[ness31]

You know, I just had a brainwave. What about objectum sexuality, where people are attracted to inanimate objects? I remember reading a snippet in a British rag about a woman who married a piece of the Berlin wall.
It's not such far a stretch to animals.

Anyways, just lightening the mood

[Pants-of-dog]

Are you arguing that the fabric of society is unchangeable GTG?

Now you are compounding the slippery slope fallacy with a false dilemma fallacy.

The two choices are not A) allow the slippery slope to happen, or B) freeze culture forever.

At one point, bare ankles were outlawed because it was thought that it would lead to depraved sexual behaviour. Now, bare ankles are no longer forbidden and people are not going around having sex in public.

So, we have an example of changing social norms that did not result in a slippery slope or in completely frozen culture.

Thus, your arguments are incorrect.

[Suska]

At one point, bare ankles were outlawed because it was thought that it would lead to depraved sexual behaviour. Now, bare ankles are no longer forbidden and people are not going around having sex in public.

So, we have an example of changing social norms that did not result in a slippery slope or in completely frozen culture.

That... doesn't follow...

People are going around having sex in public, where the heck have you been? Not to a park at night I guess.

I'm not really sure what to make of this, I don't care at all about the slippery slope argument, but it's fairly obvious that a portion of society is pushing the boundaries. It doesn't give them less to do to expand the boundaries.

We are not a cohesive society, we are not a culture. Nations don't know the first thing about sustainable civilizations. Law cannot replace local personal interaction and the traditional cultivation of virtues and community. There are a great many things I would not have be illegal that I don't believe are moral or healthy. This push to define permissible culture by outlawing everything else is absurd.

[colliric]

Also let me point out Bare Ankles not being permitted as well as generally more clothes being worn, is also due to the practical reason that Sunblock hadn't been invented yet during those times. That's the real reason people use to wear more clothes(and not because they were less sexually inclined). Especially large hats which are now all but gone. Skin Cancer is not new you know, and the invention of Suncream/Sunblock has significantly altered the clothing worn in society.

[Pants-of-dog]

There are a million examples.

Dancing leads to sex. Banning Mein Kampf will lead to mass censorship. If you let a camel put its nose in your tent, the whole animal will follow.

It all boils down to the idea that if you allow action A, then you will eventually have to allow action Z. But this isn't necessarily true. Just like allowing bare ankles did not lead to public orgies in daylight.

The idea that accepting homosexuality will inevitably lead to accepting bestiality is just like the bare ankles claim, in my opinion.

[Suska]

You are ignorant about causation PoD.

A) the act of pushing boundaries
B) the act of expanding boundaries so they will not be pushed
C) see A

You keep doing this, "I'm so entirely innocent" act, people aren't lined up like dominos, we get that, that isn't the issue.

[Swagman]

Are you arguing that the fabric of society is unchangeable GTG?

thats not an argument for this.

Why not? That is the very drum being beat by Bernardi. If society pushes the frontiers on same sex marriage then the door is open to do the same for other taboos. Just because it offends someone doesn't make it an invalid argument.

I can prove to you that the "fabric of society" is changeable - by the fact that decades ago homosexuality was not acceptable in society, but today it is. The fact that society has changed is the reason why we are having this debate about gay marriage in the first place - society wants it according to any given poll on the subject, whereas there was no debate decades ago because society didn't want it. Basically legalising gay marriage represents a logical extension - legalising bestiality has no such logical extension.

Great you are again reinforcing my point.

Bestiality doesn't have a logical extension now but it has the potential capacity to in the future so no matter how remote that possibility is still is a valid argument to make. Bernardi also mentioned polygamy, which is quite acceptable in some societies today. Would you also make the same call that polygamy would never be socially acceptable? Granted these are totally different taboos but Bernardi's same argument applies.

So with regards to bestiality, my argument is NOT about whether or not bestiality may at some point become acceptable to society, but that you can't compare it to something that already IS acceptable to society.

Well your argument doesn't pass muster GTG. Same sex marriage is not acceptable to our society now. The bill was defeated.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Bernardi also mentioned polygamy, which is quite acceptable in some societies today. Would you also make the same call that polygamy would never be socially acceptable?

Bernardi's argument wouldn't have raised an eyebrow if he had stopped at polygamy. Bestiality is a completely different kettle of fish though, and is why is copping flak. And thats why I'm going to ignore any arguments referring to polygamy, incest, underage marriage etc as completely irrelevant. And you are sugarcoating his argument by replacing bestiality with polygamy and incest.

Same sex marriage is not acceptable to our society now. The bill was defeated.

righto swag - sorry I forgot the parliament never ever decides anything that goes against the will of the majority of the population like... er... say Iraq or Afghanistan...

Ok let me put it another way then - bestiality marriage will never be on the political agenda until there are polls which suggest most people are in favour of it, or that most people wish the parliament to take a conscious vote on the issue.

[colliric]

... Or the carbon tax.