Polygamy

[Alex Starkiller]

No to zoophilia because, as it stands now, only humans are capable of granting informed consent, and having sex with an animal is similar to rape.

Erm... this is not as clear-cut as you make it seem. Premeditated slaughter of animals is legal, after all, and a dildo doesn't give consent either.

EDIT: Also, the it-grosses-me-out thing isn't a fallacy. It used to be a survival mechanism, that's why it seems so important.

So is pre-meditated slaughter or humans of opposing armies. We just don't eat those as often once we kill them. And dildos don't count because the aren't living. Once they are [EW EW EW] then we'll have that debate.

Also, yes it's a fallacy. I mean, are you insinuating that homophobes can use "it's icky ew" as a rational reason against gay marriage? We can bring that up in court and use it to strike down proposals for legalization?

[Globus]

Also, yes it's a fallacy. I mean, are you insinuating that homophobes can use "it's icky ew" as a rational reason against gay marriage? We can bring that up in court and use it to strike down proposals for legalization?

What? No! Don't twist my words or I'll stop uising them. In court, laws > reason, obviously, as it should be. You're making it look like I said that whoever uses fallacious arguments should be brought to court.

But it is reason enough to vote against it. If half the population thinks it grosses them out enough to go out of their way to make it illegal, that is reason enough for it to be. That is how the system works, isn't it? (If no, I'd like to hear you defend public decency laws).

[Alex Starkiller]

Also, yes it's a fallacy. I mean, are you insinuating that homophobes can use "it's icky ew" as a rational reason against gay marriage? We can bring that up in court and use it to strike down proposals for legalization?

What? No! Don't twist my words or I'll stop uising them. In court, laws > reason, obviously, as it should be. You're making it look like I said that whoever uses fallacious arguments should be brought to court.

But it is reason enough to vote against it. If half the population thinks it grosses them out enough to go out of their way to make it illegal, that is reason enough for it to be. That is how the system works, isn't it? (If no, I'd like to hear you defend public decency laws).

Don't use words ripe for twisting. And when human rights are in question, that's a majority of them. And, well, court or the ballot boxes, really, and the latter is indeed what you're saying apparently.

Not really. A lot of people thought slavery and racism was a good idea. You're playing devil's advocate, and I get that; it makes it harder for me to say why this is bad. "Because it's a violation of human rights" doesn't work anymore, because you bring up that it's not about what's right, it's about the popular idea. And that's unfortunate. It should be legal because who are we to decide who's allowed to live their life like they want? We're no gods, and the "majority" shouldn't be one either. If atheists and the infertile, why shouldn't homosexuals? Because it's gross is a stupid argument from a five year old refusing broccoli, not a rational argument from an adult.
Also, nudity is inextricably tied to sexuality, which is tied to shame, which means it's something not to be seen outside the proper locations, usually indoors. I don't see that changing in the near future and almost no one is negatively affected by this, and there ARE nudist communities and beaches and stuff, where those laws are rescinded.

[Horizon]

I propose we round up every smart, sensible person, and start our own colony on the moon. We can call it Sensibletown. Or Smartville. Whichever. When we've got all of the smart people who want to go, we'll have a vote.

[Alex Starkiller]

I propose we round up every smart, sensible person, and start our own colony on the moon. We can call it Sensibletown. Or Smartville. Whichever. When we've got all of the smart people who want to go, we'll have a vote.

I think the sensible thing to call it would be an actual name. Something pretentious like Spero.

[Horizon]

Or Luna City. Called Lunacy by the plebians back on the ground because we took all the smart people with us, remember?

[luislsacc]

You know what, I'm going to throw oil on the fire for the same-sex marriage discussion.

Acording to article 16º of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), gay marriage is illegal.

Two important notes, the UDHR is ius cogens, or basically, it aplies to everyone everywhere regardless of country or acceptance ( at least as far as the U.N. can/ feels like enforcing it. Which isn't as often as it should be), so it can't be overriten by any individual country.

The english tranlation ( at least in this article) isn't exactly correct. For example, it mentions full age, but that can mean several different things in several different countries. The original term, "nubile" refers specifically to the age consent for marriage is valid. And according to who is recognised by most lawyers in my country as the regent of family law, my teacher, finds the terms "man and woman" in conjunction with "family is the natural element" (once again, the english translation gets this one wrong) mean that same-sex marriage is illegal, and nobody except maybe the entire U.N. in agreement (good luck with that) can change that.

Of course, the argument up there may be said to suffer from authority fallacy, but the authority in this case belongs to the correct field so there's always that.

[Alex Starkiller]

So the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is around to deny human rights? At least that one. Classy.

[luislsacc]

So the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is around to deny human rights? At least that one. Classy.

It depends on how you think about it, just a couple of articles down it proclaims everyone's right to own property ( way to think about native americans France), but if you know the right to property it also automatically declares that everyone else can't own a piece of property that's already owned by you. That seems pretty obvious, right? It's denying the entire planet the right of ownership of my piece of string, so would you argue it's limiting human rights? Not really. Phrasing is important, the UDHR doesn't deny anyone of nubile age and ability to consent the right to marry, and it doesn't even limit how you might feel towards the other person, just as long as the other person if of the oppoiste sex. It's just delineating conditions, and every right is subject to condition ( because I'm loving the whole "totally quotable for stupid sounding" moments), think of the right to kill other people. Oh yeah, it's a right alright. It doesn't really matter to this conversation though, sorry for going off track.
The polemic nature of this issue stems from wanting to remove one of the restrictions on the right to marry. We have to remember that laws existe to regulate a community based on the principles of that very community. Where I live, same-sex marriage was made legal, but over a pretty serious majority of people who were actually against it, and the parliment's logic was "We'll pass something we know we shouldn't by all guidelines of law-making be passing, and we'll rely on society to catch up."
My point is that the UDHR reflects the society thar wrote it, and that it's even more troublesome to change than the Constitution seem to be over on the USA, because we need an ever more different group of people than both political wings to cooperate in order to do it.

BTW, if you're wondering what my position on same-sex marriage is, I stand with my school's school of thought ( try saying that 3 times really fast) which coincides with Jaimie's of "Why the fuck is the government even marrying people anyway? It's a religious thing."

[Alex Starkiller]

So the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is around to deny human rights? At least that one. Classy.

*snip*

BTW, if you're wondering what my position on same-sex marriage is, I stand with my school's school of thought ( try saying that 3 times really fast) which coincides with Jaimie's of "Why the fuck is the government even marrying people anyway? It's a religious thing."

People don't own other people, though. We're not inanimate possession like a house or a piece of string. And that said, the laws should change then, assuming people aren't as big of bastards as they were beforehand.

And that's wrong. It's not solely a religious thing, and it hasn't been for awhile. Atheists have been marrying, as have agnostics, people who go for spirituality, etc. They have not been denied the right to marry, so why is anyone? Hell, technically a lot of Christians claim that their religion isn't one, saying it's a way of life and the like. Should they not be married? Point is, their are benefits and rules tied to marriage, so the government is kind of stuck where it is regulating it, and it's not much of a religious ceremony anymore.