Is it wrong to ....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's the difference between a corpse and a blow up doll?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing ... but then its not a participant. Using a blow up doll is just a fancy way of masturbating - only one particpant whos clearly participating actively and positively.

[/ QUOTE ]Are you suggesting a corpse is participating?

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it's wrong, because all human beings have God-given dignity, and having sex with someone's corpse is a violation of that person's dignity.

[/ QUOTE ]Of which person's: the corpse's or the living human's?

[quinn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it's wrong, because all human beings have God-given dignity, and having sex with someone's corpse is a violation of that person's dignity.

[/ QUOTE ]Of which person's: the corpse's or the living human's?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking the corpse's. It might work the other way too, though.

Well, I don't think a corpse can have dignity since it is not a sentient being.

[quinn]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't think a corpse can have dignity since it is not a sentient being.

[/ QUOTE ]

The corpse doesn't have to have dignity for the act to be violating the dignity of the deceased person.

[ QUOTE ]
Using a blow up doll is just a fancy way of masturbating - only one particpant whos clearly participating actively and positively.

[/ QUOTE ]

And, again, how's that different from a corpse???

(I think we're talking just regular corpses, not zombies.)

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it's wrong, because all human beings have God-given dignity, and having sex with someone's corpse is a violation of that person's dignity.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a weak argument that is philosophically swiss cheese. If everyone has "God-given" dignity, when does it end? Obviously, you suggest a corpse still has "dignity". What about during an autopsy? Or organ donation? Or when the grave is moved? Or it is cremated? Or it is in a future museum as a skeleton? Or it is a cadaver used for medical teaching? What's the statue of limitations on dignity? "From dust to dust", isn't that the Biblical phrase, so "dust" has dignity, too, even after the soul is supposedly in heaven or hell? Does the soul in heaven get some telegram that its former body is being desecrated on earth? Would it care?

This doesn't make necrophilia right, per se, but you've made no argument that it is wrong.

I think JRoc's argument is legitimate -- it is the abuse of the property of someone's estate. Thus, morally wrong. But that's not why its on the books as a crime, that is more due to Judeo-Christian morality and because such a person is viewed as "digusting". But don't view laws on the books as some evidence of the immorality of an act. Sodomy is a crime in a lot of places, but there has never been a real argument as to why it is immoral between consenting adults. And don't say because its not procreation, because neither is the use of condoms or the traditional "pull-out", handjob, or blowjob, but they are not crimes.

[FlFishOn]

Feel free to laugh. I'm OK with it.

But as I look at specifically American society I see almost every disturbing, degrading, potentially disasterous change having moral relativism at it's core. It took root in the 60s and looks to be in full flower.

[ QUOTE ]
But as I look at specifically American society I see almost every disturbing, degrading, potentially disasterous change having moral relativism at it's root. It took root in the 60s and looks to be in full flower.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, let's go back to the morally clean era of the 1940s and 1950s -- ah the good ole days of segregation, women knew their place, homosexuals stayed in the closet, McCarthyism and ignorant respect for authority, and the dollar was still KING! American culture at its finest.

[FlFishOn]

I'm guessing here but I'd bet your personal view on history is short, less than 20 years. IMHO that invalidates your opinion here.

How's that for reactionary?