You can be skeptical and friendly at the same time.
Follow Patheos Atheist:
The Christian Right’s paranoia complex in a single tweet:
The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable. Matter of time.
— Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer) June 26, 2013
The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable. Matter of time.
— Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer) June 26, 2013
Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.
We haven’t seen meltdowns on this level since toy stores ran out of Cabbage Patch Kids in the ’80s.
Kennedy used Equal Protection as a rationale in the majority decision which means that gays are now officially people under federal law. This is huge and goes beyond marriage.
Just imagine if McCain had won. It was 5-4 against DOMA, but would have been 7-2 for DOMA. Even thou I don’t agree with some of Obama’s stances, I got to say I’m really glad he got elected when he did.
Society normalizes, the court legalizes. Society drives the court, the court does not drive society.
I’ve not noticed much societal interest in normalizing polygamy (unfortunately), and the notion that it would ever normalize pedophilia, incest, or bestiality is completely absurd. Personally, I worry about what might be going on down in the basement of anybody who brings up this kind of imagery in the context of marriage equality. If you live in Fischer’s neighborhood, keep a close watch on your children and pets!
And polls show that 55% (a democratic majority) of Americans believe that same-sex marriage should be legal,
Exactly. Which is why the court ruled the way it did. The Constitution didn’t change in the last few years, but society’s interpretation of it certainly did. And even a conservative court mirrors the society it exists in.
Democracy is just mob rule and is what allowed us gays to be denied our rights for so long. I respect everyones individual rights and not the tyranny of democracy.
If it was democracy, then we wouldn’t have states and some parts of the world legalizing gay marriage under democratic law.
Thus, our rights have been consistently denied due to religious objections, not because we are under a democracy.
Bullshit. China and North Korea are officially atheist countries which ban same sex marriage out of non religious reasons. Democracy is just a softer version of communism.
“Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.”-Thomas Jefferson
Which is exactly why the new republic passed the Bill of Rights to keep that from happening. It wasn’t perfect but it was better than any guarantee of rights anyone in the world had at the time.
I’m afraid giving me recent examples does not erase historical data, and providing a few Communist ruled burgs as examples of “atheist” countries is disingenuos at best.
Homosexuality is not illegal in China
I can’t find anything saying NK is ‘officially’ atheist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea#Religion It’s certainly not friendly to many religions, Christianity in particular. But since their official leader is dead I don’t think they’re True Atheists(tm).
For the sake of your point, the USSR was officially atheist, and homosexual activity was a 5 year prison sentence. So yes, there do exist atheists who think homosexuality should be legislated against.
And yet even Stalin supported the Russian Orthodox Church. He did some horrendous things too I’m not going to whitewash what happened. But even the socialist state wasn’t completely secular.
After Nazi Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union in 1941, Joseph Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. On September 4, 1943, Metropolitans Sergius, Alexy and Nikolay had a meeting with Stalin and received a permission to convene a council on September 8, 1943, which elected Sergius Patriarch of Moscow and all the Rus’. This is considered by some as violation of the XXX Apostolic canon, as no church hierarch could be consecrated by secular authorities. A new patriarch was elected, theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function. The Moscow Theological Academy Seminary, which had been closed since 1918, was re-opened.
Between 1945 and 1959 the official organization of the church was greatly expanded, although individual members of the clergy were occasionally arrested and exiled. The number of open churches reached 25,000. By 1957 about 22,000 Russian Orthodox churches had become active. But in 1959 Nikita Khrushchev initiated his own campaign against the Russian Orthodox Church and forced the closure of about 12,000 churches. By 1985 fewer than 7,000 churches remained active. Members of the church hierarchy were jailed or forced out, their places taken by docile clergy, many of whom had ties with the KGB. This decline was evident from the dramatic decay of many of the abandoned churches and monasteries that were previously common in even the smallest villages from the pre-revolutionary period.
Good thing the constitution enumerates rights that cannot be taken away.
Libertarianism is little more than mob rule where the 5% of the people may take away the rights of the other 95%.
My suggestion is that you go to a libertarian paradise like Somalia or the Congo. No government capable of telling people what to do. All one has to do is flash some cash and everything is at your fingertips.
China and North Korea’s religion is the state. They’re not about promoting free thought.
Have you ever thought maybe one political or economic philosophy isn’t a catch-all solution to all of our problems and maybe that’s why we borrow elements from both capitalism and socialism in the hopes of finding a happy medium?
So your solution to mob rule (preventing this is why we have institutions like the Supreme Court in the first place) is to put rule in the hands of a wealthy ruling class? Because that is what full-on libertarianism leads to.
I see you don’t know much about China or North Korea. The main thrust of their political systems is not atheism, which is incidental to their goals. It is absolute control over their populations with a healthy dose of cult of personality, especially in NK, which is essentially a theistic state.
Homosexuality introduces an other, which doesn’t mesh with their plans. China also bans the right of people to take it upon themselves to help out in case of disasters. After an earthquake and before the gov’t brought it help, people were organizing their own search parties, etc. The gov’t arrested them all, charging them with, basically, thinking and acting on their own.
So I am not sure what you’re point is.
To paraphrase someone: “Democracy is a terrible system, but it’s the best we have.”
Even a great system run by humans can be run asunder.
Democracy is not the best that we have. The values of liberty are the best that we have if only the state would get out of the way and allow people to live free. Google “voluntaryism” and “libertarianism”.
Oh Owen, that’s why most democracies have constitutions that set out the rights that cannot be taken away. Libertarianism is an absolutely godawful system of non-governance. Laissez faire capitalism? Russia tried that, coming out of Communism. It ended up in oligarchy and slow deterioration of rights and liberties to protect the wealth and power of the few, enhanced by the erosion of democracy.
Owen, let me know when those ideas are actually proven on a large scale.
Articles of Confederation follows some of that and failed.
The ideas you put forth are attractive, but I don’t know if they would survive the realities of humanity.
The US Constitution laid down limits do how the rights of individuals can be infringed, but because they’re enforced by people that have their biases, it can be trouble.
State intervention sometimes restricts liberty, and at other times it expands it when it remedies a discrepancy in power. Take laws against employment and housing discrimination – it takes some power away from people who have power (employers or people who own rental housing or who sell residential housing) and gives an oppressed minority (homosexuals for example) a boost up.
I think libertarianism is a comically childish pipe-dream solution to adult problems. There’s no such thing as a ‘voluntary exchange’ as long as some people have far more power and resources than others. Plus, without the government intervening, people can just refuse to hire, service, or otherwise treat minorities as human beings. I’m disabled, and I know that under a libertarian system, I’d be pretty much screwed without FLMA, ADA, disability payments (which I collected for about 2 years.)
In terms of social aspects, I don’t mind the government staying out of people’s businesses. It’s not the government’s place to tell you who you can marry, and I’m all for drug decriminalization, but government non-intervention in the economy just turns into feudalism, with the wealthy being feudal lords, a few people being vassals, and the vast majority of the population being serfs with no hope of getting ahead.
Indeed, libertarianism only works on paper and it requires a lot from its citizens. I’ve always thought it was incredibly naive and the United States has already had a fling with a laissez faire economy that was disastrous.
It would be wonderful if we lived in a world that was selfless enough for a system like that to work, but we aren’t even close.
Libertarianism is a joke. What it means is oligarchism and Gilded age era politics wrapped up in a package of half-legitimized selfishness. “I’ve got mine, go fuck yourself” seems to be their motto.
Libertarians recognize that government can restrict liberties but fails to note that private actors can do the same. Such failure renders its notions completely ridiculous and half-baked.
The problem with libertarianism is that money buys power. Allowing someone to enjoy the fruits of their labour by amassing great wealth inevitably allows them to distort the market so as funnel even more wealth to themselves, and to buy control over other people. The only defence that we have against that is the ability to get together and say ‘No, you don’t get to treat others as second class citizens just because you’re richer than them’ – in other words the ability to democratically elect representatives to reign in the power hungry excesses of the super rich.
Unfortunately, in the USA and quite a few other countries, that process is more-or-less broken, with very few politicians willing to stand up to the interests of the 1%, but at least there is still a glimmer of the possibility of preventing an oligarchic takeover, a possibility which would disappear entirely without democracy.
We are always going to have differences in personal wealth, which will always have the potential to translate into differences in political power. What we have to decide is: do we want to live in a country where those differences are kept in check, or one where they are allowed to run rampant? Democracy at least offers the possibility of the former.
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” – Wiston Churchill.
“Democracy” simply means that the people are the primary political force. It’s a broad term, describing many different systems. Ours is a democratic republic, meaning that there is a level of insulation between the people and policy, in the form of elected representatives, who are expected to represent all of their constituency, and not just the majority.
It has worked well for most of our history, although the concept of what representation means seems to be lost on many representatives today, bringing us a bit closer to that mob-rule situation (and more dependent on a scarily divided court to protect us from it).
Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Which is funny if you listen to the wackos on AM radio they keep harping on about how the court is going against the will of the people by overturning Prop 8.
There is an obvious harm in pedophilia. It’s a no brainer as a legal argument. You have no right to bring harm to others, even if you enjoy it. There is no equivalency there and the very suggestion that there is just shows how sick fundamentalist Christians are.
And there is obvious harm in bestiality, and there is (usually) obvious harm in incest. Of course, that’s one of the reasons that we don’t see any trend in society towards any of these things. And why we aren’t going to. And why SCOTUS isn’t going to magically make these things legal and attempt to drive society.
Fischer is just crazy. And sick.
Exactly. If they didn’t have their god telling them that things were wrong, what would they be doing?
All I know is that when dogs and cats start living together, a moldy old Mesopotamia god will come to to destroy the world, and New York will be destroyed by a giant marshmallow. It’s true. I read in the bible, or possible saw it in a movie.
When the giant marshmallow comes just remember to cross the streams and you’ll be fine. Probably works with the moldy old Mesopotamia god, too.
I think I love you.
Why are you worried about a giant marshmallow? When the Mesopotamian God asks you if you’re a god you just say “yes.” Crisis averted.
Shouldn’t that god already know your godhood status?
Apparently, Mesopotamian Gods are stupid.
Gods tend not to get along well, so there aren’t many meetings…
Yet another question I always say “yes” too.
Seriously – why is the concept of ‘consent’ so damn hard for these people to grasp?
I think it started with their parents forcing religion on them when they were young, and it went downhill from there.
A reason is that if we base morality on consent, it means that we aren’t living in a world of hard, black and white moral rules based on the whims of some authority figure. For people who can’t take much thinking, it just overloads their brains.
Hmm, consent blindness… I wonder then why they never rail against BDSM. Seems like an obvious wingnut target.
It is much harder to make illegal that which is currently legal, than it is to keep illegal that which is already illegal. Moreover, legalizing same-sex marriage is seen by them to be a change for the worse, while leaving BDSM alone would be the status quo. People are far more apt to act against change than they are to act against the status quo, at least when the status quo doesn’t affect them personally.
This doesn’t, of course, make their arguments any more reasonable. They’re clearly cherry-picking their moral outrage. But regardless, I do suspect that the above is why they target same-sex marriage as opposed to already legal things they should, according to the bible, morally oppose.
They target abortion, and have for the past 30 years, so, contrary to your statement, they WILL target things that are already legal. And do so forever. They’re like pitbulls, unable to release their bite on the topic.
Cuz then they’d have to admit that BDSM exists …
I looked in the bible. It ain’t there.
Of course not because women have no rights in the Bible therefore there is no need to gain consent. Yet another problem with that book as a moral guide.
Leviticus 20:15-16 commands, “If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
It’s not like the poor sheep really deserves to die because the shepherd was horny.
I once saw a movie on Netflix which was supposedly historically based, in which a person was assigned to defend an animal in court in a bestiality case. The animal’s life depended on the human advocate being able to prove to the court that the animal was an innocent victim in the incident.
There was a court in ancient Athens, the Prytaneion, where animals, inanimate objects, and unknown assailants were put on trial for their crimes. So, a roof tile that fell off a building and killed a man would be charged for murder and exiled if it was found guilty. The rationale was that the city would be morally polluted otherwise.
Do you remember what it was called? It sounds interesting, but I don’t really want to google “bestiality movie” for obvious reasons. lol
I was running into the same problem, but I found it:
It’s still on Netflix as well.
Thanks so much!
Only if the woman approaches the animal? I wonder what the Biblical stance would be on a situation like those dolphins who have raped women.
I think the phrasing might reflect a prejudice that the male is the exclusive active sexual party, so a woman can’t have sex with the animal, she can only entice it to do so. You have to wonder whether women having sex with animals was really an issue in ancient Judea or whether they’re just including this for completeness.
Lets not forget about Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together!
I’m seriously disturbed by how often the Religious Right brings these things up–it makes me wonder what they’d get up to without their religion’s leash. LGBT people seldom display an interest in any of these things.
I recommend Libby Anne’s “two box” analogy. Everything pure and good (or everything they agree with) is in the “godly” box. Everything they deem sinful is in the other box. So if you open that box for one “sin”, you open it for all. It’s horribly immature black/white thinking. Also known as religion.
Boom! Nail, meet hammer.
Like the people who act like a cheeseburger and a couple cookies may as well be a 2-pound triple-bacon burger and a sleeve of Chips Ahoy. Yeah, I get it.
But further to your excellent point, it seems these people think/talk/expound upon sex and sexual acts way more than the average person, gay or straight. Some of us have, you know, jobs, and families and stuff to do.
The tweet makes it sound like Bryan Fischer is looking forward to that day.
Oh, don’t worry, when he sees the Prop 8 ruling his head will explode.
he’s probably correct..and I predict he’ll soon be attacked by a horny dog.
Well, that’s just Tuesday for some people.
Nothing instantly delegitimizes fundy xian opinion faster than the opinions of fundy xians.
Poly? maybe. The rest of it? I don’t see enough folks who want those activities legalized to get law changes and absent lots of people pushing hard, the courts won’t up and declare, “Now that two people may marry, a person can marry their prize milk heifer”.
It would be nice if we could simply recognize committed relationships between consenting adults, whether that’s same-sex, two people, three, five, whatever.
I’ll gladly take today’s victory, of course. It will be nice when the concept of consent is better understood by some fundamentalists, though.
I dunno about you all, but the slipper slope seems to m like a non-sequitor. Mostly because the philias are not gender specific, by definition. With perhaps a minor exeption to polygamy.
They’re nonsense primarily because people like Fischer equate two consenting adults having sex to an adult raping a child or animal. As someone else said, they don’t grasp even the basic concept of consent well enough to even refute it. It interferes with their bigoted slander, after all.
Funny, how does he think this will enable children and beasts to give informed, uncoerced consent? Canada has had marriage equality for a decade and I have yet to discern these problems. This is a slippery-slope fallacy with all the logical force of, “If you make your children eat vegetables, the next thing you know they’ll be out gnawing down trees!” as someone once said.
That is because you are trying to handle the issue in an honest fashion. Same can’t be said about marriage equality opponents.
You’ve got to remember that christianists are incapable of comprehending the idea of consent.
That someone was Canadian, because of Gay marriage, half their children are now beavers. True story.
No serial comma. Another reason to hate Bryan Fischer. (Chicago Style forever! Screw you, AP!)
You can take your slippery slope fallacy and shove it up your slippery slope.
Now you’ve made me momentarily think of Bryan’s slope. That’s unpleasant. Thanks.
Yeah, but in light of these decisions, it’s no longer a fallacy – now a fact
Your comment made no sense. Please learn what words mean.
How is it a “fact”? All of these things are still unlawful. It’s still just as fallacious as it was yesterday.
I thought his bible already normalized all those things?
It’s my sincerest hope that Bryan Fischer lives long enough to see all of his anti-gay efforts come to naught.
Maybe he can take the Dominique Venner option.
Awesome Tweet! Now where’s that sheep and my knee high boots, and my very young cousin and my other 5 wives? I got some catchin’ up to do! Yeehaw!
With the exception of pedophilia (and maybe bestiality) I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of these things so long as they are consensual between adults. If other people engage in polygamy, incest and bestiality it is none of my concern.
Bestiality doesn’t involve consent either. It’s not morally acceptable to hurt an animal for personal sexual gratification.
Isnt an animals willingness to engage in sex the same as giving consent? I havent really thought too much about it but unless an animal is being restrained or otherwise forced into sexual relations I really dont see it as a moral problem.
Legally speaking, animals can’t give consent. Nor can children, but that’s a given.
So change the law. That’s the lesson here, right?
No, actually, your nasty, stupid, dishonest misrepresentations are not being discussed. This is the grownups’ table, man-child.
I would say that most for most species dealing with animals, especially domesticated ones, is the equivalent of dealing with a child. They are not mentally capable of consent as adult humans understand it. Perhaps that is species-ist of me, but that’s my opinion.
What Houndentenor said. Also, the vast majority of animals don’t want to have sex with people and do have to be restrained. We smell wrong and give all the wrong signals; why would animals even want to have sex with people?Sexually abused animals at pet shelters act abused- they mistrust humans, cowering and whimpering away or acting aggressively at what we can only figure are triggers. That’s how we know that sexually abusing animals is, in fact, animal abuse (other than the obvious, duh! factor of it).
I tend to think of this as a taking the safer approach – it might be possible that animals could give consent, the way that it might be possible that a 17 year old *could* be capable of informed consent, but we have to set a line on what behaviors you can do with who and at what age, so we set the age to 18 (just to be on the safer side) and say no sex with animals.
On incest though, if it was truly consensual, and is happening between adults, then I’d say it wasn’t my place to say it was wrong, it’s just that typically it ends up being coercive because of the power discrepancies in families. But if 2 adult siblings wanted to have sex, I’m not sure on what grounds it’d be wrong. If the argument is the possibility of birth defects, they can use contraception.
We’d have to start asking their consent to live in Zoos or be subject to our experiments or various other amusements first.
I’m not sure where you’re going with this. I consider animal experimentation moral *only* insofar as there are no better options, the animals are treated as well as they can be, and it’s for the betterment of humanity (ie animal testing of cosmetics is immoral because no one needs cosmetics).
I make no claim that animals have equal moral weight to humans. They just have greater moral weight than zero. Zoos suck, though they’re getting better, but they’re also major helps in saving endangered species and getting people into conservation. Would we and the animals be better off without (modern) zoos? I don’t know that one could make that argument.
I’m simply saying it’s hypocritical to pull out the ‘consent’ argument with regard to animals. Perhaps less so the abuse argument. There are forms of animal abuse that are considered immoral, and we legislate against them.
But there are all kinds of things humans can do legally to animals that don’t require any kind of consent. Including restraining them so that other animals of their same species can have sex with them.
You’ll note I said “[i]t’s not morally acceptable to hurt an animal for personal sexual gratification”, which does imply that we can hurt animals for other purposes. Consent in sexual relationships is rather paramount, but consent in everything is more limited- we do things to people, including children, without their consent all the time (send to school, take to doctor, give shots, etc) and never consider them immoral.
As we’ve found in other threads, “morally acceptable” is a pretty grey area. It is not legal for humans to use animals for sexual gratification. But the animal’s ability to consent to sex has nothing to do with the law, otherwise breeders couldn’t restrain animals.
If you want to defend anti-bestiality laws, consent isn’t an argument with any foundation unless you change a lot of other things about legal human/animal relations. That’s all.
I disagree. Consent as framework for all sexual relationships works and doesn’t overlap with our other concerns about human/animal interaction. I’m placing sex above who it’s with; all sex must be consensual between all parties, and since children and animals can’t consent, they are never acceptable sexual partners. You, on the other hand, put sex with animals in a subset of human/animal interactions and want to fit it in that framework. It’s a Venn Diagram of ethical obligations, with the two circles being “Sex” and “Animal/Human Relations”. The only place they overlap is bestiality, so we decide at that point which framework to apply to that case.
You, on the other hand, put sex with animals in a subset of human/animal interactions and want to fit it in that framework.
Not me- our legal system deems forcing animals to have sex to be acceptable.
When it comes to bestiality, our legal system doesn’t care about the animal, only about the human.
If a person buys a dog expecting to use it for sex, they bought a dog for a horribly selfish reason and saddled themselves with a fairly big animal for quite a long time. That sort of person isn’t likely to just accept things if it doesn’t “work out.” As a result, some people abuse sex animals monstrously if they don’t cooperate.
The first time I ever heard about that was a VA describing a dog brought in with, among other things, a fractured neck and eye socket, a shredded, infected sheath and penis, and life-threatening anal tearing, all dished out by his owner. Some of these were long-term injuries, dealt out over several months and left untreated. Said, um, “person” was trying to dump off the animal because he was fed up with resistance to getting his rocks off.
It isn’t hard to imagine gentle, consensual bestial relationships (insofar as an animal can give consent); a major reason it isn’t a legal thing is that it’s almost impossible to protect the animals involved, since disposing of the “evidence” is usually pretty easy. Hell, a relative’s ex killed all of his mother’s pet cats out of spite and a bizarre hatred of inconvenient animals, and the county dropped even the destruction of property charges because he moved into the house before shooting them, including a mother with newborn kittens right there with her.
I have no strong feelings on polygamy. I’m willing to hear arguments from polygamists as to why it should be legal. I would also need to hear how that would work legally. I have an open mind. I just need to be convinced by a rational argument.
If a polygamist can come up with a sensible overhaul of the estate, matrimonial, child custody and property laws. Ones which can work within that context that is neither arbitrary nor inherently unfair for all spouses, they are welcomed to try.
As of now it is far too cumbersome to shoehorn it into our binary couple based laws.
Incest is also iffy. I have no problem with genetically related people raised apart marrying each other (though I’d recommend gene testing if they want kids), but I’d be a bit concerned about power imbalances between people raised together (not that this requires incest to be a problem), and I don’t think I’ll ever find parent-figure/child-figure sexual/romantic relationships okay.
So your personal view of morality should limit the freedom of others? Who made you Queen?
It’s a matter of consent. Power imbalances make true consent very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. Given the giant potential for abuse in power-differential incestuous relationships, banning them seems legit. We ban all adult/teen relationships for that very reason, even though there are *some* older teens who can truly give consent.
That’s Lord High Ruler of Everything to you, thank you very much.
(Also, did I say anything about laws? No. I was replying to a comment about morality with a comment about morality.)
A slippery slope argument is the last refuge of someone who has nothing else to offer.
Where are these pro-bestiality, polygamy, and pedophilia groups hiding? I have yet heard them petitioning the government to make it legal.
I don’t see any reason to establish legal polygamous marriage, but the various criminal laws against cohabitation should be eliminated.
If a group of people want to live together but no person involved is legally married to more than one other person, I don’t see what the state interest is in criminalizing that conduct.
Since you asked:
Nothing wrong with polyamory. The one about pedophilia was about reparative therapy and the author tried to incorrectly tie in pedophilia.
Slippery slop fallacy fail.
Typo or freudian slip. Not sure but works either way.
Also, we’d better start passing laws saying gays can’t buy houses. If we don’t, dogs and kids will start entering the realty market.
There’s a cat running for mayor in Mexico.
A town in Alaska already has a cat mayor:
The article I linked also mentions that honorary mayor cat.
Soon we shall rule over all of you puny humans!
“Also running for mayor are “Chon the Donkey” in the border city of Ciudad Juarez,”
I hope he does not win. There are already enough asses in politics.
If its in Monterrey, he has a good chance of winning. That mayor is a crazy Dominionalist
Hey, the mayor of my town is a cat! He’s a Democat, and beat the previous mayor, a Repuplican dog, in a fair election.
You can be sure that our town is run better than most.
Stealing this one. Just so’s you know.
I always had trouble imagining how a right could be “defended” by denying it to a certain group of people. Then I finally pictured a dragon lying on top of its hoard, and defending it by roasting anything that came near, and I got it.
Or people defending the legal system by allowing only access only to those who passed the bar exam, defending the practice of medicine by limiting it to those who passed medical school, access to the highways only to those who have a license, firearms only to those who are not criminals.
Or the dragon thing – that works too.
Or newspapers to those who belong to a certain political party.
It’s almost like there’s something categorically different between your example and the previous.
(Edited to a better example.)
Did you REALLY think those things were in ANY way comparable to this? One very obvious and fundamental difference is that passing the bar or having a license to practice medicine are NOT rights; they are accomplishments.
I hope this isn’t representative of the logic you regularly employ when drawing conclusions about the world, but judging from your comment history, I’m pretty sure it is.
Actually, Mr. Fischer, the more we get rid of religion the more those other things disappear too…!!!
So the problem lies with you, Sir, not with Teh Gayes!
Two simple words Fishhead – informed consent
Because of this ruling, I think I am going to go out and marry a bicycle. That is the next logical thing, right? And not just one bicycle. Three of them. I am going to name them all Bryan Fischer and we are going to have a bi ol’ time.
Watch the chain. Chafing
As I said to my friend this morning (a bit of relevant personal background, I really want a dog):
“Hmm, if I get 2 opposite-sex puppies from the same litter, I can cover all 4 in one fell swoop!”
He is so wrong. It’s already happened years ago. http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html
Didn’t someone marry a tree somewhere, too?
I never heard about that.
Anyone can have a marriage ceremony with anything they want. The important distinction is whether or not that marriage is recognized by the government and afforded all of the rights that marriage bestows.
I’m pretty sure that that’s exactly what these freaks are afraid of, that somehow magically the government is going to start recognizing this stuff.
Because when the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote, that clearly resulted in lobsters, chairs, and abstract ideas getting the vote too.
Sure. We just ignore the lobsters’ votes because they are so tasty.
Besides, why not Zoidberg?
When I still identified as Christian the slippery slope argument really worried me but it was here I believe that I read a commenters really sharp response to it. The simple fact is that everything Bryan Fischer mentioned has excellent arguments for them being bad for society. In other words, the practice of those acts have easily measured consequences that not any of us want. That isn’t the case with gay marriage. There hasn’t been one legitimate scientific study (that I have found at any rate) that suggests it having adverse affects. Quite the contrary in fact. The only reason to oppose same sex marriage is for religious reasons. And that’s not good enough.
Homework for the Religulous Reich Krystyhuns:-
“With Liberty and Justice For All”
Yay, something great came out of the court system, but now time to be flooded with sad and disturbing comments about why this ruling has ruined peoples lives and the country at large. >.<
Bryan Fischer will drop dread and his disgusting corpse will be dumped in the ground where it shall be feasted upon by maggots as it rots.
Matter of time.
I don’t understand the religious’ obsession with normality. Being black isn’t normal, neither is hating soccer. Do we bitch about those two groups of people? And am I the only one who has no problem with polygamy? The two most “holy” men in the Bible, besides Jesus of course, (Abraham and David) both had multiple wives, and god never mentioned that what they were doing is wrong.
“Being black isn’t normal…”
I meant it in the sense of majority, since people like to derive from original definition which simply meant sane. Technically, according to Christian’s definition of normal, anyone not Chinese is abnormal.
Fucking hell, are you racist much?
You misspelled “paranoia”, it should be “Batshit Insanity”
It must be quite a shock to his system. His whole hate world is falling apart right before his eyes, lol.
Yeah, because that’s exactly what has happened in other countries that have already legalized gay marriage.
I know this will be unpopular – but here goes anyway…
I think that in some ways, Bryan Fischer is correct. Pedophilia is clearly a different story, because we’re talking about someone who cannot legally assent to sexual activity. However, I’m not sure what ethical principle can be used to declare that polygamy and bestiality are immoral and should be illegal. Incest, so long as it is between consenting adults, would be similar. The fact that those things “feel wrong” to most people is not a reason to ban them. After all, that’s why conservatives think homosexuality is immoral.
Does anyone have an explanation for why those activities should be illegal? I’d be interested to know. I’m not saying there isn’t one, it’s just that I can’t think of one…
Bestiality is also a situation where consent is impossible.
Incest… not really a reason against it, especially since there’s not really a huge genetic incentive given the research I’ve seen. It’s icky the same way that gay sex is icky to some, and some of it might be a situation where it is abusive, Stockholm-style. So we’d need to make provisions for that, and is a good argument against carte-blanche incestuous relationship legality.
Polygamy isn’t really immoral, but there’s no legal framework for it. Marriage, there’s a default decision maker, inheritor, etc. With polygamy, those lines are no longer clear, so it would take a massive overhaul of the legal framework, not just a “Oh, yes, you two can make a contract just like the opposite gender people can”
I’m surprised this is a confusing issue?
You can’t think of one? Not a single one?
Do you think animals can consent?
With incense, there is usually a power differential where one person is at a serious disadvantage to the other. That said, there really ISN’T any reason that a brother and sister couldn’t hook up, beyond the fact that most people find it repellant, and as long as they didn’t try to reproduce. That sort of thing has actually been common in many cultures through the centuries, especially in royal bloodlines.
The same goes for polygamy. Sometimes, polygamy is wrong because of the power differential, such as in the case of Mormon fundamentalism. However, I see no ethical problem with polygamy. The main problems with polygamy are the logistics. Because marriage confers certain rights to one’s spouse, divvying up those rights fairly and automatically would be nearly impossible. Who, for instance, would get the last say when it comes to making legal or medical decisions for their spouse in the case that they are unable to make those decisions by themselves? And there are numerous issues regarding taxes as well, that would be incredibly sticky.
Why is it that people on this discussion group feel a need to belittle people? I asked a serious question, and you feel you need to act like my question is stupid? Maybe that’s why I don’t participate more in these discussions.
To address your comments more seriously, it seems that the only ethical problem with those three things you brought up was the problem that animals can’t consent to sex. My thought about that was that, since we don’t ask animals’ consent before we slaughter them, people shouldn’t have to obtain their consent before having sex with them. However, there are people who think that we should not kill animals for food, leather, etc., so I agree that I was probably a little quick to say that there is nothing morally wrong with bestiality.
In terms of the power differential that often happens in incest, that is also very frequent in “traditional” sexual relationship. The only time that is considered to be actually immoral is when one partner is a minor (or mentally impaired). You and I clearly agree that an adult having sex with a minor is immoral, and it seems to me that we agree that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with incest per se.
The concerns you raise about polygamy are practical and legal problems, not ethical concerns – which is what I specifically asked about. Not to say that you did not make good points about there being legal reasons not to start allowing polygamy – just that I was asking about ethical problems, not practical or legal ones.
Bottom line: you and I agree that there is nothing intrinsically ethically wrong with either incest or polygamy, and agree that the ability to consent is crucial in human sexual interactions. Our only disagreement is whether people need to obtain consent from animals before having sex with them. You may disagree, but to me that level of disagreement between us doesn’t really merit the sarcastic response you gave me.
I didn’t really mean to be sarcastic. In my defense, I’ve been bed-bound for over a month after having surgery, and now I have pneumonia, so I’m not exactly in the most chipper of moods. I do apologize.
Anyway, it seems we agree.The reason I didn’t bring up ethical concerns is because I don’t really think there are any, as long as everyone is involved willingly and happily. There are already people (non-religious) living polymory lifestyles.
Thanks for clarifying. If I had gone through what you’re going through, I wouldn’t be exactly chipper, either. I hope you’re on the mend!
Why is it that people in this discussion group feel a need to belittle people? I asked a serious question, and you feel you need to act like my question is stupid? Maybe that’s why I don’t participate more in these discussions.
Looking back at my comment, I realize that my question was unclear. I meant to ask if there are ETHICAL reasons to make incest, bestiality, and polygamy illegal (hence my initial comment that, “I’m not sure what ethical principle can be used to declare that polygamy and bestiality are immoral and should be illegal). The reason I focused on ethical concerns is that I think those are the concerns that fundamentalists will have with them.
The only ethical concern you raised was the problem that animals can’t consent to sex. My thought about this was that, since we don’t ask animals’ consent before we slaughter them, people shouldn’t have to obtain their consent before having sex with them. However, there are people who think that we should not kill animals for food, leather, etc., so I agree that I was probably a little quick to say that there is nothing morally wrong with bestiality; it is at least up for debate.
In terms of the power differential that often happens in incest, that is also very frequent in “traditional” sexual relationships. The only time that power differential is considered to be actually immoral is when one partner is a minor (or mentally impaired). You and I clearly agree that an adult having sex with a minor is immoral, and it seems to me that we agree that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with incest per se.
The concerns you raise about polygamy are practical and legal problems, not ethical concerns. As such, they are good answers to the question I actually asked, but not to the one I intended to ask. Obviously, that is my fault, not yours, but it is the reason that I couldn’t think of a reason – I was thinking of ethical reasons, not practical or legal ones.
1) I was sloppy in wording my question.
2) Concerning the question I intended to ask – about the ethics of these behaviors – you and I agree that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with either incest or polygamy, and agree that the ability to consent is crucial in human sexual interactions. Our only ethical disagreement is whether people need to obtain consent from animals before having sex with them.
Homosexuality = pedophilia, incest and bestiality. Why can’t these idiots understand the meaning of “consensual”?
Maybe because such a concept doesn’t exist in their authoritarian, patriarchal hierarchy. Or they’re just stupid. Or both.
Judging from the amount of Slippery Slope arguments I have seen today it must be be Slippery Slope Day. Here I was thinking SCOTUS did something right for humanity today.
I woke up to an angry, fist shaking blurb from the Catholic Diocese of Harrisburg in my paper today. It was a good way to start my morning.
I just don’t understand why the Catholic cult is ticked off if they don’t believe in civil marriage anyway! They fought against civil marriage in Mexico way way way back in the 19th century. To this day, if you get married south of the border, the religious and the civil ceremonies are completely separate. If you are Catholic and you have a heterosexual civil marriage, your civil marriage is NOT recognized by the church and you are disallowed from receiving the sacraments. They consider Catholics who are in a heterosexual civil marriage as fornicators, same as homosexual civil marriages. The Catholic church does NOT have a dog in this fight. The bottom line is that the only marriage they recognize is one man, one woman, one time AND under Catholic supervision. Everything else is fornication. Hypocrites.
I wonder the same thing. Way back when my parents got married they did it in a protestant church even though my dad was Catholic and the church literally threatened him with excommunication because of it.
Ultimately my conclusion is they’re just reacting over the fear of their waning influence on society.
Oh, you’re lucky. My parents were married in a civil ceremony and when my mom went to have me baptized, she was told that they were living in sin and they wouldn’t baptize a bastard. Yep, that’s me. Officially declared a bastard by the Catholic Church.
Now, if only my mother had taken the hint and abandoned all religion altogether… Instead, she became a fundamentalist evangelical Christian. My childhood was like a more horrific version of Jesus Camp.
Yes, I only had to endure CCD classes and other Catholic indoctrination nonsense that most kids didn’t take seriously at all anyway. I’d say I got off pretty lightly compared to a lot of people.
I can’t believe he forgot necrophilia… I’m so disappointed.
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2014, Patheos. All rights reserved.