increase in rhetoric (I urge you to get your anger under control, it seems you are losing your temper), I am not certain of success, but here goes.”
LOL!! Speak for yourself. Don’t give me your silly advice. Apply it to yourself. I am actually thoroughly enjoying this conversation. Now let’s see what you have…
“Paul posted an erronenous connection between homosexuality and paedophilia…”
Oh boy, you’re STILL stuck on this? Oy vei!
“That should be the end of the discussion, yet you introduced what’s known as a non-sequitur into the equation (namely, that it does not follow IN THE CONTEXT OF THE THREAD to introduce incest into the discussion). Even when I’ve gone on to address your irrelevant side-show of a subject, you have ramped up your angry rhetoric, despite even admitting you don’t care!”
So would you be happy if a NEW thread was opened? Would that help you make the transition, even though it shouldn’t even be an issue?
And you’ve actually NOT “addressed” the issue at all. You are still ignoring my questions.
“I cannot speak for the laws of various countries, only for UK law, as the UK is where I live. Generally speaking though, the age of consent for sexual activity is 16 or 18 for the majority of countries around the world. Would I support a 14 year old wanting to be in a relationship with a 40 year old? No. Can a 14 year old be reasonably expected to understand everything regarding such a commitment? Not in the eyes of the law, and all the what-ifs in the world won’t change how that law, as perceived here in the UK, currently stands. Nor is anyone (anyone of reasonable mind at least) making any attempt to change those laws.”
OK, let’s stick with UK law. The age of consent is 16 there. But under current laws, the minimum voting age is 18 (https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01747). It is the same for legally purchasing alcohol (http://esol.britishcouncil.org/content/learners/uk-life/be-safe-uk/drugs-alcohol-and-cigarettes). So we still see the inconsistencies in these laws.
And what makes you think that a person can suddenly be “reasonably expected to understand everything regarding such a commitment” when they turn 16? What is this age limit based on?
“I see you have made your coward jibe again. I feel no particular compulsion to jump through hopes for someone as dishonest as you, nor any justification for why I missed that question. Since your belligerence will likely get worse if I don’t answer it, so be it.”
Boo hoo, quit your whining. You asked if I had the…ahem…”courage” to speak up about homosexuality and how it’s not a “choice”. You like to PRETEND that you are respectful, and then accuse others of being disrespectful. That just shows that you like to look down on others, while sitting on your high horse. Don’t be shocked when people call you out.
“I actually know of cousins who are in relationships, who are in fact married. I could not care less if they are or if they claim any marriage benefits, in much the same way that I couldn’t care less if same-sex couples do so.”
I am not talking about cousins and you know it. Why are you so dishonest? I am talking about brother/sister or father/daughter couples, etc. So I ask again:
Consensual incest must be limited to their bedroom? What if they want to marry and get state benefits? Would you oppose that?
“My question would be why do YOU care so much, given that no, it does NOT affect you. You whine about taxes yet in the end, that is merely a cover story – as your remarks about deviancy show. You appear to have a great desire to interfere in the lives of others, even if they actually have no meaningful impact upon your own, whilst at the same time complaining about forcing lifestyles upon others. That is possibly your most ironic statement yet!”
Why would I want my taxes supporting something that I oppose? That seems like a legitimate concern that any reasonable person would have. If you want other reasons why I oppose gay marriage, here is one: Can same-sex couples have their own children? No, of course not. They have to use some other means, such as adopting a child or using donor gametes. In the case of the latter, one of the same-sex parents will NEVER be a biological parent. The donor would be the parent and would NEVER actually see that child and would never know him/her.
Does it affect me personally? No, of course not. But it DOES affect society. And it is a violation of God’s laws. It also contradicts the natural law, which is created by God. That is why I oppose it. All of these are good reasons to oppose gay marriage.
I love how you make continued jibes about my courage to discuss the issue, even when I AM discussing the issue. It’s hardly my fault you continue to fail to misunderstand how you have introduced a fallacy into the original discussion then spun it for all its worth. For the record, start a separate thread regarding the subject of incest/consent and I will gladly participate. I have after all addressed it several times in this thread, despite it being irrelevant to the original thrust of Paul’s original post. That should put to bed any further jibes from you about cowardice, now I wonder if you will work on stopping your rampant dishonesty?
[I am not talking about cousins and you know it. Why are you so dishonest? I am talking about brother/sister or father/daughter couples, etc. So I ask again:]
You weren’t clear. Don’t be obtuse and then expect others to magically know what you mean. I know that’s hard for you, but please do try.
And again, I don’t care. What happens between consenting adults is their business. For the record, I would not be so accepting of a brother/sister father/daughter relationship – certainly, I would not be prepared to accept marriage/etc for them.
BUT, what is the relevance of that concerning same-sex marriage, between two consenting adults who are unrelated? If you’re using your position to tout the slippery slope fallacy that one must inevitably lead to the other, you must demonstrate this is likely.
To spin back to the law part again, in terms of age of consent etc, I cannot speak for how those laws are created, but for whatever reason, the powers that be have decided there are slightly differing ages for when certain things come into play. Certainly in the UK, the age differences between consensual adult sex and voting/purchasing alcohol are minor.
More to the point though, would you not agree that a set, legal, age of consent to protect minors is a necessary thing? What set of criteria would you use?
[Why would I want my taxes supporting something that I oppose? That seems like a legitimate concern that any reasonable person would have. If you want other reasons why I oppose gay marriage, here is one: Can same-sex couples have their own children? No, of course not. They have to use some other means, such as adopting a child or using donor gametes. In the case of the latter, one of the same-sex parents will NEVER be a biological parent. The donor would be the parent and would NEVER actually see that child and would never know him/her.]
I cannot speak for donor gametes, as I am unfamiliar with how that works, but in respect of adoption, I believe whether same-sex couple or otherwise, the situation there is at least the same for both parties. An adopted child will never be biologically related to the parents in either case. Of course, as someone who has step-children, who I nonetheless love and have helped look after, I can speak in a small way on the subject. Whether they are biologically mine has no bearing on whether or not I would fight for them and die for them. Of course I would. I won’t pretend to be an expert on adoption itself, or gametes, but there are plenty of biological parents out there who have given up their kids for adoption for various reasons, and their children will never know them. That doesn’t mean they won’t be loved by their adopted parents, regardless of whether they’re same-sex or not.
[Does it affect me personally? No, of course not. But it DOES affect society. And it is a violation of God’s laws. It also contradicts the natural law, which is created by God. That is why I oppose it. All of these are good reasons to oppose gay marriage.]
In what way has gay marriage affected society? It’s existed for some time now, in various countries, and I am unaware of any kind of societal collapse taking place in those countries. It seems to me, when you start speaking of God’s law and natural law, that you are assuming those laws should govern everyone, whether or not they are shared. Which version of God’s law should be triumphant in that case? Shia or Sunni? Roman Catholic or Protestant? Should it be some form of Judaism? What about Hinduism? Who decides which version of which faith is the basis upon what laws get imposed upon everyone else?
“I love how you make continued jibes about my courage to discuss the issue, even when I AM discussing the issue.”
Except that you aren’t. You keep dodging the question, as with your “cousins” example.
” It’s hardly my fault you continue to fail to misunderstand how you have introduced a fallacy into the original discussion then spun it for all its worth. For the record, start a separate thread regarding the subject of incest/consent and I will gladly participate. I have after all addressed it several times in this thread, despite it being irrelevant to the original thrust of Paul’s original post. That should put to bed any further jibes from you about cowardice, now I wonder if you will work on stopping your rampant dishonesty?”
LOL, oh man! Again, so you feel better if a new thread was opened? If you are that insistent of nitpicking, then perhaps we can ask Paul to open a new thread. I don’t see what the difference is, but if you are that insistent, then I am game…
“You weren’t clear. Don’t be obtuse and then expect others to magically know what you mean. I know that’s hard for you, but please do try.”
Um, I gave a link to an article which talked about a woman having feelings of attraction to her half-brother. Don’t ignore what others say and then expect them to not call you out for your evasiveness. I know that’s hard for you, but please do try.
“And again, I don’t care. What happens between consenting adults is their business. For the record, I would not be so accepting of a brother/sister father/daughter relationship – certainly, I would not be prepared to accept marriage/etc for them.”
YES! FINALLY! Hallelujah!
So you would not to be “so accepting” of a CONSENSUAL relationship between siblings or other incestual couples, but you insist on tolerating homosexuality and rejecting pedophilia because one is consensual and the other isn’t. Thank you for proving my point. You clearly have double standards. I only wish you would have been more forthcoming and honest much earlier. It would have saved both of us some time.
“BUT, what is the relevance of that concerning same-sex marriage, between two consenting adults who are unrelated? If you’re using your position to tout the slippery slope fallacy that one must inevitably lead to the other, you must demonstrate this is likely.”
So now you are moving the goalpost? Now you are setting a new parameter: a couple has to be “unrelated” in order to be accepted or tolerated?
And by the way, it IS leading to the other! That was the whole point I was making from the start! Incestual couples are also using the “love is love” argument. On what basis do you oppose them but not homosexuals?
“To spin back to the law part again, in terms of age of consent etc, I cannot speak for how those laws are created, but for whatever reason, the powers that be have decided there are slightly differing ages for when certain things come into play. Certainly in the UK, the age differences between consensual adult sex and voting/purchasing alcohol are minor.”
Double standards, yet again. So you are not as passionate in being consistent. It seems to me that there is no rhyme or reason for these inconsistencies, other than ignorance, deliberate dishonesty or political correctness.
You can’t speak for the laws in other countries, just the UK, you said. But now, you can’t even speak for those laws! This is getting really bad for you Darth. You must be getting frustrated. 🙂
“More to the point though, would you not agree that a set, legal, age of consent to protect minors is a necessary thing? What set of criteria would you use?”
I think the current criteria, if they exist at all, are subjective and arbitrary. That is why there are variations in the age between countries. No one can agree on the parameters. It certainly is a complex issue, which requires more research. I think it would be more beneficial if there was consistency. For example, if you are going to set an age of consent at a certain age, then that same age should be set for other things, such as voting, enlisting in the army, etc. What that age is specifically is an open-ended question.
“I cannot speak for donor gametes, as I am unfamiliar with how that works, but in respect of adoption, I believe whether same-sex couple or otherwise, the situation there is at least the same for both parties. An adopted child will never be biologically related to the parents in either case.”
You are correct, but in Islam, adoption is not even a thing. Islam encourages foster care, but not full-on adoption. Caring for orphans is of course a great deed in Islam, but it recognizes that adoptive parents will NEVER be the biological parents, and it also recognizes the potential problems that might arise in adoption cases, such as inheritance. Would it be fair to give less inheritance to one’s biological children in order to divide the money between the biological children and the adoptive child?
Of course, that would not apply in cases where parents are childless and unable to conceive. Even then, the child would never be biologically theirs. I can see potential problems there as well: what if there an attraction between the adoptive child (after sexual maturity of course) and one of the adoptive parents? It’s probably rare, but it could happen.
As for the donor gametes, here is a scenario:
Two lesbians want to have a child. Obviously, they cannot impregnate each other. So they would have to get a donor to provide sperm to fertilize one of their eggs. In this way, one of them can become pregnant and give birth to a child. It would be her child, but it would be unrelated to her partner. The other parent would never be known to that child.
Now if you multiply that by potentially dozens of children being born as a result of the donor’s sperm, that would mean that the donor has dozens of children that he does not know. I find that horrific.
“In what way has gay marriage affected society? It’s existed for some time now, in various countries, and I am unaware of any kind of societal collapse taking place in those countries.”
I just showed you. If thousands of gay couples were to use artificial insemination, you could have thousands of children whose real biological parent would be unknown to them. What if they happened to meet (and yes it has happened) and actually became a couple?
“It seems to me, when you start speaking of God’s law and natural law, that you are assuming those laws should govern everyone, whether or not they are shared. Which version of God’s law should be triumphant in that case? Shia or Sunni? Roman Catholic or Protestant? Should it be some form of Judaism? What about Hinduism? Who decides which version of which faith is the basis upon what laws get imposed upon everyone else?”
It seems to me that natural law, which is God’s law, would be shared by everyone. Can homosexuals have children naturally? Even once? No. Heterosexual couples can. This is the natural law. It seems pretty simple to me.
The whole first section of your post merely demonstrates that you do NOT understand the third wheel element you introduced, nor why it represents at this point pathological dishonesty on your part. I have already said I am more than happy to discuss it in a new thread, so if you actually capable of discussing the actual subject of THIS thread, let’s be about it eh?
You accuse me of double standards on discussion of law, but I never claimed to be an expert who understood all the ins and outs of even U.K. law. I understand it better than other laws, but I never claimed more than that, and unless you happen to be an expert this is simply arrogant posturing on your part. You may feel the ages of consent are arbitrary, but they are the result of research and study from people far more qualified than you or I. I also note you failed to answer properly, my question. Is a legal age of consent necessary to protect minors, yes or no?
As for the rest, I am due at work soon so will reply when I have more time.
“The whole first section of your post merely demonstrates that you do NOT understand the third wheel element you introduced, nor why it represents at this point pathological dishonesty on your part. I have already said I am more than happy to discuss it in a new thread, so if you actually capable of discussing the actual subject of THIS thread, let’s be about it eh?”
Ugh, are we still on this? LOL! I have no idea why you are such a stickler. As has been explained like 50 times now, once you introduced the “consent” issue, I logically redirected the topic to a form of sexual deviancy where consent is present. I don’t why I have to keep explaining this to you.
“You accuse me of double standards on discussion of law, but I never claimed to be an expert who understood all the ins and outs of even U.K. law. I understand it better than other laws, but I never claimed more than that, and unless you happen to be an expert this is simply arrogant posturing on your part. You may feel the ages of consent are arbitrary, but they are the result of research and study from people far more qualified than you or I. I also note you failed to answer properly, my question. Is a legal age of consent necessary to protect minors, yes or no?”
It seems to me that you just don’t like being put on the spot. It is obvious that you hold views that fall apart under scrutiny and you don’t like that. I have legitimate arguments which you seem incapable of responding to. The evasiveness has not yet fully left you.
What “research” are you referring to exactly? What “research” decided that a 16 year old is old enough to give consent to sex but not to vote in an election? Do tell. Remember, you made the claim, so I am asking you to back it.
And I did answer your question. I said that that there should be consistency. If you think a 16 year old is old enough to give consent, then they are old enough to decide who to vote for in an election or if they want to smoke or enlist in the army. A legal age should be set, but it should be based on facts, not arbitrary or politically correct views.
Darthtimon you are my father.
Hakuna matata.
What a wondeful phrase.
HAKUNA MATATAAA!!!
Ain’t no passing craze!!!
Lol!
I wonder if this falls into the category of respect eh QuranandBibleBlog?
It was just a joke. No hard feelings.
Wasn’t trying to insult or anything.
Ok then.
It was clearly a joke, Darth. Lighten up.
Darthtimon you are my father.
Hakuna matata.
What a wondeful phrase.
HAKUNA MATATAAA!!!
Ain’t no passing craze!!!
Are you two still going at each other?
Lol.
Yes. We’re making progress! 😁
Seriously?
Sahih Bukhari
Narrated Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234
Why has this not come up in the comments?
Waleed, if the purpose of your post is suggest Islam condones paedophilia, I should note that here and now, not ONE of the Muslim posters here has said or done ANYTHING to suggest to me they condone it.
Thank you Darth. That is an excellent point.
Gasp! “Sahih Bukhari”? What’s that? I mean must be an ignorant Muslim to not know that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) consummated his marriage to Aisha (ra) when she was 9, as girls were married at young ages in those days. Menstruation had always been seen as a sign of sexual maturity in EVERY ancient culture. There was nothing abnormal about that.
Right, now that I have a bit of spare time (yay!) let us continue eh quranandbibleblog?
Firstly, I actually wish to offer an apology. I am aware that this discussion, by it’s very nature, can become quite heated, and I dare say I over-stepped the mark, for which I am sorry.
Secondly, I will however maintain that in the context of the original post, whereby I was clearly referring to same-sex relationships, in the subject of consent, bringing incest into the equation was misleading. We are clearly not going to agree on that, so very simply, all the cards on the table, so to speak.
I have no issue with same-sex marriage (I think that’s pretty obvious lol). I do not care if cousins wish to marry. I don’t care about polygamous arrangements. None of them affect me in any way shape or form. Am I *comfortable* with more extreme forms of incest? No. Does that make me a hypocrite because I approve of some forms of consensual adult relationships but not others? Perhaps, but no more so than anyone else who approves of some but not others – like approving of relationships between people of opposite sex but not approving simply because another couple has matching genitalia.
Regarding law, you say it’s a complex issue, and it is, and neither of us claim to be experts, so we have to place a bit of faith in the established laws of this country, and also remember that ages of consent are in fact pretty uniform across most of the world. Those laws are in place to protect minors, and whether or not the laws around voting/drinking/etc differ to the age of consent for sex, is again, the result of decades, if not centuries, of understanding and consideration and experience from law makers who have in turn studied these fields for many years. A quick Google search as to why 16 is the age of consent here in the UK didn’t actually turn up any meaningful answers, but I will endeavour to see if more details are out there (there must be).
Perhaps it is worth asking, why do you feel the existing age of consent is arbitrary? What sort of research would you recommend and what do you believe ages of consent should actually be?
On the subject of donor gametes, to clarify, are you against the donation of eggs/sperm for use by same-sex couples only, or against it for anyone that might want/need to use such donations?
Regarding what could happen to society if thousands of same-sex couples starting using donations, as you said, ‘what if’? The bottom line, this doesn’t mean that the children won’t have loving homes, and sperm donors rarely if ever have any knowledge of any children their sperm is used to have. Likewise, vice versa, the children rarely if ever have any knowledge of the donor. This applies equally to hetreosexual couples that have need of such services. This doesn’t make the children any less loved in the eyes of the parents, whilst your point about possible sexual attraction is, to be honest, both a piece of scare-mongering and something that you admit is rare. What has actually happened, so far, in countries that have legalised same-sex marriage, to remotely suggest a collapse of society, or a drive toward legalising anything even remotely approaching anything like paedophilia?
Finally, you raised the issue of your taxes funding state benefits and adoption for same-sex couples and disapprove of that. Do you approve of state funding for religious schools? A third of all state-funded schools here in the UK are religious schools – should my taxes be funding schools that indoctrinate into belief systems I fundamentally disagree with?
“Firstly, I actually wish to offer an apology. I am aware that this discussion, by it’s very nature, can become quite heated, and I dare say I over-stepped the mark, for which I am sorry.”
No harm done, Darth.
“Secondly, I will however maintain that in the context of the original post, whereby I was clearly referring to same-sex relationships, in the subject of consent, bringing incest into the equation was misleading. We are clearly not going to agree on that, so very simply, all the cards on the table, so to speak.”
So let’s just move on, then.
“I have no issue with same-sex marriage (I think that’s pretty obvious lol). I do not care if cousins wish to marry. I don’t care about polygamous arrangements. None of them affect me in any way shape or form. Am I *comfortable* with more extreme forms of incest? No. Does that make me a hypocrite because I approve of some forms of consensual adult relationships but not others? Perhaps, but no more so than anyone else who approves of some but not others – like approving of relationships between people of opposite sex but not approving simply because another couple has matching genitalia.”
Thank you for your honesty. My point was precisely this, though. People who support gay marriage do so on the basis of rather subjective reasons. That is precisely why I brought up the issue. You had said that consent was the key, so naturally I brought up the numerous cases of consensual incest. Since consent is present, then why is it so offensive to you?
At least in this regard, people who oppose gay marriage at being consistent. They oppose ALL forms of sexual deviancy, and don’t pick and choose.
“Regarding law, you say it’s a complex issue, and it is, and neither of us claim to be experts, so we have to place a bit of faith in the established laws of this country, and also remember that ages of consent are in fact pretty uniform across most of the world.”
But they clearly arent’t. How are they “uniform” when many countries have set the age at 14, while others have set it as high as 18? That’s a big difference.
” Those laws are in place to protect minors, and whether or not the laws around voting/drinking/etc differ to the age of consent for sex, is again, the result of decades, if not centuries, of understanding and consideration and experience from law makers who have in turn studied these fields for many years.”
I have yet to see any evidence that these arbitrary and contradictory laws are the result of “centuries” of “understanding and consideration”. Lawmakers are fallible people. They are usually driven by popular opinion rather than objective facts. And why not? If they want to be reelected, they have to listen to their constituents.
“Perhaps it is worth asking, why do you feel the existing age of consent is arbitrary? What sort of research would you recommend and what do you believe ages of consent should actually be?”
Because there is no consistency. Who decided that a 16 year old is old enough to have sex but not vote in an election? Sexual intercourse is not to be taken lightly, and could result in catastrophic consequences, so why is it allowed but not voting in an election? It makes no sense to me.
“On the subject of donor gametes, to clarify, are you against the donation of eggs/sperm for use by same-sex couples only, or against it for anyone that might want/need to use such donations?”
I am against using donor sperm/eggs for anyone. It would be the same problem as I explained before. Even if a heterosexual couple used those services (let’s say the husband was infertile), one of the parents would NEVER be the biological parent. I mean using some other man’s sperm to impregnate your wife? It sounds horrific.
“The bottom line, this doesn’t mean that the children won’t have loving homes, and sperm donors rarely if ever have any knowledge of any children their sperm is used to have. Likewise, vice versa, the children rarely if ever have any knowledge of the donor. This applies equally to hetreosexual couples that have need of such services. This doesn’t make the children any less loved in the eyes of the parents, whilst your point about possible sexual attraction is, to be honest, both a piece of scare-mongering and something that you admit is rare. What has actually happened, so far, in countries that have legalised same-sex marriage, to remotely suggest a collapse of society, or a drive toward legalising anything even remotely approaching anything like paedophilia?”
Sure, they might be loved, but the fact would remain that they would truly only have known one of their biological parents. The third parent would be just some random person who happened to be involved.
I admitted that sexual attraction between an adoptive parent and the adoptive child might be rare. That does not mean it could not happen. Are you saying it could never happen? If it could happen, do you deny that it would not have happened if the service had not been available in the first place?
“Finally, you raised the issue of your taxes funding state benefits and adoption for same-sex couples and disapprove of that. Do you approve of state funding for religious schools? A third of all state-funded schools here in the UK are religious schools – should my taxes be funding schools that indoctrinate into belief systems I fundamentally disagree with?”
I think religious communities should fund their own schools, if they can. Furthermore, there is a danger in getting government aid because the government could then try to dictate what is taught in those schools. If religious schools remain independent and do not utilize government services, then such a danger is eliminated.
Right, as I have a bit of time to reply (well, technically I’m at work but it’s an horrendously slow day), I can try to reply to at least part of this.
[Thank you for your honesty. My point was precisely this, though. People who support gay marriage do so on the basis of rather subjective reasons. That is precisely why I brought up the issue. You had said that consent was the key, so naturally I brought up the numerous cases of consensual incest. Since consent is present, then why is it so offensive to you?]
I cannot offer up a cast-iron set of reasons as to why father/daughter incestual relations would make me uncomfortable and other forms of adult, consensual relationships would not. In the end, none of it actually affects me on any level, so whilst it makes me uncomfortable, I am not actually certain I could oppose it without being a hypocrite. On the other hand, to oppose consensual relationships between unrelated adults who just happen to have the same reproductive organs (and then class that as deviancy) seems to me to be unfair (especially when it does not in fact affect anyone outside of that relationship). Is that subjective? Perhaps. Will I nonetheless continue to argue in favour of same-sex marriage? Yes. Most of the same-sex people who want to get married are not religious yet are expected to be bound to religious rules and accept it, even as they continue to face various negative stereotypes (and in the case of recent developments, the death penalty for sexual activity, in Brunei). The manner in which certain parties (and I don’t mean you) lump homosexuals in with paedophiles is something we agree is unfair, yet it is all too common, and I suspect the parties who perpetuate those stereotypes will continue to do so. Maybe that’s a little bit off topic, but Paul has made that kind of false equivalence argument before and I suspect will make it again. It would be nice if such falsehoods could not be made, but the LGBT community faces this on a routine basis, along with the threat of death in certain countries and communities, all for something they haven’t chosen.
I will say this, you are correct that your position is certainly internally consistent.
[But they clearly arent’t. How are they “uniform” when many countries have set the age at 14, while others have set it as high as 18? That’s a big difference.]
I will mention that I didn’t claim things were completely uniform, but broadly speaking, it is *pretty* consistent. Most countries have consent laws based on either 16 or 18 – relatively few are outside those two ages. In terms of whether they are arbitrary (and whether or not there is consistency in respect of other aspects like voting age etc), what would you propose as an alternative system for establishing ages of consent, and what would make that system better than what we have now? Whilst you are correct that lawmakers are not infallible, could that not be said for any group of people that were tasked with determining laws around this issue?
[I am against using donor sperm/eggs for anyone. It would be the same problem as I explained before. Even if a heterosexual couple used those services (let’s say the husband was infertile), one of the parents would NEVER be the biological parent. I mean using some other man’s sperm to impregnate your wife? It sounds horrific.]
I cannot speak for whether I personally would consider such an option, but for many couples out there, it represents an opportunity to have kids that may be their only opportunity. It has no bearing on whether or not that child would be have a loving home.
[Sure, they might be loved, but the fact would remain that they would truly only have known one of their biological parents. The third parent would be just some random person who happened to be involved.]
There’s more to being a parent than biology, my own personal circumstances being a case in point. I actually have a granddaughter, and although she is not biologically related to me, she calls me Grandad and to me, she *is* my granddaughter. I don’t love her any less because we don’t share blood, so to speak, and this is true for millions of people worldwide.
[I admitted that sexual attraction between an adoptive parent and the adoptive child might be rare. That does not mean it could not happen. Are you saying it could never happen? If it could happen, do you deny that it would not have happened if the service had not been available in the first place?]
In theory it’s *possible* that the biological father/mother of young children may become sexually attracted to their children. In fact, there are documented cases of this happening. Should we consider it unwise for anyone to have kids via any means, because of what *might* happen? Society at large would be paralysed if we fell prey to such forms of thinking.
[I think religious communities should fund their own schools, if they can. Furthermore, there is a danger in getting government aid because the government could then try to dictate what is taught in those schools. If religious schools remain independent and do not utilize government services, then such a danger is eliminated.]
I agree there should be separation here. My reasoning is somewhat different (I would rather what I find to be the indoctrination of children to *not* be state-funded). Generally speaking, I prefer separation of religion and state anyway. After all, and especially in an era where people of various faiths all live in the same country, which version of which faith should be the dominant one in consideration of law, much less state benefits? It’s better not to have that interference, for there will be consensus as to which faith should have the greatest on society (and those who are not religious should not be bound to religious laws, nor religious ideas as to what they can or cannot receive from the state).