| Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | |
| Ray Patterson |
| ||
It's also bad to argue that consenting homosexual adults are comparable to pedophiles and serial killers. Two adult men that want to marry are different in, and this is important, they're not infringing on anyone else's rights where as pedophiles and serial killers are. See how that works? |
| serious question. |
| ||
Why did you bring religion into this? To me it's a societal and political issue, not a religious one. So again I ask, since no one has responded to my question on p. 2, why does society forbid incest (between two consensual adults in a non-child bearing situation)? Or polygamy? 99% of Americans think incest is wrong, and not simply because "God said so" (which is funny since there are examples of it in the Bible). People simply think incest is wrong and can't explain it. And yet there are at least two recent public court cases which are challenging this. Will society say, No, incestuous marriage is not allowed, but gay marriage is? And if so, on what basis? Sounds likes a double standard, huh? So are you willing to be "moral authority guy" and say No to incest? And no to polygamy? |
| carrot onion |
| ||
Okay, so let's say someone is terminal and they're friends with a necrophile. The necrophile gets a notarized document from the person who is going to die saying they are fine with their friend doing whatever he wants to their corpse. What's wrong with that? Weird, yes, but it doesn't hurt anyone.
Well, I am glad to see you are consistent at least in that you would be fine living in a country where incest is not illegal. About your point for scores of people longing for incest, you never know. There may be a lot of people that want that and aren't going to say anything because of how horribly they would be treated. It's just hard to say one way or another.
No, you understand me incorrectly. I think it's all genetic. |
| carrot onion |
| ||
NO NO NO!! I am not comparing pedophilia to homosexuality. There is a trend among internet commenters that the moment they see the word "pedophile" or "serial killer" they quit reading the post and write the response you just did. This is BAD. You need to read the whole thing and understand the point I am making. |
| Jeff Wigand |
| ||
You have some good points in your argument, but the whole "their brains are different and it's natural" is a BAD premise to argue from. You think serial killers and pedophiles WANT to be those kind of people? No, they're born that way.[/quote] And polyglots have marked differences in the structure of parts of their brain compared to monolingual persons. But your examples don't have bearing here, as the difference is that serial killers and pedophiles are clearly acting on people without consent. Two gay adults in a relationship wanting equal status as their heterosexual counterparts is not harming anyone. No study I have ever seen has ever shown that children raised by gay parents are any worse off than any other children, and besides, children have never been a factor in determining who can marry who (apart from incest). If that were the case, no women who has gone through menopause would be married to anyone. Is it not maddening that a straight man, convicted of murder or rape and get married (and have children) completely within the law, but someone like Neil Patrick Harris can't? (He can obviously produce children by means other than sexual intercourse, but he wouldn't be able to adopt in several states). |
| serious question. |
| ||
I agree with you about polygamy. To me, it should be illegal because it leads to the subjugation of women. Women are not treated with any degree of equality in a polygamous society. My question about incest cannot be dismissed as mere noise or BS. Google David Epstein, a Columbia poli-sci professor. His case raised the serious legal issue how society could say yes to gay marriage but not incestuous marriage. I have still yet to see any serious, reasonable explanation for this double standard. |
| Jeff Wigand |
| ||
Okay, so let's say someone is terminal and they're friends with a necrophile. The necrophile gets a notarized document from the person who is going to die saying they are fine with their friend doing whatever he wants to their corpse. What's wrong with that? Weird, yes, but it doesn't hurt anyone.[/quote] Then I don't see what the problem is. If that's what the person of sound mind wants, then have at it. I guess they're not letting a little thing like death get in the way of celebrating the anniversary.
I've spent a good amount of time in Japan, have many, many native Japanese friends and many more gaijin friends who have lived in Japan for many years, and I've never once heard about incest being an issue.
Then why do you oppose full and equal recognition under the law? Or did I get switched around on what you wrote? |
| carrot onion |
| ||
Regardless of how few people want incest, they're still a minority that should be protected, right? ... ... Oh, I don't oppose full and equal recognition at all. I'm fine with that. And with consented necrophilia, and vasectomized incest. I'm just genetically hard-wired to find these things repugnant. |
| thread hijacker |
| ||
Top of p. 3. |
| addffff |
| ||
|
Jeff keeps responding to it. Pay attention. |
| TKTKTK |
| ||
|
serious question. wrote:
You're not too bright, are you? It's one thing to teach children that there is such a thing as homosexuality and another to teach them to be gay. You can't teach children to be gay, but you can teach them to acknowledge and understand other people. You shouldn't fear your kids turning out to be gay, and it kind of cracks me up that you so obviously do. I don't have kids, but I will someday, and I would absolutely take them out of any school that denied the existence or equality of gays in our society.
There's a strong reason in terms of genetic health for prohibiting incest; I suspect there's also a concern for children's psychological health. We want to create laws that strongly discourage patterns of familial coercion from impacting children's psychic and physical health and from compelling sexual relationships that, we know, compromise genetic integrity over time. I worry about parental or sibling coercion most of all - other than that, I'm okay with incest.
So it's a really small group you say? And that small group really causes you this much fear? You're weak.
Of course there's no "gay gene"; sexuality, attraction, and desire are extremely complicated, and not one of them has a single genetic determinant. Maybe you should check out that liberal school your kids go to and catch up on your bio 101. Serious question, you're proving yourself to be not such a serious intellect and you make me sad for your kids. You're also proving yourself to be small-minded and recidivist. I thought this country was strong enough to see its values - of fairness, tolerance, and freedom - enacted by all sorts of people who look and seem different. But you and your type are so weak and defensive. Rather than denying people rights and opportunities why don't you man up, embrace who you are, and help make America, finally, a real city on a hill? Seriously. You and your kids? You're strong enough to not be gay if you don't want to be; and you're strong enough to not imagine anal sex if you don't want to; and your marriage (with your wife) is heterosexual enough not to turn gay as soon as gay marriage is legalized. But I can see you enjoy the sense of power you get from not being gay but voting against the interest of your gay friends, gay neighbors, and, possibly, gay children. Good for you, I guess. You're a real American. |
| Jeff Wigand |
| ||
Regardless of how few people want incest, they're still a minority that should be protected, right? ... ... Oh, I don't oppose full and equal recognition at all. I'm fine with that. And with consented necrophilia, and vasectomized incest. I'm just genetically hard-wired to find these things repugnant.[/quote] It's not even protection so much as equal treatment. My one rule on relationships would be that all parties must consent and that we have a certain factors to determine who is able to give consent (taking age and mental condition into account). Beyond that, have at it. Civil unions for everybody. |
| carrot onion |
| ||
I feel the need to point out an inconsistency in your argument. For one thing, we were talking about incest with vasectomies -- there's no need to worry about genetic health. And your worry about how what two adults do privately is affecting children is isomorphic to the argument by those against homosexuality and how it may affect children. I'm not saying you're right or wrong -- I'm just saying you are using the same argument that your opponent is, but in a different situation. |
| Jeff Wigand |
| ||
Even in a polyandrous society? |
| yetanotherchick |
| ||
|
There's no particular reason, IMO, that the government should prohibit incest between consenting adults. Even potential genetic problems should not be much of an issue since the desire to have children through an incestual relationship is quite rare, and generally several generations of inbreeding is necessary before children are significantly at risk. (The risk of having a child with Down's is higher for women who are over 45 than for first cousins in an otherwise non-incestual family). I would hope that any consenting adults who chose an incestual relationship would consider carefully before having children, and get tested the way that any high risk populations might want to. The more complicated moral problem is one of consent between family members. I don't know that this is the government's problem, although I can see a strong argument for it being so. I mean, look, enough adults have a hard time setting non-sexual boundaries with their parents (or feel guilty when they do), because of the lifelong child-parent dynamic. Imagine (actually don't) having your parent pressuring you for sex when you turn 18. Problems of consent are always somewhat subjective. I imagine that polygamy and legal marriage is largely a logistics problem. As far as the government is concerned, there are good reasons that have nothing to do with imposing morality in making a marriage a two party contract. |
| Sodomite Muslim Obama |
| ||
You are a pathetic pervert. |
| formidable doer of the nasty |
| ||
|
Why should it be allowed for obese people to be married? It's not natural. And if it produces offspring, said offspring will have severely heightened risks of a variety of medical conditions ranging from autism to diabetes. As for the sex, well I'd much rather watch two gay men doing it than your oh-so-natural typical Walmart red-state fat-ass white trash having straight sex. So to those who insist that gay marriage should be illegal I ask, what is the BMI above which anybody should lose the right to get married? |
| fadhafhdu |
| ||
|
No, it certainly is not wrong to support gay marriage. To Catholics (which I am) marriage is something sacred and the definition is not something pliable. Marriage is between a man and woman because in marriage, one creates the domestic church and should produce children, in order that the Church may grow. Can a gay couple do that? No. It's that simple. A man and woman can produce a baby, but two men and two women cannot. |
| Jeff Wigand |
| ||
Can a woman of 75 not be married in the Catholic Church? |
| Good Billy |
| ||
When did you stop beating your children? (It's a misleading question.)[/quote] You claimed it was a choice. How's this phrasing: Me: Did you ever have a desire to beat your children? You: No. Me: Did you ever have a desire to copulate with a person of the same sex? You: No. Me: So then you never chose to be attracted to the opposite sex? You: No.[/quote] How bout this phrasing? Me: Did you ever have a desire to beat your children? You: No. Me: Did you ever have a desire to copulate with a person of the opposite sex? You: No. Me: So then you never chose to be attracted to the same sex? You: No. |