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

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 15th April 2004, 03:32   #321
MStar
Major Dude
 
MStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 1,491
Send a message via ICQ to MStar Send a message via AIM to MStar Send a message via Yahoo to MStar
Ah xzxzzx.
Summed up this topic in one bullet list.

MStar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2004, 04:32   #322
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
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......


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.....

conceded.


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.

I like everything you said, except the part on disease. There are other causes of diabetes other than genetics, and the example was just that, an example. The idea that genetically superior traits are not selected for due to interference from health care still stands regardless of your situational rebuttal. Other diseases such as achondroplasia, Sickle cell anemia (positively chosen for in areas rampant with malaria), we also become more suceptible to things such as colds and flus since we no longer die from them (and therefore don't adapt to them). THere are more but i don't include them.

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2004, 05:16   #323
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
yeah, that's true.

But I don't uite get what you are trying to prove here. yes, I read your post.......

Quote:
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".
The only way that SSM would fit into the argument with healthcare is if we revert to the anal sex argument......do we have to go there? (NO PUN INTENDED ) That argument .....


but, i don't quite get what you are trying to prove. There is a general flaw with the medical argument because I believe that (govt funding pending, and as long as the little minorities STFU about the poor DNA strand being opened up etc)we may be on the verge of many genetic breakthroughs including things i the area of genetic research that may eventually eliminate genetic disorders. Bu I'll ignore that for now, as it is irrelevant....

Quote:
SO by this reasoning, incest and gay marraiges should be legalized
ok. Although I think incest is immoral in many ways and incestual people ae idiotic and moronic......but, I am what many extreme anti-SSM people are afraid of--I can have morals without imposing them on anyone. Its funny, if a lot more people were like me, this SSM thing wouldn't be a topic, probably.

But if i missed your point, tell me what it was, I didn't really get this whole argument with medicine and stuff....
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2004, 08:41   #324
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
NO, INCEST SHOULD NOT BE LEGALISED. It DOES hurt people, both in the genetic sense, and the socialogical one, if not the psychological one, too. Stop bringing it up, it isn't applicable, and you're just bringing up irrelevant CRAP to interfere with an intelligent debate you are very rapidly losing.
Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, but it just bugs people who are homophonic (You know what that REALLY means, don't you?), or religious nuts, or people try impose thier morals/beliefs/ideas/wahtever onto other people.

And as for the mention last page of wether or not mental retarded people shouldn't have kids: Well, no, they shouldn't. The kid will probably have the same defect, and the parent won't be able to take care of the child properly, especially considering all the special needs.
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2004, 15:34   #325
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Here's why this thread doesn't go anywhere:
The people who support ssm, are the same people who continue to define in this forum what is rational, and what is a valid argument. When someone tries to explain their argument against SSM, they are called either: off topic, insane, or irrational.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2004, 16:07   #326
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
well... i think incest is a valid argument in a sense... the only thing i havent heard is a real reason why it shouldnt be legalized.. after all, isnt saying people cant have sex with family members abusing their privacy?

but the anal sex is off topic for a number of reasons (lesbians dont.. you can use condoms, and its not the only way to have sex for gay people)

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2004, 16:53   #327
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
that's because when the anti-ssm people try to come up with arguments, they either bring up unrelated stuff (Incest, rape, the medical things to do with anal sex, etc - OFF TOPIC), or arguments that can't hold any goddamn water - INSANE/IRRATIONAL
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2004, 17:29   #328
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Quote:
The people who support ssm, are the same people who continue to define in this forum what is rational, and what is a valid argument. When someone tries to explain their argument against SSM, they are called either: off topic, insane, or irrational.
Examples please. for the most part, almost any argument against SSM is irrational or something like it. I mean, come one, anal sex?
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2004, 20:05   #329
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
When someone tries to explain their argument against SSM, they are called either: off topic, insane, or irrational.
i, for one, won't call someone that unless they are. if you're not, prove it.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2004, 20:21   #330
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
to add on to my last post...

trying to take something directly from "God" or the Bible and making an amendment out of it is illegal. Even GqSkrub agrees with me here.

Like I have said countless times, there is only one even somewhat logical argument against SSM.

note: it seems like I am the only one awake when everyone else on this thread sleeps and vice versa........its annoying lol......
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2004, 21:41   #331
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
my arguement was this:

If SSM is legalized, incest would have to be legalized.

The major reason against incest is that it hurts people by negatively affecting genes. My medince arguement follows by saying that healthcare in GENERAL negatively affects genes. In addition, incest only manifests negative genomic effcts through several generations of inbreeding. In addition, non-incestuous progeny also can experience negative mutations. So there is no arguement that supports ssm that doesn't support incest. And that is my point.

<edit>

Quote:
trying to take something directly from "God" or the Bible and making an amendment out of it is illegal. Even GqSkrub agrees with me here.

This is true. Because of the diversity of religion, using the bible as a "standard" is Christianocentric (i made it up) and is selfish. I purposely avoid any quotes in the constitution as i don't believe in freedom FROM religion(different than freedom OF religion). However, if there is an agreement among relgions against gay marriage, than i believe there can be a valid arguement founded. Both sides have a right to a belief. I also believe that, as in all matters, a comprimise can be had.

I was gonna say something else but i forgot.

</edit>

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2004, 22:24   #332
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
the taboo against incest were set in place to protect minors. Since there is no way to police what goes on inside the home, we as a society needed to instill a taboo about incest in order to protect.

But homosexuality taboos dont protect anyone do they? There is no political societal reason for them. The only reason is religous.

So heres a case why one could be legalized and the other not...homosexuality is between consenting adults...if it was with a minor, there are laws in place to protect and punish those people...BUT with incest, its inside the home, involving tied people, much more difficult to uncover.

this is a summation of a libertarian web pagehere


obviously Bush doesnt know what separation of church and state is...

[edit] electricmime: i dunno why but lol regarding sig[/edit]
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2004, 22:28   #333
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
thats what i thought too.. because i thought most cases of incest were rape.. and if its your father or mother or older brother... and you are a little kid.. who would you tell... who would you know to tell?

but still.. they might still have to change the law against incest (unless there are other reasons) so it protects the children, and yet gives freedom to the adults?

and like i have said about a thousand times... (and im tempted to make my signature) i dont know that much about incest

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2004, 02:17   #334
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Quote:
If SSM is legalized, incest would have to be legalized.
1. Not until anyone asks for it.
2. there are arguments on either side of incest, some of which (yeah, I know this might be hard for some people here to believe) are actually NOT the same if applied to SSM.
3. What's your point?
4. This whole argument is funny because it says, "yeah, we can't find anything really wrong with SSM so we will point at something esle and try to compare them."
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2004, 05:18   #335
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Ok, to clear up the whole incest vs same-sex marriage.

Incest:
  1. Breaks down the psychological "barriers" between family members. This could easily lead to pedophilia sort of relationships.
  2. Is genetically harmful. Even if no overt problems exist in the first generation, they are going to be more likely to genetically inferior. The reasons for this are hard to explain without going deep into evolution and genetic theory, but just trust me here.
vs.

Same Sex Marriage:
  • No genetic damage to the gene pool. They can't procreate.
  • Theoretically, married gay couples would be subject to the same rules as heterosexual couples - that is, they could not have sex with others. This reduces prevalence of STDs.
  • Two gay, stable parents are probably better than two fucked up heterosexual ones.

That's all I can think of right now.

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 16th April 2004, 05:30   #336
ShyShy
Amazon Bush Woman
Forum Queen
 
ShyShy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Sticks, Queensland
Posts: 8,067
How in the hell are you (generic "you") going to compare the legalization of same sex unions to legalizing incest? That has to be the shittiest/lamest thing I've yet to hear on this subject. And, yes, I am for legalizing same sex unions. If two PEOPLE of consentual age want to get married, why the hell not? Jebus, I've known gay couples whose relationship have lasted, and been stronger than some of my straight friends.

You know what, though? I really think it's time to just let this argument drop. I'm not going to change anyone's opinion that's against it, and you're not going to change mine. And that's all I've got to say to this one.
ShyShy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2004, 06:30   #337
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 xzxzzx
The reasons for this are hard to explain without going deep into evolution and genetic theory, but just trust me here
ive had 9hrs of college genetics...so no i dont trust you.
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2004, 09:10   #338
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
do we really want him to make a 9 hour post to explain genetics though...

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2004, 09:12   #339
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
WOW! a whole 9 hours!!!

I've had 2 and a half years. He's right.
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2004, 14:34   #340
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
and i've had 3 years of it. I R WINNER!!!

anyways... i just like debating. I'm actually not anti-SSM. The only qualm i have over SSM is that there are a few points that would have to be treaded over carefully. I am under the impression, maybe wrongly, that gays want to be married in order to recieve benefits. However, if this became the case, would religious non-profit groups, or even for profit groups be legally required to extend the same benefits to gays that they give to heterosexuals? or should religious univeristies be required to view these two people as married? would churches who chose not to marry gays be open to lawsuits?

If there is an exception, how do we differenciate between truly religous groups and discriminatory groups disguising themselves as religious?

you can never ever have a true seperation of anything, even oil and water have to touch somewhere.

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2004, 20:53   #341
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
well.. they wouldnt have to recognize them as a marriage in their gods eyes...

and also.. religious colleges are priveate... so they dont have to do anything

and non profit groups that didnt might be criticized.. but i dont know if they would be forced

i dont think churches would be forced to either

and the only reason people keep bringing up benefits... is because they dont think its fair for the government to offer benefits for married people... and yet deny marriage to a large group of people who are in a solid relationship that is like marriage...

either the government should not offer the benefits for a religious institute... or they should allow them to marry

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2004, 00:26   #342
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
... or they can just give them the benefits. I once knew a school that was private and all boys, it was then sued and had to allow girls to enter. It was national news. I might be wrong cuz i can't rmemeber names to save my life and therefore google can't help. But if it's true, then religious colleges could be sued.

If religons don't have to recognize them in their god's eyes, then do they still have to recognize it legally?

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2004, 00:42   #343
whiteflip
Post Master General
(Forum King)
 
whiteflip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas
Posts: 6,032
Private institutions should be allowed to discriminate against anyone they want. Otherwise we would be living in a facioust socialist dictatorship. OH WAIT WE DO! Fucking hippies and commies.

I'm Back?
whiteflip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2004, 01:13   #344
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
private schools can (or at least should be allowed to) discriminate...

how can they sue?! are you sure that the parents didnt pull their kids out(in protest) which forced the school to allow girls in? because thats possible.. but private schools dont have to do the stuff that public schools do >.>

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2004, 02:35   #345
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
This is starting to remind me of that thread about whether or not a shop could dsicriminate against really hairy people....

A private institution, like a religious school, can, as far as i know, not recognize gays as married if it wants to....... because it is after all a Private school.
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2004, 15:10   #346
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
without specific legislation protecting gays from discrimination of that sort, yes, mikeflca. obviously if such a school were openly not accepting blacks, there'd be a problem, for example.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2004, 02:43   #347
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
i'm glad someone can see my point. Well this has been a good debate guys. think of other stuff now, like whether physicians should be able to help patients kill themselves.

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2004, 02:55   #348
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
what does that have to do with same sex marriage though?

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2004, 03:11   #349
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally posted by GqSkrub
i'm glad someone can see my point. Well this has been a good debate guys. think of other stuff now, like whether physicians should be able to help patients kill themselves.
It sure is nice to know that we are all so optomistic about our lives.....but, yes, nice debate people.....we went, what, nine pages without flaming? w00t!
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2004, 03:53   #350
horse-fly
Account Closed
 
horse-fly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,360
Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
It sure is nice to know that we are all so optomistic about our lives.....but, yes, nice debate people.....we went, what, nine pages without flaming? w00t!
you suck!
horse-fly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2004, 01:18   #351
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
No you suck. and you know what?


No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2004, 16:12   #352
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 ShyShy
How in the hell are you (generic "you") going to compare the legalization of same sex unions to legalizing incest?
Very easily. It's the same argument for both:

Quote:
Originally posted by ShyShy
If two PEOPLE of consentual age want to get married, why the hell not?
Where in that statement does it say anything about their genetic relationship???

Quote:
Originally posted by ShyShy
Jebus, I've known gay couples whose relationship have lasted, and been stronger than some of my straight friends.
As for the length of relationships, you can't have ones that last much longer than those with your family...

Sorry... Been away a few days and wanted to reply to Shy's question.

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 19th April 2004, 21:46   #353
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
Very easily. It's the same argument for both:
no it's not. it's been clearly shown that the basis for banning one and not the other are seperate. it's a couple of posts up.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th April 2004, 02:30   #354
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Yeah, saying they are the same is getting really old now, especially given the number of times it has been proven otherwise. If you really want to cimplain about incest, start another thread. I think its pretty much a closed topic here, unless you can bring about some really amazing argument......

I guess this is what heppens when you try to respond to an old post lol....
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th April 2004, 06:12   #355
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
but it hasn't been "clearly" shown. the main arguement was that incest affected someone else. Well, what doesn't? It was argued that incest causes "fucked up kids". Well, not allowing natural selection to take place but instead allowing the genetically faulty genes to have children we allow for "fucked up kids".


All arguements that gays should be allowed to marry, like, LOVE, or RIGHT to happiness are equally applicable to a brother who loves his sister. He should have right to marry her. As for chance for rape or molestation, that is a seperate issue from allowing incestuous marriages.


I don't understand the problem anyways... if you are for ssm, why not sfm (same family marriage)? what's the big deal? like you've said before, it doesn't affect you, why limit them? Or does this ruin the sanctity of marriage?

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th April 2004, 18:45   #356
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
I'm guessing you missed xzxzzx's post about halfway up the page?
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th April 2004, 19:39   #357
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by GqSkrub
but it hasn't been "clearly" shown. the main arguement was that incest affected someone else. Well, what doesn't? It was argued that incest causes "fucked up kids". Well, not allowing natural selection to take place but instead allowing the genetically faulty genes to have children we allow for "fucked up kids".
this paragraph is brilliant.

you're trying to prove that it's essentially the same by saying that it's not?

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st April 2004, 20:09   #358
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
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.
zootm, I think he's trying to disprove the point of genetic problems by showing that other things cause genetic problems too, and they are ok (medical intervention, for example).

Above is my post regaurding Medical Intervention vs. Incest.

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