Why aren't atheists agnostic?

Post Reply New Topic

I think having sex with another species is wrong because we have no way of being sure whether they are consenting or not. Which is the same reason I wouldn't have sex with someone who was unconscious or had severe mental problems. The issue isn't about how disgusting something is; I think a lot of straight sex is disgusting personally. It's about consent. We have ways of making sure that everyone is consenting in gay marriage. Other animals, children and inanimate objects CANNOT consent. Therefore I see no comparison. Allowing heterosexual marriage and not gay marriage is sexist. Just like it is racist to say a black person cannot marry a white person. Whether I am male or female should have nothing to do with whether I can marry a woman or a man. And TBH, it should be no one's business but mine.

Yeh, I'm with Sopho.

But let me just ask her a hypothtical question:

Suppose, at some point in the future, we had a way of being sure whether animals gave consent or not, would you be for legalising inter-species marriage, then?

If we knew for definite that they were consenting (ie. we were as sure of it as we are with any other marriage) then I would have no problem with it. I myself wouldn't want to marry another species, but as long as that animal is OK with it, then I would be too. There would have to be a way of being 100% sure though.

Great!

Except that scientific statments are backed by EVIDENCE (and no, saying 'my book is true because it says it is' is not evidence, nor is blatantly cherry-picking a few archeological findings and making huge leaps of logic based on them). For example, photosynthesis is accepted because of numerous experiments that show plants produce oxygen in the rpesnece of light, that the bulk of their mass does not come from the soil, etc. science is based on experiments with published methodologies, not on revelation. There are assumptions, but unlike religion these will be thrown out the window if the evidence disproves them. I'm sorry, but statements based on reproducible experimental results are NOT the same as statements based solely on what is written in a book that people claim is true because they believe it is (and not because it can and has been verified). Scientific truths change with time precisely because they are based on evidence - new evidence may rule out what was once thought true.
Example: the Inquisition said the Sun goes around the Earth because the Bible says so. Galileo said it was the other way around because that's what he deduced from astronomical evidence. Instead of presenting counterarguments, the Inquisition told him to recant or face execution. I know whose arguments I'd rather accept.

It depends: Are you talking about scentific theory or scientific hypothesis?

Sorry you can't read, Skafather.

Good point.

Which one?

Or, you could say it's simply subscribing to a traditional definition of marriage.

I finally dipped into the "Gay Marriage" thread, and saw what a good job my bud ascan is doing defending the preservation and sanctity of marriage. Looks like he's got it covered, and that there are some other conservatives helping him out, so I may not even add anything there.

Simply suscribing to tradiantional def...yeh, that's called 'appeal to tradition'. See my points about the ham.

Considering marriage open-mindedly. I do think consent is a gray area with the more intelligent species, not black-and-white as Sopho sees it. I always hear from liberals that people who see things in black-and-white are close-minded. It seems rather a snap decision for her to say animals simply can't consent, or can't consent "legally". As if the law couldn't simply be changed, making that argument moot. But I'm really not interested in discussing things with people who can't change their minds -- I mean, that's futile. Sure, I'll respond for the benefit of those who are only viewing the discussion, but once I think I've made my point, that's basically the end of the thread as far as I'm concerned. I don't know what it feels like to be Sopho, so I can't give her very specific advice anyway.

But the thing is, if you say that an animal cannot consent because it cannot speak, you're essentially saying that mutes shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Well, liberals call it "appeal to tradition". Everyone else realizes that traditional marriage and its importance are aspects of the entire history of the human race. Some people don't get that. I am 100% against gay marriage, just to remind everyone for clarity.

Last edited by Ragtime on 28 May 2007, 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Why should I not be able to marry a woman?

Why don't you just live with her? Even Christians would fully recognize the fact that you're living with a woman, and probably wouldn't bother you about it, anymore than they do fornicating heterosexuals. Is it just about the money? We have gay "civil unions" -- what's insufficient about that?