Ayn Rand was anti-libertarian? Hmm, comes as news to me, although not really surprising. However, every libertarian I know IRL is a big Ayn Rand fan.
My husband is sterile. It has been said to me that we should not have been allowed to marry because of this. Some people are against any lifestyle that does not fit their narrow definition of normal.
No, I can’t, but I can see how others might. The problem, of course, comes from the “legitimate reason” phrasing. One person’s legitimacy is another’s “ridiculosity”, (to engage in neologism). With this phrasing, the rejoinder to anyone’s attempt to justify homophobia is obviously “that’s not legitimate”.
The “agrarian society” angle betenoir mentioned is a likely “legitimate” argument. In those olden days, the tribe/social group favored things that would promote the long-term survival of the tribe. A tribe did indeed have a great interest in its members producing offspring. In order to survive, the tribe needed new generations of members, and it also needed current members to remain with the tribe. The tribe would promote things that contributed to stability, cohesiveness, and perpetuation, and proscribe things that would interfere with stability, cohesiveness, and perpetuation. Homosexuality is obviously a bit light on the perpetuation angle. Stability and cohesiveness are fostered by group identity, both a “we’re the good team, yeah” message, and equally by a “they’re the bad team, boo” message. And as someone previously mentioned, the social nature of humans seems to cause us to fear, or at least be wary of, that which is different from our group identity. Hence, homosexuality is seen as detracting from group stability, cohesiveness, and perpetuation. As far as “why then is sex with a postmenopausal woman approved of” question, procreative sex is an act this tribe/social group wants to encourage, and so permits it even past childbearing years. This avoids sending mixed messages. Still, in our culture, and in many others, septuagenarian sex is not exactly encouraged. See comments in this thread regarding the “EEEWW” factor we associate with sexual expression beyond childbearing years.
Of course it’s crap (IMO), but that is my take on “legitimate” reasons for disapproving of homosexuality.
And as these are not my thoughts/beliefs, don’t ask me to defend them.
Shaky Jake
I would have to say that the reason “religious bias” is seen as a motivator for laws that criminalize things like sodomy or homosexuality is that it happens to be the only candidate in the election. There is no other excuse out there ready to step up and take the blame. At least with prsotitution the courts have relied on a public health foundation, as they have for drug use. But sodomy? Gay marriage? Where is the overriding public interest in stopping these activities outside the pages of a religious text?
Ted said, “That was quite a rant but you didn’t prove a thing you know.”
Actually I think it proves everything quite nicely. Consent is what makes sex enjoyable for both people. Without consent there is rape and that is infringing on the other person thus it is wrong. I really don’t care about having sex with animals either way. I eat meat and exploit them in most delicious ways all the time but that still doesn’t mean that I would let my beloved pets fuck my ass at any and every opportunity let alone ever.
If you want to argue homosexuality first give us the basis on why you are an authority on it. I am waiting.
Sqrl
Does this mean that if someone else had sex with an animal that in your opinion it would be ok?
Ptahlis:
Is there anywhere in this country that these laws are actually on the books and enforced?
Gay marriage is a more debatable issue. I can’t believe that there is no justification for not recognizing this outside of religion. And I would say that the idea that the only motivator for opposition to this is religion, is debatable at best.
Grim_Beaker, “Does this mean that if someone else had sex with an animal that in your opinion it would be ok?”
I don’t care. I suppose if the animal didn’t like or want it then it would run away. Personally, I would never do it and the one person I know who likes it (he is from Germany…I don’t think I have to say anything else on that point) is pretty creepy and fucked up; however, as long as he doesn’t push it in my face, I don’t care. Several friends and I talked to him at one time and he said, “I didn’t use the dog, the dog used me.” It was funny in a very pathetic way but it didn’t anger me, it only bothered me that some people would do something like that with a being that we don’t know for certain if it has the capabilities of being 100% consensual.
HUGS!
Sqrl
This is written so as to include sodomy between both homosexuals and heterosexuals, but, like many such laws, is often used selectively to arrest and prosecute homosexuals. And it is enforced.
Virginia Criminal Code
18.2-361. Crimes Against Nature
A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.
B. Any person who carnally knows by the anus or by or with the mouth his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least thirteen but less than eighteen years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony.
Ummm…excuse me. But the Aztecs did not convince their people that human sacrifice was ok because they were secularists.To the contrary, they convinced them because they told them it was the will of God. They were about a far from a secular view as you can get.
As were countless other societies (even Christian ones) who did things we would be appalled by.
“Because god said so” has always been an excellent way to get people to do things they might otherwise find repugnant.
Well, I could also offer bigotry and fear up for motivators, but I don’t know of anyone actually admitting to these as reasons. I cannot categorically say that religion is the ONLY motivator, just the only one I have ever heard of. I have heard groups say things about “undermining family values” or “devaluing the sanctity of marriage” and other such phrases, but those arguments are simply restating the fact that it is an activity/situation that they disapprove of despite the fact that it causes no harm to the state or any of its constituents.
I get so tired of this argument. Try this Salon article for some further information on this subject.
Betenoir:
You’ve missed the point betenoir. I fully realize the Aztecs performed human sacrifice as part of their religion. The point is that the citizens of the Aztec empire condoned the practice because they were socialized to do so. Whether the practice was religious based or not is irrelevant to the fact that a persons moral compass is only relevant to the society in which they live. In other words, nothing is really right or wrong, different societies merely socialize their citizens to believe so.
SqrlCub:
Ok, just wanted to know.
Sigh
Sqrlcub, look, I’m sorry if I’m offending you. I’m also sorry I’m not able to convey the point I was trying to get across. This is my fault. But none the less, I’m stubron, if nothing else 
I’m not saying homosexuality is wrong. In fact, I honestly don’t give a damn one way or the other. Some of my better friends are in fact Gay or Bi.
Let me work through this:
The OP seemed to be saying that if we remove religious reasons for not liking homosexuality people will not have any valid argument against it.
The natural conclusion from this would be some people saying that makes homosexuality ok.
What I was bringing up, is that there are some otherthings (like necrophelia) that likewise wouldn’t have any valid argument against them if we didn’t use religious reasons.
BUT there would still be many of those same people( who thought homosexualty had no argument against it if you removed the religious reasons and thus isn’t wrong) thinking that necrophelia, beastality and the like wrong.
I was, and still am, saying that these people who think religion has no valid claims and who belive that this makes homosexuality ok, but still think that necrophelia is wrong, are being hypocrites. That they can’t use that argument against one thing and not against another.
**
Why is anyone an authority on it? =]
No, seriously, I’m not arguing homosexuality. I’m arguing reasons for legality.
If you simply want to eliminate all religious influence in laws, then you have to eliminate all the conclusions that derive from those laws, not just homosexuality.
Ted said, “What I was bringing up, is that there are some otherthings (like necrophelia) that likewise wouldn’t have any valid argument against them if we didn’t use religious reasons.”
After you said that I pointed out there is a vast difference between consensual and nonconsensual sex and the analogy isn’t really relavent with homosexuality. I didn’t take offense since we are essentially arguing the same thing but I thought you could use a better analogy in its place since that one is pretty tired and beaten now. Let’s assume whoopie dolls and other inanimate objects don’t need to give consent (as most people would agree) for sexual relations. Or even use the Married man analogy cheating on his wife. I am not sure what would be a good analogy in there but that would be a start.
In my experience 99% of all forms of homophobia stems from right-wing religions as either a primary source or a secondary source.
For the reference some of my best friends are gay too. ;)(For the people who know, don’t tell him who.) heheheheh
HUGS!
Sqrl
In certain situations it is legal for one human being to kill another. In this country it is never legal for one human being to have sex with another human being unless that person give their consent (unless there are still states with laws allowing this within a marriage). In certain situations it is legal for a human being to kill an animal, but it is never legal for a human being to have sex with an animal because the animal cannot give its consent.
I think laws against necrophilia are for the benefit of the friends and relatives of the deceased and not for the protection of corpses. Most people do not like the idea of someone engaging in sexual acts with the corpse of someone they cared about. And if a corpse is nothing but an inanimate object then they have every right to prevent this, since they are the ones with the best claim to ownership of the corpse.
Sadly this is not the case. A friend of mine is a lawyer who prosecutes sex offenders for the state, and a couple of years ago he dealt with a case where a man molested a horse so badly that it suffered severe internal injuries and later died. I can’t imagine the poor creature like that.
Are you claiming that objective morality is impossible from a secular standpoint? Also, are you claiming that objective morality is possible from a religious standpoint?
Just curious.
Lamia:
Since we can eat the legally executed animal is there nothing illegal about eating a former prison inmate that is also legally executed? What about horse drawn wagons? Does the inability of the horse to consent to the work make it slavery? What about chickens laying eggs? Chickens can’t consent to having their “children” given away to be eaten. Comparing humans to other animals is not a one to one equation. Humans are different. I posit that bestiality is illegal because most people feel that it’s inherently wrong not because an animal can’t give consent and IMHO I feel that it’s absurd to think that the law was enacted to protect animals from being raped.
BlackKnight:
My stance is that the only way there could be a true objective measurement of goodness or evil of a given act is if a deity dictated it. Otherwise any measurement of right or wrong is subjective. Example: we could use whatever dictionary we wanted to use as a reference for our definition of “Good”. Whatever we decide to use as our definition is irrelevant to the definition of “Good” as accepted by another culture. Thus the word, “Good”, if not objectively defined by a higher power is subjectively defined by a given culture. Please note that I am not saying that religion provides an objective moral measurement although I’m sure that many religions portray their teachings as such.
the analogy, as I intentend it wasn’t really about consent though. It was saying that the laws about all of them (homosexuality, beastiality and necrophelia) are based in religous roots. Too say if we eliminate those religious roots that homosexual is ok but beastiality and the rest isn’t seemed a little odd to me.
I understand that there is a lack of consent in the later examples. However the only way a lack of consent is revleant is if most people find these things wrong because of it. … but I just don’t think that’s the case for the majority of people (some, true, but most of us no). Grim_Beaker I think does a good job of pointing this out.
In my experience it’s just arragont assholes. I don’t really belive too much in homophobic people… I think far too often it’s not a case of fearing what one doesn’t know, but just being a dick to people differnt than you. Bullies don’t fear the others, they just don’t know how to accept em, or are to self centered to step out of their own little reality of “the way things are”.
=] shrug if you say so. (I’m not going to take the bait on that one =)
ditto, bud.
** Lamia: **
I think Grim_breaker did an excelent job of responding to your first counter claim. As for the second I’d say the husband or the wife has the best claims to the corpse. So having sex with it should be aok, in this case. =]
Why hasn’t billions (or hundreds of millions, I can’t recall offhand when sex evolved) of years of evolution “bred it out”?