Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 13th April 2004, 15:25   #281
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
Direct incest will actually cause an increase in recessive homozygosity, meaning that there will be an increase in the displaying, and the concentration of, recessive phenotypes. Meaning that the stuff that evolution's decreased, will increase. Might happen 3 generations own the line, (If incest was allowed, this would become possible) or it might happen immediately. It's all just random chance.
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2004, 15:27   #282
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
no, we didnt say marraige was a legal thing, we said what we are talking about is marriage in the eyes of the government, which is a legal thing

we said that if they wanted to make it totally religious, then the government shouldnt allow benefits supporting one religion (which does not allow gays to marry) over another (which does)

and just because the government recognizes it, doesnt mean all of the religions are forced to

but i thought that the gov was involved in the marriage, which is how you got married at city hall, and how you can get married if you dont have a religion (agnostic, atheist), or if you get married to someone of a different religion

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2004, 15:48   #283
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
OK, so what if a gay couple went to a religion that DOES allow gay marriage, then said "We're married in our religion's eyes. Now let us declare it legally, with nothing to do with the Christian belief system" Would that satisfy everybody?
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2004, 15:56   #284
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
isnt that kinda what they are asking for? only, since atheists are allowed to marry, the gov would still have to recognize their marriage... or they wouldnt be allowed to recognize any (and give them benefits that they deny other relgions, or a lack thereof)

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2004, 15:59   #285
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
No, athiests just simply just say "I don't care" I can go thru a ceremony, or have a judge make it legally binding. They get to SKIP the religious side entirely if they want to, so they can ignore the religious clauses. Easiest way to do it, isn't it?
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2004, 16:37   #286
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Atheists being able to marry makes it clear that religious institutes should not control who gets married... Right?

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2004, 16:46   #287
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
The problem is that if it's at all a religious institution, the government shouldn't be able to touch it. The legal part of it must be completely independant of religion, or it would violate the first amendment. Otherwise religions could say, "And you shall go forth and marry pigs," and it could be so.

Still, the majority of people on this planet belong to some religious institution or other, so shoudln't the insitutions be allowed to debate their side as well without being bashed as homophobic?

The world is made of conflicts: good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark, hot and cold. All are essential to life. None can prevail for any length of time, or life will fail. In the end, the best any can hope for is balance.
Nimelennar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2004, 17:48   #288
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
thats our point... if its a religous institute, thats fine, but the government cant favor a religion by giving them benefits (for being married) and ignore religions (and atheists) that allow/want gay marriage..

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2004, 18:19   #289
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
The problem is that if it's at all a religious institution, the government shouldn't be able to touch it. The legal part of it must be completely independant of religion, or it would violate the first amendment. Otherwise religions could say, "And you shall go forth and marry pigs," and it could be so.

Still, the majority of people on this planet belong to some religious institution or other, so shoudln't the insitutions be allowed to debate their side as well without being bashed as homophobic?
... I'm not sure how this supports the cause of anti-"SSM".

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2004, 21:10   #290
whiteflip
Post Master General
(Forum King)
 
whiteflip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas
Posts: 6,032
Some one should send this thread to congress even though those illeterate bastards don't read. Look at the patriot act. I'm pretty sure a majority of them did not read it, or just skimmed it. Like I did with the 60ish posts from the last time I posted here. I'll go back and read it all later.

I'm Back?
whiteflip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2004, 21:21   #291
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
... I'm not sure how this supports the cause of anti-"SSM".
Because the majority of relious institutions (listed in that article I posted before) all agree that same-sex marriage should not be allowed.

The world is made of conflicts: good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark, hot and cold. All are essential to life. None can prevail for any length of time, or life will fail. In the end, the best any can hope for is balance.
Nimelennar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2004, 22:03   #292
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
Because the majority of relious institutions (listed in that article I posted before) all agree that same-sex marriage should not be allowed.
So what's wrong with a 'civil union' that grants the legal benefits?

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 00:17   #293
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
Because the majority of relious institutions (listed in that article I posted before) all agree that same-sex marriage should not be allowed.
Quick question: Are we ever going to come to agreement on the idea of whether or not religion should control the govt?

edit: I decided I migt as well add this, also.

I do not think that there has yet been an argument against SSM been proven valid here. Therefore, there is no reason to outlaw it. And there is surely no reason to have a constitutional ammendment against it regardless, but that is beside the point.

Let's say that the anti-SSM side somehow pulls togehter a cohesive argument agasint SSM that most people can agree is a good point and cannot really be refuted. It would have to justify the discrimination against SSM and the contradiction of the ideas of persuing happiness.

In the unlikely event that this is the case, the pro-SSM side would have to pul together an argument that is more important or overrules the previous anti-SSM argument. And I am, in all honesty, getting tired of this thread so I will post the said argument here.

almost all anti-SSM people are whining about the sanctity of marriage, which is funny because (given the topic of the thread) there really isn't any. But let's say that SSM is outlawed.

flashback: I don't have a source now, but I know this happened. Pres George Bush was giving a speech to a crowd in some town, I think it was back east but i'm not sure. Anyways, he was feeling nice and actually designated a spot for anyone who was against him to stand and protest or do whatever they wanted to do. There was a drawback, hoever: This said location was at too far away from the event for the protesters to be heard or seen.

Then, when the President's motorcade or whatever its called was passing through some place, only supporters were allowed to watch or wave ont he side of the road. The White House later cited "security concerns" but that is B.S. and everyone knows it. Basically the President was keeping people from speaking out against him.

In addition, the Patriot Act has been put into action.

So basically, the Pres has limited people from speaking agaisnt him and is infringing on privacy...... I'd say that his first goal of being President is really to upholding the Constitution. He's doing more damage to it than anything else. And an Amdendment agaisnt SSM would certainly keep people from persuing happiness. It seems to be getting easier and easier for someone to "break" the constitution, so to speak. And if they can pass an anti-SSM amendment, there is no telling how much more of the Constitution will be trampled on.

That said, I see a much greater threat to the upholding of the constitution than I see to the sanctity of marriage. And in any case, the protecting the constitution is far more important than protecting marriage.

Last edited by mikeflca; 14th April 2004 at 01:10.
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 01:45   #294
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
so if there are no "valid arguements" against SSM, what are the "valid arguements FOR ssm?

1. Right to happiness != right to marriage
2. Equality demands the same for incestuous marriages.
3. Religion shouldn't be included in legislature. what is religion other than a belief? and by what right should your beliefs (pro ssm) be supported and the opposite (anti ssm) belief overturned?


Instead of blindly yalling "constitution", please back your "contitutional" ideas with exact lines from the consitution please.

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 01:56   #295
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
Okay, mikeflca, now you've just pissed me off.
I have been frequenting this thread for a while, and whenever I make a post, people blatantly take part of it out of context and blast me for it.
For example: the actual conversation was:
-Shouldn't the institutions be allowed to debate their side as well without being bashed as homophobic?
-... I'm not sure how this supports the cause of anti-"SSM".
-Because the majority of relious institutions (listed in that article I posted before) all agree that same-sex marriage should not be allowed.

mikeflca, you took it out of context, and implied that I wanted religion to control the government. I said that they should be allowed to debate their side, and, earlier in the same post, said that the legal part of marriage should be completely independant of religion.

I'm going to refrain from flaming you for it, but in future I may not be so generous to people who are taking what I'm saying out of context.

As to what the two of you had said:
xzxzzx: A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.
In English: It's the same damn thing! It doesn't matter what you call it, it would be marriage in every sense but the name.

mikeflca: I did give one good reason, one which no one has fully refuted yet:
if SSM was allowed, incestuous marriages would have to be allowed as well, because:
1) the preferred means of sex, unprotected, can result in damage to a human being in both situations (birth defects from vaginal sex within an incestuous relationship, increased risk of cancer and HIV transmission with anal sex)
2) While procreation within an incestuous relationship can lead to birth defects, so can procreation within a relationship where the mother does drugs. Doing drugs while pregnant carries a penalty no worse than doing them at any other time.
3) An incestuous homosexual relationship has no difference to a conventional homosexual relationship with regards to health risks.

Yet, despite all of this, incest is still considered wrong. If a implies b, then not-b implies not-a. In other words, if SSM being morally right implies incest is morally right, then incest being morally wrong implies SSM is morally wrong.

Also: I agree with the entire flashback statement, save for the second-to-last paragraph. Other than that I agree that Bush was full of BS in that "debate."

[edit: clarified just who pissed me off]

The world is made of conflicts: good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark, hot and cold. All are essential to life. None can prevail for any length of time, or life will fail. In the end, the best any can hope for is balance.
Nimelennar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 02:36   #296
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
true, nimmelenar, that was a bad quote. I should have directed my "response" to it more at the thread in general than at you.

Although I would find it quite funny if you started flaming It's not like you can actually hurt me by flaming. you can only look like a fool but let's stay civilized. we don't want to give any proof to the claim from that sonique guy that all we do is flame. soooo, back on topic:

OK, i will get to the constitution in a sec, lets see the other arguments first:

@GqSkrub:

as for point
#1: In the case of SSM I think that holds true.....but read below....and anal sex? please....
2. What is your point?
3. I'm sure this has been discussed b4.....but OK....here we go.

If SSM is BANNED, then YOU are forcing YOUR beliefs upon others.
If SSM is allowed, NOBODY is forcing their beliefs upon YOU. you can just ignore it.

Quote:

Instead of blindly yalling "constitution", please back your "contitutional" ideas with exact lines from the consitution please.
That's funny, as most anti-SSM politicians blindly yell "sanctity of marriage!" But I see your point.

Quote:
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
Banning SSM demotes the general welfare (of gays). You can also look at it as oppressing them because they pose no threat to you, so therefore you have no right to impose your ideas on them; yet you are trying to do that. So you are trying to keep them from securing their blessings of liberty.

and as for what the President has done, that violates:

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The fact that the President's acts have happened and that the patriot act went through, it appears to be getting easier to sidestep the constitution. and an amendment against SSM is yet "another step" in that direction.........
The problem is, which one is more important: (pleae note I am arguing as if this is contained to the U.S., if you aren't here in the U.S. then none of this is really pertenaint but read anywayz) : So which one is more important:
1) Protecting the Constitution and upholding it (supposedly what the Pres swears to do when he is sowrn in )
or
2) "Protecting" marriage (I still think that idea is kinda funny, hence the quotation marks) with only one even somewhat plausible argument that really doesn't matter imo, which will mess up the constitution (and amendments) even further?

please note that by "you" I mean the anti-SSM crowd in general.

Quote:
Also: I agree with the entire flashback statement, save for the second-to-last paragraph. Other than that I agree that Bush was full of BS in that "debate."
LOL that's funny. But it looks like you have no reasons. Remember, we don't want anyone to just shout out anything like "I disagree," do we? So, reasons, please......

nimelennar, here's the problem with your argument about the reason not fully refuted. I have heard 2 sides of the issure about birth defects from the anti-SSM camp. one says that hey, its just like anal sex (which is wrong and has been fully refuted). So you go on to say that thing about pregnancy and drugs. I agree with you, that should be illegal. the other point about birth defects says that there won't really be problems unless the same family inbreeds continuously. Well, you have to pick one side....and then read further.
Quote:
If a implies b, then not-b implies not-a. In other words, if SSM being morally right implies incest is morally right, then incest being morally wrong implies SSM is morally wrong.
uh-huh. right......I guess you haven't read my posts? ok. Well, regardless of my above statements, if you want to have incest, I think that it is morally wrong. However, I, UNLIKE many of you out there, realize that I should not control others with my ideas and therefore say that I don't care about it. If you really wanna do it go ahead, Although I think you are a bit moronic. But like I said, its not my job to decide for you. Or judge you, for that matter.

Now, if you picked the "oh, its gonna create defects" side, then you have a somewhat plausible argument against incest. If you picked the "nah, it won't really happen cause it takes generations of incest to fuck you up" side, then it looks like there is no arguments against it. Although I sure as hell wouldn't do it. But that's also my stance on homosexuality: I think its a bit....odd.....but to each his own.
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 02:49   #297
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
well i would have to say that, using your simplicity, Nimelennar, if a happens, that doesnt necessarily mean that b will happen as well. ssm is recognizing gays, not incestuous people, leave it alone. If they want to marry, theyll have to start their own damn thread.

I hardly see how you can compare anal sex and incest. First, if anal sex is an act of love, and especially considering its between 2 consenting adults who love each oher...then they wont have it unsafely (theyll use lube, theyll do it with TLC). To say that it transmits aids...well yeah so does normal sex...are you saying it should be illegal for people with incurable diseases to be banned from sex? AND if they were married, and one had AIDS, thats their decision to still have sex.

Not saying incest couldnt be an act of love...but as for incest, Incest occurs over generations...GENERATIONS!!! not once over. It takes at minimum three generations for a mutation to surface, and then ur talking very few offspring with any problems(those that get 2x mutations could die off and ud never know about them, or 2x mutation does nothing at all, most mutations do nothing at all) So you have to have sex with your sister, your kids would then have to have sex, then in their kids you would finally see, if any, a problem.

PLEASE stop using the anal sex arguement...sexual preference is protected by law...this arguement does you no good.
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 02:51   #298
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
Okay: I don't agree that the "anal sex is just like birth defects" has been refuted entirely, but my point was rather to say that if you're going to throw one of the rules of marriage out the window, why not throw a second, a third, or a fourth, or a fifth (granted, the only other three restrictions besides differing gender and familial distancing are age, quantity, and species, and the first has been shown to be different, the second is already under deliberation in this thread and the third is, at the moment, irrelevant because only sentient beings can give consent)?

And as to why I think that the statement, "an Amendment agaisnt SSM would certainly keep people from persuing happiness" is false, I believe that if you really are in love that much, that marriage would not bring you any closer to happiness, nor would the lack of marriage prevent you from attaining it. A few legal rights should not be a barrier to happiness if their love is real.

The world is made of conflicts: good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark, hot and cold. All are essential to life. None can prevail for any length of time, or life will fail. In the end, the best any can hope for is balance.
Nimelennar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 02:58   #299
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
And as to why I think that the statement, "an Amendment agaisnt SSM would certainly keep people from persuing happiness" is false, I believe that if you really are in love that much, that marriage would not bring you any closer to happiness, nor would the lack of marriage prevent you from attaining it. A few legal rights should not be a barrier to happiness if their love is real.
Brown v. board of education topeka kansas...it says separate is not equal basically. It is ILLEGAL to allow one party certain freedoms and deny those same freedoms to other groups. Maybe gays arguement isnt about happiness, of course they are happy(theyre gay!!!) but what about equality. They are experiencing some of the same biases that af. amer. went through during the 50s. I would say those few legal rights would fall under federal law...denying them the right not to marry can be construed as denying them basic rights, rights that should be protected by the government...



[EDIT] Nimelennar, this is serious question cause i dont know the answer, but if America passed this law and allowed SSM, would this affect Canada? [/EDIT}
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 02:59   #300
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
Quote:
Originally posted by billyvnilly
well i would have to say that, using your simplicity, Nimelennar, if a happens, that doesnt necessarily mean that b will happen as well. ssm is recognizing gays, not incestuous people, leave it alone. If they want to marry, theyll have to start their own damn thread.

I hardly see how you can compare anal sex and incest. First, if anal sex is an act of love, and especially considering its between 2 consenting adults who love each oher...then they wont have it unsafely (theyll use lube, theyll do it with TLC). To say that it transmits aids...well yeah so does normal sex...are you saying it should be illegal for people with incurable diseases to be banned from sex? AND if they were married, and one had AIDS, thats their decision to still have sex.

Not saying incest couldnt be an act of love...but as for incest, Incest occurs over generations...GENERATIONS!!! not once over. It takes at minimum three generations for a mutation to surface, and then ur talking very few offspring with any problems(those that get 2x mutations could die off and ud never know about them, or 2x mutation does nothing at all, most mutations do nothing at all) So you have to have sex with your sister, your kids would then have to have sex, then in their kids you would finally see, if any, a problem.

PLEASE stop using the anal sex arguement...sexual preference is protected by law...this arguement does you no good.
Gwah? All I was saying was once the definiton of marriage is "any two human who love each other, who are not related and are of age," there will be no arrgument against incest, because, as you so plainly point out, the damage from incest occurs over generations, and if anal sex, which is more harmful, is protected under law, shouldn't incestual sex be?

That pillar of marriage will have to fall soon after the differing sex one, simply because there is no reason for it not to, once the "protecting the sanctity of marriage" argument is gone.

By the way, it has been proven that HIV is transmitted much more readily through anal sex and through vaginal sex.

The world is made of conflicts: good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark, hot and cold. All are essential to life. None can prevail for any length of time, or life will fail. In the end, the best any can hope for is balance.
Nimelennar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 03:02   #301
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
Quote:
Originally posted by billyvnilly
Brown v. board of education topeka kansas...it says separate is not equal basically. It is ILLEGAL to allow one party certain freedoms and deny those same freedoms to other groups. Maybe gays arguement isnt about happiness, of course they are happy(theyre gay!!!) but what about equality. They are experiencing some of the same biases that af. amer. went through during the 50s. I would say those few legal rights would fall under federal law...denying them the right not to marry can be construed as denying them basic rights, rights that should be protected by the government...
[edit]Affect us, yes, I believe it would affect us. If you're asking whether Canada would automatically be bound by the US's decision, then no, but the effect would definitely be palpable.[/edit]
All right, then I'll apply for my maternity leave now... What? I can't have it because I'm a guy?!?! Discrimination!

The world is made of conflicts: good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark, hot and cold. All are essential to life. None can prevail for any length of time, or life will fail. In the end, the best any can hope for is balance.
Nimelennar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 03:06   #302
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 03:08   #303
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
[edit] Whoops! Didn't mean to post that twice [/edit]

The world is made of conflicts: good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark, hot and cold. All are essential to life. None can prevail for any length of time, or life will fail. In the end, the best any can hope for is balance.
Nimelennar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 03:09   #304
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
By the way, it has been proven that HIV is transmitted much more readily through anal sex and through vaginal sex.
ino i posted that back here

but the fact is they are consenting adults...you cant say they cant have sex cause one of them has aids

[EDIT] k, just curious if our international relations were THAT bound or not, other than geographic location of course [/EDIt]
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 03:14   #305
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
Quote:
Originally posted by billyvnilly
ino i posted that back here

but the fact is they are consenting adults...you cant say they cant have sex cause one of them has aids
I know that. I'm SAYING that if you remove one pillar of marriage, namely the fact that the participants have to be of opposite sex to each other, then incestual marriages will surely follow, because, in the short run at least, it is much less harmful to all involved, as you yourself said, and if one pillar can be removed, why not the one that says "no incest" too?

Please don't make me repeat myself again.

The world is made of conflicts: good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark, hot and cold. All are essential to life. None can prevail for any length of time, or life will fail. In the end, the best any can hope for is balance.
Nimelennar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 04:11   #306
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
listen, this is not about incest... this is about gay marriage, you cant say 'but if you let the gays do it, then they will want to too' because it might end up being the case that they deserve the right to get married as well.. but they have to say why they should or shouldnt get married... i dont know about incest, because i havent thought about it much.. but right now, this is about gay marriage, and why cant two people of the same sex get married.. and saying 'look what america has come to' is not a reason..

maybe incestual marriage should be legal(like is said, i dont know much about incest..), but we have to make one step at a time, and right now, that step is same sex marriage

edit:

and as for the discrimination against guys for going on materntity leave (-_-)

thats like saying its discrimination to force a healthy person to work, but giving someone who was hit by a car sick leave...

maternity leave is for pregnant women, because it can hurt the child (and the mother) if they have to do certain things at work

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 05:13   #307
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
SO... if we have freedom to practice whatever religion we so choose, doesn't anyone then, have the right to oppose gay marriage due to religion, no matter how intolerant that is?

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 05:22   #308
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
you have the right to oppose it (just like you can be a racist), but you cant take action to the point where it hurts their rights...

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 06:45   #309
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
Originally posted by GqSkrub
SO... if we have freedom to practice whatever religion we so choose, doesn't anyone then, have the right to oppose gay marriage due to religion, no matter how intolerant that is?
Sure. You can oppose it all you want. As long as their legal rights arn't encroached upon.

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 08:42   #310
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
So like I keep saying, is there an actually believeable argument that you can come up with that can actually come up with a reason for gays not to have a SSM, or even a civil uinion that doesn't actually hurt thier rights?

And stop bringing up incest, Nim. It's not related, it's not relevant, and it's just plain stupid.
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 08:51   #311
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
well, its relevant, but like i said... if they want to get married, they would have to bring up their issues.. and i dont know enough about incest (or why its illegal) to actually argue why its right or wrong...

its like if they used the argument 'if you lets blacks and whites marry each other, then whats next, the gays will want to get married!?'

but like i said.. i havent seen a valid argument for or against incest, except that it causes mutations which are more harmful than anal sex for multiple reasons that we have stated... (speaking of incest... in the bible, how does cain get a wife.. and where do the people come from? if it goes over that, mine skips it...)

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 09:04   #312
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
Yeah, according to the bible, IIRC, (Probably don't, btw), All the origional people were inbred as all f**k, and so were Adam & Eve's kids. Especially considering Eve would be almost genetically identical to Adam....

But yeah, incest is bad for 3 main reasons:
1) Socially unacceptable - Gays aren't anymore.
2) Genetic mutations a few generations down the line - Not an option with gays.
3) Increased homozygosity in the offspring, resulting in decreased genetic diversity. This means that if the parents have a chance for something bad in thier genes, the kids will have that chance greatly increased, and the chance for the displaying of detrimental genetic defects is increased continually for as long as the inbreeding continues.
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 20:25   #313
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
so what does social acceptablity have anything to do with morality or legality?

Medicines and basically any healthcare decrease genetic diversity by removing the forces that drive genetic evolution, so is medical practice wrong?

Example:
Having people diabetes get treatment allows them reproduce and pass the genetic flaw that causes diabetes.



SO by this reasoning, incest and gay marraiges should be legalized, since they "don't hurt anyone" but instead "impede rights".


@mikeflca

to promote the general welfare is meant to be generalized (aka everyone). to say general welfare of gays is counter to the spirit of the phrase.

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 20:42   #314
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Incest does hurt people. It has no appreciable benefit, and very definate problems.

Medical intervention does indeed cause problems with evolution. It's fucking with the natural system, whether that system was designed by a God or any other way.

However, it has very definate benefits - that is, someone not going blind, etc.

The gays are part of the general welfare - what is good for the gays and has no effect on the rest of us has an overall positive effect.

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 21:39   #315
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
It hurts people religiously, which is part of welfare as well.


<edit> i know it's a stretch. but there's not much left. we should find something else to talk about </edit>

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 22:06   #316
EternalSSaturn
Senior Member
 
EternalSSaturn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Buda, TX, USA
Posts: 156
Send a message via AIM to EternalSSaturn Send a message via Yahoo to EternalSSaturn
the only incest that should be discussed here is gay incest.
It's the only thing that's topical.
EternalSSaturn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2004, 22:27   #317
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Funny example there, GqSkrub. I have type one diabetes and nobody in my family has had it other than me. Conceded, it generally seems to go in families, but my own existence disproves your point.

Your example is flawed in addition because there are cures, rather than just treatments, out there that can actually solve the problem of diabetes. But the problem is, a lot of evangelical Christians are bitching about the poor stem cells, and as a result, Pres Bush didn't fund any stem cell research.

And simply to be analyctical:

what a coincidnce, these people are generally the ones most outspoken against SSM......


Quote:
It hurts people religiously, which is part of welfare as well.
I assume you mean that if a couple gay guys get married, then it will hurt a some religious people who don't like gay marriage.

Are you serious? Yeah, that is one hell of a stretch....

It follows this logic:
Because I don't like your idea, I can impose my ideas on you simply because your ideas might make me slightly unhappy? Are you actually trying to justify this argument?!? That argument works much better for gays/lesbians than it does for religious anti-SSM people.....

Quote:
we should find something else to talk about
conceded.


Quote:
to promote the general welfare is meant to be generalized (aka everyone). to say general welfare of gays is counter to the spirit of the phrase.
ok, this is getting out of hand. we SHOULD discuss something else, when all we can do is argue over the Constitution.

Gays are part of "everyone". and it is much more beneficial towards gays and therefore the larger group to allow gay marriage than it is to ban it. Remember, society is better off if we are all happy.
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2004, 00:24   #318
whiteflip
Post Master General
(Forum King)
 
whiteflip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas
Posts: 6,032
There really isn't a universal ethic or all encompassing law of morality. From culture to culture it varies. But than you can say that some people are wrong and incest is wrong. The offspring of incest couples are more often than not fucked up and are forced to live a life of fuckupage. Sometimes genetic mutations from incest can be a good thing but its usally a second/third cousin type thing where the genes are still farily diverse. It is believed that french genes that allow them to eat and metabolize cholestrol better than other people came from incest mutations.

None the less, gay marriages does not hurt anyone, they aren't making babies, they aren't knifing people, they aren't ruining society. If anything gay marriage has a great possibility to strengthen society. More houses will be sold and cars bought is an economic plus for society. Perhaps hetero couples who are considering divorce will think twice and focus on their marriage when they realize that a gay couple can do it so why cant they?

I don't see gay marriages as hurting America in anyway. Once there is difinitive proof that it does than I will consider not allowing for it. That is, if there is a initiative or referendum or something put up that I can vote on.

I'm Back?
whiteflip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2004, 00:53   #319
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
should mentally handicapped people be prevented from bearing children, then?

just to complicate this matter more

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2004, 01:39   #320
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
All right, fuck explanations, you people don't understand them anyway, I am God, and I am going to sum some shit up:
  • Gun control:
    See "Murderers".
  • Marihuana:
    Legalize.
  • Incest:
    Shoot anyone who asks.
  • Retarded people:
    No children for them.
  • Gay marriage:
    Who the fuck are you to determine who can marry?
  • Rapists:
    See "Incest".
  • Atheists
    If they don't care, why should you?

I'll post more later.

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump