Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 139
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    From my perspective, "slippery slope" is not automatic. Rather, it is not difficult to see the legal argument that advocates of various lifestyles could and likely would advance.
    "Think of the children" has always trumped any other objections anyone else could make. I cant see some-one with paedophillic tendencies objecting against being fired from a kindergarten job on the basis of sexual preference anti-discrimination laws (and getting away with it).

    Surur
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    From my perspective, "slippery slope" is not automatic. Rather, it is not difficult to see the legal argument that advocates of various lifestyles could and likely would advance.
    So a fear of what legal arguments some advocates may take is justification enough for denying equal rights to gays?
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    I think 'discriminate' is a bit light compared to what I'd actually like to see happen to them...
    Be careful. You could jump-start the legal process. It is not very long ago that private citizens routinely took that approach toward people who practice homosexuality.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    So a fear of what legal arguments some advocates may take is justification enough for denying equal rights to gays?
    Ask aprasad. He raised the question.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    "He" is able to speak for himself.
    Then will "He"?
  6. #86  
    The discussion of pedophilia has sidetracked the discussion. Let's limit this to behavior among consenting adults.

    On what logical basis would this society object to polygamy? Incest (with the caveat that genetic screening of potential mates is not required for current hetro couples)?

    To avoid more red-herring, limit the discussion to polygamy among consenting adults...
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  7. #87  
    Polygamy and polyandry fine (you dont want to discriminate on the basis of sex, do you?). Adult-offspring incest not so fine (as argued earlier). Adult sibling incest (with genetic screening) should be OK (I cant see how it hurts me in any way), and I'm sure it would be pretty rare.

    Many of our laws and mores are based on outdated standards (outdated by technology) and I imagine in 200 years time things will be very very different.

    Surur
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    The discussion of pedophilia has sidetracked the discussion. Let's limit this to behavior among consenting adults.

    On what logical basis would this society object to polygamy? Incest (with the caveat that genetic screening of potential mates is not required for current hetro couples)?

    To avoid more red-herring, limit the discussion to polygamy among consenting adults...
    You should research the legal arguements when Utah was forced to make polygamy (The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time. Also called plural marriage. covers both sexes surur) illegal to become a state.
  9.    #89  
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    The discussion of pedophilia has sidetracked the discussion. Let's limit this to behavior among consenting adults.

    On what logical basis would this society object to polygamy? Incest (with the caveat that genetic screening of potential mates is not required for current hetro couples)?

    To avoid more red-herring, limit the discussion to polygamy among consenting adults...
    We can pare the discussion down. But in reality, the primary objection to the other areas is the "disgust" factor. But, for people to admit that, they would have to adopt the "bigot" label.

    I think the argument of concent is a legitimate one as it relates to adults and adolescents. But, as I pointed out, the current posture on consent as used regarding abortion undermines the position.

    As to polygamy, I think DaThomas raised a good concern--i.e. what if you have a tie vote on life support issues?

    Other questions that would have to be addressed:

    1. How many spouses does an employeer have to cover on benefits?
    2. Is polygamy limited to 1-to-many relationships? What about many-to-many scenarios?
    3. In the case of divorce, is the entire union dissolved, or are certain individuals removed from the relationship, while the remaining parties continue?
    4. Do all spouses have to sign permission slips for school field trips?
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    ...(with genetic screening)
    that's called discrimination
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    ...(I cant see how it hurts me in any way)
    So, if you could see how it hurts you, would you therefore be opposed? Watch it, that's the language of bigotry.

    Some people take principled stands so that the influence of the subjective assessment of personal impact does not reign.
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    that's called discriminationSo, if you could see how it hurts you, would you therefore be opposed? Watch it, that's the language of bigotry.

    Some people take principled stands so that the influence of the subjective assessment of personal impact does not reign.
    There is a general principle of not interfering if its not really our business.

    The genetic screening is to protect potential offspring. Its not discrimination if there is a real risk of injury.

    Surur
  13.    #93  
    Just like Governor Wallace made a "principled stand" in the university doorway to keep "the Coloreds" out.
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Just like Governor Wallace made a "principled stand" in the university doorway to keep "the Coloreds" out.
    It is far better to stand on principles than to ride on bandwagons. Wasn't it one of those "coloreds" that suggested one who hasn't found something he is willing to die for isn't fit to live?
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    There is a general principle of not interfering if its not really our business.

    The genetic screening is to protect potential offspring. Its not discrimination if there is a real risk of injury.

    Surur
    Regardless of an individual's view of the subject at hand, establishing a new legal class is all of our business.

    Are you sure you want to establish risk of injury as the standard for justifying discriminatory behavior?
  16.    #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    It is far better to stand on principles than to ride on bandwagons. Wasn't it one of thosee "coloreds" that suggested one who hasn't found something he is willing to die for isn't fit to live?
    Of course, and Alabamans should be willing to die so that Lesbians cant get married in Massachussetts.
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Regardless of an individual's view of the subject at hand, establishing a new legal class is all of our business.

    Are you sure you want to establish risk of injury as the standard for justifying discriminatory behavior?
    Isn't blood tests of some kind already required in America for a marriage license. You are right however that something like that is unenforcible. Fortunately ultrasound screening for birth defects are already routine, and will only get more advanced with time.

    Surur
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Of course, and Alabamans should be willing to die so that Lesbians cant get married in Massachussetts.
    Interesting.

    You have unwittingly raised the issue that we have not discussed--autonomy of the states. There are some Alabamans that understand that those who marry in Massachussetts have legal precedence for demanding that their marriage be recognized in Alabama.
  19. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    You are right
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    As most people know, the offspring of closely related parents has a much higher risk for hereditary diseases. That's a sound and logical reason for making incest illegal.

    Apart from that, incest is mostly sexual abuse of minors, not brother and sister planning to marry.
    Good point! And modern gene therapy will remove these barriers to true love...fathers will be able to marry daughters and sons will be able to get a girl just like dear old dad!

    And why should two people with compatible sex drives have to wait until some arbitrarily selected age before they have sex? Why, those poor young boys are just confused, and NAMBLA is there to help!

    Enough sarcasm. I note you didn't seriously address my points, so there is not reason to continue. I will say this, though. I'm old enough to remember the abortion debate in this country in 1973. Some raised concerns that abortion on demand would lead to assisted suicide. They were called old fashioned. What they were was prescient.
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions