| Shadow1980 said: Throughout history human societies have made ever greater strides towards expanding freedom and civil & political rights. So-called "first world" nations of today are far better places to live in that pretty much any society of centuries past. We're living longer, healthier, and freer than ever before. While there is still an unacceptable amount of poverty, corruption, and authoritarianism in the world (especially in less-developed nations), the overall "moral trajectory" of the human race has been generally a positive one. But freedom will always have restrictions. Otherwise we'd have anarchy. At bare minimum, we should continue to ban behaviors that infringe on the rights of others or otherwise impose an undue burden on society. But which behaviors would or should fall under this category of harmful activities worthy of banning besides obvious ones like homicide, theft, and other violent and property crimes? Well, let's go through the list of things the OP cites: 1. Polygamy. Same-sex marriage as it exists in the U.S. and other countries is from a practical standpoint no different from any other monogamous marriage. However, once you have three or more partners involved it becomes far more complicated legally and would require radical new additions to marriage law. Of course, something being legally complicated isn't sufficient grounds to not legalize it. That's why the arguments should focus more on the ethics of it. I think it can be argued that polygamous marriages are inherently unequal and dysfunctional. Furthermore, in most societies where polygamy is legal or at least tolerated, abuse is rampant in such marriages and the women regarded as little more than chattel (it's no surprise that nearly every country where polygamy is legal women have few if any legal rights). This contrasts sharply with the vasty majority of monogamous marriages, including same-sex marriages, which can be just as healthy, functional, and productive as any man-woman couple. 2. Marijuana. While society does have the right to prohibit activities that place undue burdens on the rest of society, in the case of marijuana (and recreational drugs in general) we must weigh the relative harm the substance inflicts on the individual and society with the relative harm its prohibition inflicts. As recreational drugs go, marijuana is pretty far down there on the harm scale; by most measures, alcohol and tobacco are far, far more harmful. Hundreds of thousands die each year from alcohol- and tobacco-related diseases, plus there's the fact that drunk drivers are responsible for thousands of traffic deaths and alcoholism has caused emotional stress, familial abuse & dysfunction, and other evils. While marijuana may impair judgement or even reduce productivity amongst heavy users, I think it's clear that the harm marijuana use inflicts on individuals and society is rather low compared to currnely legal drugs. Compare that marijuana prohibition, which creates a black market for a product that will always have demand, and quite often this black market is run by organized criminals. The War on Drugs has been a failure and has done little but waste taxpayer dollars and put more money into the coffers of gangs and cartels. Like alcohol prohibition before it, marijuana prohibition has done more harm than good. It should be decriminalized and eventually legalized nationally. As for harder drugs like heroin, methamphetamines, cocaine, crack, etc., there's a good argument that those substances are sufficiently harmful to where they should remain generally prohibited. However, instead of jail time perhaps sellers of those substances should be subject to fines and the users subjected to mandatory rehab. 3. Prostitution. To quote George Carlin: "Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal? You know, why should it be illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away. I can't follow the logic on that at all. Of all the things you can do to a person, giving someone an orgasm is hardly the worst thing in the world." Also, it seems odd that I can have sex in exchange for money if its being filmed as a porno flick, but doing it recreationally is verboten. Prostitution should be legalized and regulated like it is in Nevada. Prostitutes would be taxed, licensed, required to get regular blood tests (to ensure they don't spread any diseases), etc., would be able to form unions, and by getting rid of the criminal aspect of it you would get rid of abusive pimps. 4. Incest. While it may work differently in hentai, in the real world incest is rarely consensual and almost exclusively abusive in nature. There are strong evolutionary reasons to avoid mating with one's parents, children, or siblings, namely the increased risk of genetic illnesses resulting from inbreeding. While the number of degrees of consanguinity involved to legally call a relationship incest varies from culture to culture, I think most advanced nations would agree that three degrees is a reasonable limit, thus prohibiting the individual from having relations with pretty much any living direct ancestor or descendant as well as siblings, aunts, uncles, nephews, and nieces. 5. Pedophilia. A child cannot legally consent to sex, and for good reason. They lack the mental faculties and reasoning to fully weigh the consequences of the sex act, and for prepubescent children do not desire sex and may not even know what sex is. There's a reason why an adult convincing or pressuring a child into having sex is inherently abusive. While age of consent laws vary from country to country (and even within countries with a federalist government; in the U.S. is can be as low as 16 in some states and as high as 18 in others), I think it can be agreed on that we need such laws to prevent abuse. Sexual predation is a horrible societal ill, hence why we ban rape, child molestation, and other forms of sexual abuse. Thus pedophilia will always remain illegal. |
There's too much logic in this post. Thanks for taking the time to present a rational (and obvious) argument to the OP. This slippery slope argument presented in this thread is so insulting that most couldn't muster a coherent response. Sadly, I don't think it will be read in full and mostly ignored.
