What do you think the effect of legalizing gay marriage may have on future laws and society?
Homosexuality has throughout the ages been fought against, mainly because it is seen as a transgression of nature.
Now that homosexuality/ gay marriage, and other generally dispised human practices (abortion, incest, prostitution ) are being accepted, at different rates ofcourse, it will only be a matter of time before the tolerance level of society reaches an all time high so that the law of statutory rape is lifted and pedophilia will be acceptable. Everyone gets their way in the end
- Anonymous8 years agoFavorite Answer
Homosexuality has NOT been "fought against" everywhere in every age. Only people in some times and places have fought against it and wrongly called it unnatural. What will happen with the samge-gender freedom to marry? Some gay and lesbian couples will marry, that's what. Some people want to force everyone into a narrow, hetero-monogamous slot. I say, how about instead of trying to come up with convoluted schemes for which adults get their rights and which don't, why not support the rights of ALL adults? The same-gender freedom to marry will be a reality in most of the world soon. Consensual adult incest is legal in a few US states and many modern countries, and there hasn't been a problem. I'm only referring to CONSENTING ADULTS. Last I checked, children, other species, and inanimate objects were not able to legally consent through our broad legal structure. Minor changes in the law should be made so that an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share marriage with any and all
consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Some people only care about monogamist gay rights, not the rights of anybody else. There were African-American civil rights supporters who didn't care about Latino-Americans, and vice-versa. This is nothing new. There are polygamists who support gay rights and polygamists who don't. People typically try to pin pedophilia on gays, polygamists, and those involved in incest, but I'm addressing CONSENTING ADULTS only.
I support FULL marriage equality. That includes 30-year-olds marrying 60-year-olds. That includes African-Americans marrying Anglo-Americans.That includes two men marrying, even if they are brothers. That includes one women marrying two men. It is ridiculous that in most of the US, it is perfectly legal for a woman to love, have sex with, and have children with two men at the same time, but she isn't free to legally marry both at the same time even though they all agree.
Equality just for some is not equality. Don't like it? Don't do it. As with interracial, adult intergenerational, or gay sex/marriage, there is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against polyamorous or consanguineous sex or marriage. Personal disgust or religion is only a reason why one person would not want to personally engage in polyamory or consanguinamory, not why someone else shouldn't do it.
Some people try to justify their prejudice against consanguineous sex and marriage by being part-time eugenicists and saying that such relationships inevitably lead to “mutant” or “deformed” babies. This argument can be refuted on several fronts. 1. As I noted, some consanguineous relationships involve only people of the same gender. 2. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. 3. Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. 4. We don’t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. For example, it is legal for someone with Huntington's Disease to marry and have children. Look that one up.
Some say "Your sibling should not be your lover." That is not a reason. It begs the question. Many people have many relationships that have morethan one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can’t their sister be a wife, too?
Some say “There is a power differential.” This applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to sex or to marry. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning.
Some say “There are so many people outside of your family." There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial marriage. So, this isn't a good reason either.
Yes, there are patriarchal societies that have gender inequality and allow religion-based polygyny only, and people cite problems in those societies, but the problems are not caused by polygamy. They are caused by sexism and gender inequality under the law. All the paperwork issues can be resolved. And if paperwork issues could be an excuse to deny fundamental rights, we wouldn't have the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Victims of abuse and coercion would be MORE likely to work with law enforcement if we had relationship rights for all adults. Let consenting adults love each other the way they want!
- TreyshonLv 68 years ago
Your logic is faulty. Your group these things together because you have negative attitudes towards them.
Incest is necessary for a species. Whether you believe in evolution or creation, the first humans will have had to commit incest for there to be a species. Obviously it is no longer necessary. Incest to a degree is occurring and legal - we just regulate the genetic proximity of it eg. different states have different laws regarding cousins marrying. There is an argument against it on genetic grounds but the actual % rate is far lower than many other genetic diseases which we do not regulate so a significant degree of that is due to moral disapproval. That said there are logical arguments against it.
Abortion has been occuring since the dawn of time. You think that people won't have abortions if you ban them? I don't like abortion but to completely ban it is impractical. It should just be regulated.
Homosexuality and gay marriage has been with us since the dawn of time. It did not stop the Roman, Egyptian or Chinese civilizations. Must it be a negative thing? Don't gimme the crap about it causing the fall of Rome. That is a myth given that it was present in the rise and peak of Rome but banned in the latter days when Christianity took over. Eastern Rome was never gay friendly and it still feel eventually although it lasted into the middle ages.
Homosexuality has been suppressed for various reasons. The sole common denominator is homophobia. It does society no harm. Gay marriage should be supported since it is conducive to societal stability.
The others can do harm.
To say that these things will mean rape will become illegal is nonsense and a total leap in logic.
Regarding prostitution. How on earth can you even guarantee it won't exist? It is better to regulate it imo to prevent criminals making all the profit and make sure the people involved are not being coerced. There is a famous story in Chinese history books of how one state became a hegemon by instituting reforms. One of these was the state taking over prostitution to fill the coffers.
- 4 years ago
this is like this. Marriage is the union between one guy and one lady. If we actually care approximately human beings, gay human beings in specific, then we care that they be attentive to the certainty and don't stay a lie. If a cat wanted to be noted as a dogs simply by fact it felt that canines had some income and we exceeded a regulation asserting that to any extent further any cat that wanted to be viewed a dogs ought to bypass and characteristic a rite complete the place it legally grew to alter right into a dogs could that selection the certainty that it replaced into nonetheless a cat? of direction not! interior the comparable way if we alter the definition of marriage and a pair of human beings of the comparable intercourse bypass and characteristic a rite complete and get a legal record claiming that they are "married" does that propose that they are particularly married? No. All it potential is that society has agreed to pretend that a guy and a guy or a girl and a girl can get "married' and purely like the tale with reference to the Emperor's new outfits, easily everyone seems to be agreeing to pretend that a lie is the certainty. you be attentive to that tale do not you? A tailor replaced into employed to create the suited dresser ever created for an Emperor. He knew that he could not do it so he got here up with a scheme and pretends that the "outfits" are so beautiful that for the period of basic terms those with the utmost of flavor can actual see them. So the Emperor pretends that he can see them and all of his officers pretend that they might see them too. The Emperor is going marching down the line bare and all the individuals pretend that he has a great outfit on. Then slightly boy who replaced into too harmless to bypass alongside with the charade factors his finger and says "The Emperor is bare!". this is how this is going to be if easily everyone makes a decision to agree that a monogamous gay union is the comparable factor as a heterosexual marriage.
- ChemFlunkyLv 78 years ago
I think it may increase the trend towards legalizing victimless crimes--drug use, prostitution, polygamy, and the like.
Pedophilia and statutory rape are *not victimless crimes*. Your slippery slope argument falls down on that point. There is a natural barrier: "Is this activity hurting anybody? If not, why keep anyone from doing it?"
Prostitution is a transaction between two consenting adults (and, where it's not, legal prostitution may cut down on illegal prostitution, by reducing demand). Drug use primarily affects the people actually using the drugs, though it's reasonable to take precautions to reduce harm to uninvolved parties and minors. Those arguing for legal (first- and possibly second-trimester) abortion generally do not feel that the fetus is meaningfully a person at that stage, so it is simply a matter of giving a woman control over her own body.Source(s): Please check out my open questions.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- ?Lv 68 years ago
The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.
When women gained the right to vote, it did not result in children getting the right to vote.
When interracial marriage was legalized in the 1960's it didn't lead to inter species marriage.
If it were not for gay people, you would not even be here. The ground work for modern computers and the internet was invented by a homosexual.
- KassandraLv 48 years ago
Statutory rape and pedophilia are completely different from homosexuality. All homosexuality is, is an attraction towards the same sex and lack of attraction towards the opposite sex (when someone is attracted toward both sexes, they are bisexual. It is widely believed that everyone has some level of bisexuality and fall somewhere on the Kinsey Scale: http://www.health24.com/Sex/Sexual-diversity/Are-y...
Like most heterosexuals and bisexuals, most homosexuals have no attraction towards minors. In the vast, vast majority of statutory rape and pedophilia, the perpetrator has been heterosexual. You should also understand that in these cases, the minor is seen as not being able to give their consent or even understand what is going on. This is nothing like romantic relationships between homosexuals, as they involve two fully aware, consenting individuals (just like heterosexual romantic relationships). There is ZERO evidence that legalizing gay marriage will bring on the legalization of crimes like statutory rape and pedophilia. Gay marriage has been legal for years in several states and many other countries across the world, while statutory rape and pedophilia have remained very much illegal and punishable. The only tangible effects that have been seen as a result of the legalization of gay marriage have been economic boosts (which we desperately need right now) and lower divorce rates.
Also, it is worth mentioning that homosexuality has not been fought against "throughout the ages". In ancient times (and likely before then), it was accepted in most societies. It wasn't until humans started becoming more conservative that people started condemning it, saying it was "against God and nature." Even so, in many cultures across the world it has always been accepted. In many tribal cultures (primarily in the Americas and in Asia), homosexuals and transsexuals have long held special places in society. They are seen as having "two spirits" and are highly respected. In many of these societies, they are seen as gifted people who are able to help bring understanding between men and women and relate to both genders.
So you see, those who have long stood against gay marriage have done so largely for religious reasons. The problem with this is that there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, since our society is made up of many different religious beliefs (and an increasing amount of people do not actually believe in organized religion at all). Many religious branches actually do accept homosexuality and gay marriage, and so that just further illustrates how silly the "it goes against God" argument is. If you want to know exactly why we shouldn't follow the Bible on this matter, watch "Prayers for Bobby." There's a wonderful scene in it in which a minister explains clearly why the Bible can't be used in the anti-gay argument.
The "goes against nature" argument is invalid as well. Homosexuality has been observed in over 1500 different species. There is only one species, however, that has ever been observed to lash out against it. Guess who? Also, homosexuality actually supports the "survival of the fittest" nature laws. When a species is growing as quickly as humans are and swiftly overpopulating the earth, it only makes sense that a portion of this species will stop entering reproductive, heterosexual relationships in order to help keep the species sustainable.
- 8 years ago
That is something I don’t get about liberals. They love sex. They hate social pressures that repress sexuality. Liberals permit anything that does not harm another. Under these principles, it would follow that consentual pederasty is not immoral. Since liberals heartily endorse sexual fulfillment, and since sex does not actually harm a person (it is rather enjoyable when there is no actual violence present), then liberals should conclude that sex with children does not violate any liberal principles. If liberals nmove to claim children are “psychologically damaged” by such sexual acts, then surely it is society that needs to change; children should be safe to “come out of the closet” and stop hiding from their sexual past, and society should progress and move on to accept pederasty as healthy, safe, and normal so that children can be free to move on with discovering their sexuality. Heck, maybe the government should regulate such relationships through marriage certificates, to make it safe, formally consentual, and legal.
I guess it is just one of those Unprincipled Exceptions.Source(s): Unprincipled Exception: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005864.html
- 8 years ago
Who cares? Everyone has a right to choose their own path and follow their hearts...do what makes them happy. And no one needs judgement from anyone else. People tend to be their own worst critics as it is. And society is just teaching people to become self loathing to keep everyone in their place. To each his own....everyone must decide what's right for themselves. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all and mind your own business. And judging others is never a nice thing to do. And remember....if you hate them, they'll end up in your family. :) karma's a *****. As for despised human practices...hypocritical judgement would be at the top of the list. People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Do you have any "practices" others don’t know about that would disgust them? Hmmm....food for thought.
- GeorgeLv 58 years ago
Many sad, hopeless kids in orphanages will finally get adopted by loving parents. Legalizing gay marriage will have a wonderful effect on society.
- ?Lv 78 years ago
Worst comprehension of history ever.