I know you guys want me to either call it discrimination or rephrase it in such a way as to appear unable to accept your point of view on what reality is.
I'll offer you this: If a ban on homosexual marriage is discriminatory against homosexuals, then a ban on necrophilia is discriminatory on necrophiliacs.
If you can accept the latter, then I'll accept the former in the same spirit.
58 comments
Yes.
Necrophilia, however, is illegal and non-consensual and immoral.
Homosexuality, by itself, is none of us. this.
Actually I don't have a big issue with Necrophilia. It's just a slab of meat at that point, and pretty much victimless unless discovered. Also, it's kind of nice that they didn't go with animals like they usually do.
Before you bring it up though, no you cant marry a dead guy, just like you can't sell a house to a dead guy because marriage is a contractual state.
If you can accept the latter, then I'll accept the former in the same spirit.
"To life, to life, I'll bring them
Well, Herbert West might be able to get consent.
I'll offer you this: If a ban on homosexual marriage is discriminatory against homosexuals, then a ban on necrophilia is discriminatory on necrophiliacs.
I've got a proposal for you: I'll accept Communion just as soon as you accept Jeffrey Dahmer eating Human flesh out of his freezer. Do we have a deal?
I think this is an important distinction but not in the way that he intends it. For the rest of us, I think we have to acknowledge that trying to argue it as discrimination to people who think that homosexuals are inherently evil/dirty/sinful/etc. is a losing battle. No matter how negative a word "discrimination" usually is for us, we have to come to acknowledging that they *want* to discriminate against gay people, that that's their whole point. Imagine trying to argue with a middle-aged white man in Georgia in 1925 that some policy against blacks was discriminatory. You wouldn't get anywhere. This guy has the same amount of inherent bias, he just recognizes that the word "discrimination" is so loaded anymore that he refuses to call a duck a duck.
"If a ban on homosexual marriage is discriminatory against homosexuals, then a ban on necrophilia is discriminatory on necrophiliacs."
That's a new one. Here's a tip: homosexuality doesn't require one to be participating in potentially illegal activity (grave robbing, murder, tampering with a crime scene) in order for it to be indulged in. An outright ban on necrophilia is discriminatory in a manner, yes. But, it is only discriminatory because it is the protecting other rights that would infringed upon if there were not such protections in place. And, guess what? There is no such need for those protections when two consulting adults decide to do it in the butt!
Well honestly, a ban on necrophilia is discriminatory against necrophiliacs. However, this is where the issue becomes more interesting. Necrophilia is one of the many paraphilias listed as a mental disorder. Thus, as someone who wishes to engage in necrophilia is medically considered unwell, thus to legalize actions based on the desires of a group of mentally unwell persons would be unwise.
However, if at some later point necrophilia is determined to be a natural and healthy state for a person to be in, much like homosexuality, the ban on necrophilia might have to be raised.
1. Necrophilia is unsafe and unhealthy. It's not illegal to HAVE sex with a corpse. It's just improper maintainance of a corpse.
2. If the deceased gave consent then it's "fine". However the main problem is not many people would do it and indeed it's unsanitary.
3. Homosexuality is none of the above. Since it is sex between two consenting adults who can give legal and written consent of their activities.
As soon as a corpse can give consent, you'll have an argument. However, until the zombies start roaming, that's not gonna happen.
"I'll offer you this: If a ban on homosexual marriage is discriminatory against homosexuals, then a ban on necrophilia is discriminatory on necrophiliacs.
If you can accept the latter, then I'll accept the former in the same spirit."
Your logic, reasoning and critical thinking skills are astounding.
Astoundingly bad , but astounding none the less.
Not the same thing at all.
And this was already mentioned:
Actually, it IS discriminatory against necrophiliacs, though must people would argue it is judicious discrimination against disrespect for dead human remains, and thus, the human person, potentially very traumatic for the surviving family and friends.
Now blind discrimination says "uck uck ugh poo" to homosexuality without regard for the fact that it's consensual between adults and no one gets hurt.
There is the matter of consent and simple respect.
One could argue that the dead aren't using their bodies anymore, so the necrophiliacs don't really have to worry about consent the same way they don't worry about it with dolls.
But then what I think is that, unless the dead happened to be okay with people having sex with their corpses, the living have some sort of responsibility to respect the wishes of the dead and let them lie in peace. That's what makes Necrophilia immoral (unless the above requirement is met) in my eyes.
In short, it's discriminatory, but it's illegal for arguably real reasons outside of "WAAAAA GOD SAYS NO IT'S BAD WE WANT MARRIAGE TO OURSELVES WAAAAAAAA!"
dead people can not consent, unless they are vampires or maybe zombies.
animals can not consent.
gays of either sex can consent (or not).
non-consensual sex with anything is wrong.
Consenting adults. Dead bodies can't consent.
We've had gender neutral marriage laws for about two years now, and registered partnership for about ten years before that. Nothing strange or dangerous has happened yet. The only thing happening is gays live in legal relationships.
Are you equating homosexuality with necrophilia? Seriously? You do realize that with the first, you have two consenting adults who love and care for one another. With the second you have a very twisted and sick douchenozzle having his way with a DEAD BODY... which is (obviously) incapable of giving consent?
This is the most disgusting and fucked up comparison I think I've ever read...
It is discriminatory. Although I think it's dead boring I can, at least, conceive of circumstances where necrophiliac acts are of concern only to the parties concerned and am perfectly willing to accept whatever they accept.
Your turn.
difference: a 20 year old man can consent, a 20 year old corpse can't.
you just equated homosexuals as a whole to dead people. you discriminatory bastard.
Necrophilia = dangerous (disease. DISEASE!)
Gay marriage= consentual by definition
I agree that a ban on necrophilia is discriminatory to necrophiles, just like a ban on murder is discriminatory to murderers. That's just a technicality; discriminatory is such a loaded word that's it usually means "discriminatory for no good reason."
If a person's will allowed it, it would not be a moral problem. It's just a bunch of meat, after all. Though you should probably find some way to avoid all the diseases a corpse carries.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
