Discussion: Gay Rights

[newwaveboy87]

all a child REALLY needs is two stable and loving parents. it doesn't matter the sex.

[Snap Wilson]

If it is discrimination to deny gay couples the privilege of marriage, then it is also discrimination to deny the privilege to anyone else who wants to get married. Right? "Well," you say, "who else wants to get married but is denied by the state?" Many people. And as soon as this taboo is broken, watch them line up.

How long do you suppose it will be, once same-sex marriage is a reality, before brothers want to marry sisters? How long do you suppose it will be before sisters want to marry sisters? How long do you suppose it will be before brothers want to marry brothers?How many same-sex marriage advocates want to go down that road?

If incestuous marriages don't scare you off, how about marriages involving more than two people? What possible reason could we find for "discriminating" against threesomes, foursomes, fivesomes, etc.?

I remember a fellow in Great Britain who wanted to marry his dog. How could we possibly "discriminate" against an idea like that?

The truth is that most of us do believe in discrimination. In fact, we discriminate every day when we make choices. I'm not sure you can live without discriminating – between good food and bad, between safe conduct and unsafe conduct, etc.

Discrimination can be a good thing – a necessary component of life. It's a bad thing only when we use it prejudicially against people because of immutable circumstances – like the color of their skin.

People who are homosexuals, transsexuals, transgendered people, intersexuals, lesbians and metrosexuals are characterized in those ways because of their conduct, their behavior, their choices.

Those folks have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals. They can marry one member of the opposite sex. No one forces them to do so. But they have that right.

This system has worked pretty well for the last 6,000 years. We tamper with it at great peril to our society.

[pyromaniac]

Relax guys - my devoutly Christian best friend and a few other Christian friends not only know I'm gay but that I have a boyfriend (whom the former has met and whom he likes, and others will too) and they couldn't care less if we get married and be happy in our lives for as long as we like. :rolleyes:

Again, these are the type of people who practice a religious lifestyle.

And I'm not even a Christian.

I love my best friend. :)

[thedeadite]

my point exactly newwaveboy....funny thing (and not saying this is true about Snap) but most people i encounter who think that gay parents shouldn't be able to adopt children, are the same people who say "abortion is wrong...you should put the baby up for adoption".

[Addendum]

lol

I think O'Reilly is now a member of the Hype. It's the same ****e he issues forth

[newwaveboy87]

lol

I think O'Reilly is now a member of the Hype. It's the same ****e he issues forth
you mean contradictory hypocritical self-serving hateful rhetoric that is just a bunch of hot air?

[pyromaniac]

This system has worked pretty well for the last 6,000 years. We tamper with it at great peril to our society.

*wonders why divorce is a counter to the foundation of marriage*

Oops. It has existed already.

As far as sexuality goes, it's called human desire. Don't mistake desire for choice.

[Snap Wilson]

The great French admirer of American democracy, Alexis deTocqueville, warned that in a democracy, social ostracism can be all too easily used against those with minority viewpoints. But what is curious about the current debate on gay marriage is that social ostracism is now being used effectively against the majority viewpoint.

[newwaveboy87]

also, we've tampered with the following things in the past 6,000 years:

women's right to choose
women's right to vote
women's right to own property
we no longer sell off our daughters
minorities right to vote
minorities rights to own property
adoption
birth control
condoms

so....we should just remove all of those things because they infringe upon how society operated at one point in time?

[gdw]

agreed

this thread is stupid let it die:cmad:

How would you feel if it were reversed, and you had the right to marry someone, aslong as they were the SAME sex as you?

[Snap Wilson]

Anyone care to comment on writer Andrew Sullivan, a self-described gay conservative who admitted in a New Republic editorial that many gay men have no interest in marriage if it carries the expectation of fidelity. How can you call this writer a homophobe when he is a gay man?

[pyromaniac]

The suggestion that homosexuals can be 'married' is absurd, since marriage is, by definition, a union between a man and a woman.

Under the doctrine of the separation of Church and State, the government should not force millions of religious people to accept a new definition of 'marriage.

The institution of heterosexual marriage serves a social purpose, and that purpose is to foster a stable community and a good environment for bringing up children.

So - uh, every heterosexual marriage is an exact replica of one another?

You make me laugh. Bwa.

If the government AND mainstream religion had decree that homosexual marriage was okay, would you match your beliefs to those or were they already superseded by whatever laws and regulations both government and religion impose on...?

It's nothing to do with the government nor religion as to how your individual beliefs and attitudes are. Sure, a lot of people believe that, hence such strong testament of faith but I do wonder if the Bible of religion and the Bible of politics state otherwise, you would jump on the bandwagon and say, ok if they say so, then it must be!

Without experiencing with your heart, ie, the equivalent of walking a mile in another's shoes.

[maxwell's demon]

Anyone care to comment on writer Andrew Sullivan, a self-described gay conservative who admitted that many gay men have no interest in marriage if it carries the expectation of fidelity. How can you call this writer a homophobe when he is a gay man?

keep this up and i'll break up with you:mad:

[newwaveboy87]

Anyone care to comment on writer Andrew Sullivan, a self-described gay conservative who admitted in a New Republic editorial that many gay men have no interest in marriage if it carries the expectation of fidelity. How can you call this writer a homophobe when he is a gay man?
i call him a ****ing idiot and not speaking for the majority.
he's generalizing and performing self-internalized homophobia.

yes, a homosexual can be homophobic.

[maxwell's demon]

The great French admirer of American democracy, Alexis deTocqueville, warned that in a democracy, social ostracism can be all too easily used against those with minority viewpoints. But what is curious about the current debate on gay marriage is that social ostracism is now being used effectively against the majority viewpoint.


this post makes no sense. has gay marriage been accepted as constitutional in the last five minutes or something?

[blind_fury]

Let me just go on record and say anyone who has "the gay" should stay far, far away from children.

[pyromaniac]

Anyone care to comment on writer Andrew Sullivan, a self-described gay conservative who admitted that many gay men have no interest in marriage if it carries the expectation of fidelity. How can you call this writer a homophobe when he is a gay man?

I don't seem to recall every heterosexual straight man or woman being able to keep it in their pants: hence the affairs or so forth.

Not every of course. Just means they aren't exclusive. ;)

And by that definition, not every person is perfect. Even a persecuted person can hold discrimnatory beliefs of his own.

Besides, Andrew Sullivan wasn't a homophobe. I think he was speaking what he had had observed in his experience to be.

Doesn't make it true for you, or for mine.

I've known gay couples who've stayed together 10, 20, 30 years.

So?

[pyromaniac]

Let me just go on record and say anyone who has "the gay" should stay far, far away from children.

Were you being sarcastic?

[Ben Urich]

Let me just go on record and say anyone who has "the gay" should stay far, far away from children.

Yeah, because being gay obviously equals being perverted. :whatever:
Most sex offenders are married, straight men.

[blind_fury]

Were you being sarcastic?
oh noes! A gay! run for the hills!

[gdw]

agree 100%. Also, I love how you pro gay marriage types are
Psychologizing disagreements. This involves ignoring the content of what is said and analyzing, instead, the psychology of the speaker. For example, a man opposes affirmative action and is immediately labeled a "racist" or "misogynist." Someone disagrees with gay marriage, so automatically they are a homophobe.

Just for the record, I am anti affirmative action.

"Psychologizing disagreements"

"Psychologizing" ????

Also, what the hell are you talking about, ignoring content? The actual facts of it, and the content of the argument are all that they have been discussing. the problem is that most of those arguing against gay marriage are not focusing on any actual issue or infact giving anything to back up their argument.

they are just saying it's wrong because it's wrong, or it's against god and marriage, citing marriage as being something exclusive to religion, which it is not.

Or focusing on how they have no right to force religions to accept homosexuality and perform gay marriages, which is 100% true, but is nowhere near what is being asked. They want the GOVERNMENT to sanction their marriages, which the government has the complete ability and authority to do.

The times that we resorte to generalising another's argument to simple homophobia is when they provide us nothing but that to go with.

There is absolutely no backing up anything from that side of the argument.

[blind_fury]

If you can convince Americans that gay sex is no worse than straight sex they will vote for gay marraige.

[Hollow Wood Director]

all a child REALLY needs is two stable and loving parents. it doesn't matter the sex.

Well, I'd have to disgaree there. I know plenty of really well adjusted, happy, individuals who only ever had ONE parent.

[pyromaniac]

oh noes! A gay! run for the hills!

Actually, that's where all the bears are.

I'll take a stab and surmise that you're making light of things.

:)

[Addendum]

"When you watch porn, do you want the man to have a soft, little dick?"
"No!! I want the man to have a large, throbbing... OH MY GOD" - Ron White on how we're all gay

[pyromaniac]

Well, I'd have to disgaree there. I know plenty of really well adjusted, happy, individuals who only ever had ONE parent.

That too.

[maxwell's demon]

snap wilson.
2006-2006
"i hate myself and i take it out on those around me"[/tombstone]

[newwaveboy87]

Well, I'd have to disgaree there. I know plenty of really well adjusted, happy, individuals who only ever had ONE parent.
i can't believe i said that like that. :csad:
:feels ashamed:

wtf? i'm even a product of a single parent household? :huh:

[pyromaniac]

"Psychologizing disagreements"

"Psychologizing" ????

Also, what the hell are you talking about, ignoring content? The actual facts of it, and the content of the argument are all that they have been discussing. the problem is that most of those arguing against gay marriage are not focusing on any actual issue or infact giving anything to back up their argument.

they are just saying it's wrong because it's wrong, or it's against god and marriage, citing marriage as being something exclusive to religion, which it is not.

Or focusing on how they have no right to force religions to accept homosexuality and perform gay marriages, which is 100% true, but is nowhere near what is being asked. They want the GOVERNMENT to sanction their marriages, which the government has the complete ability and authority to do.

The times that we resorte to generalising another's argument to simple homophobia is when they provide us nothing but that to go with.

There is absolutely no backing up anything from that side of the argument.

It's funny - if you were a Jew or a Black etc, what else would you call it if someone blatantly persecuted you and you just shrug it off and say, 'ah, he's not a racist because he didn't mean it?'

Besides, Snap Wilson, you just have proven there are more layers than simple discrimination.

For me personally, I always give the person no matter how narrow minded or prejudiced or ignorant he is, the benefit of the doubt. So no harm done: no two wrongs done.

:)

[gdw]

SO you say Same-sex couples deserve exactly the same benefits and protections under the law as everyone else? You say its a civil rights issue? Well the Supreme Court struck down laws preventing interracial marriage in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia). That was not merely an argument of semantics over the term "marriage," but a civil rights issue.

No homosexual couple can claim a right to marriage, if marriage is, by definition, the joining of two people of opposite sex. Furthermore, the reason that certain benefits and privileges for married people are ingrained in the law is that society has a stake in supporting families. Society cannot survive without heterosexual couples and their offspring, while it can get along fine without homosexual couples. Even if gay marriage were not immoral, it would be unnecessary. In the case of Loving v. Virginia the court did not redefine the institution of marriage itself, so it is false reasoning to draw a parallel between racial discrimination and the illegality of so-called "same-sex marriage."

Aside from the fact that the last staement makes no sense and has no logical direction to go from the first half to the second, note that the first sentance says IF marriage is defined . . . hence why that really old writting is in the process of being refined, kinda like all those amendments to the constitution.

Also, I guess we should make sure the internet is illegal as society can get along just fine without it too.

[gdw]

"Gay marriage hasn't stopped AIDS"

Damnit, I could have sworn it was going to be the cure.

[newwaveboy87]

yeah, straight marriage hasn't exactly stopped AIDS either. :huh:
you know what will help to stop it? providing sex education to third world countries, bringing birth control and condoms to them, and giving women's rights a big boost around the world.

also, continuing to search for a cure would be nice.

[gdw]

Also, a marriage is the bringing to gether of two entities, substances etc.

Marriage is used to describe bring two things together. It is used in many things outside of a man and a woman.

[C. Lee]

Let me just go on record and say anyone who has "the gay" should stay far, far away from children.
I know many straight people that should stay away from children....and women....and animals....so what's your point.

[Holly Goodhead]

Also, a marriage is the bringing to gether of two entities, substances etc.

Marriage is used to describe bring two things together. It is used in many things outside of a man and a woman.

You like the sound of your own voice dont you.

[blind_fury]

I know many straight people that should stay away from children....and women....and animals....so what's your point.
But but but but...

[Hollow Wood Director]

I know many straight people that should stay away from children....and women....and animals....so what's your point.

I think you Lee Owned him there!:woot: :cwink:

[gdw]

You like the sound of your own voice dont you.


God no, but I LOVE the clickity click lick of my key board ;)


Know what else I love, how people keep saying homosexual marriage will lead to the acceptance of interspieces marriages.

'Cause, you know, dogs are people too.

Marrying an animal is like marrying a newborn. They have no say in it and thus cannot enter into a marriage. Marriage is a concesual binding.

Also, for insest, it is more of an abuse of a prexisting relationship, a violation of it, or a misplaced inturpritation of it.

You certainly can go down the road of allowing people all the freedom you can, however, the line comes when, and ONLY when, it affects another, or causes harm to another, or the individual.

You can argue that the risk of genetic defects are not 100% via insest, but it is obviously one large issue with regards to it affecting someone else, that is, any child that may be produced.

But largely it seems to be more the result of either abuse, or, as I mentioned, a misplacement of feelings etc, similar to Stockholmes (sp?)

These comments on insest are my own oppinions, and are not being claimed as fact. The rest of it, however, is as rock solid as the bible itself ;)

[Outsiderzedge]

Family and children is why state marriage was established. The state recognizing homosexual marriage would be an approval by the state of such parents as role models for children.

If the proponents of homosexual marriage wish to get their marriage recognized by the state, then they need to convince the state that two men or two women are proper role models for a child.

[pyromaniac]

God no, but I LOVE the clickity click lick of my key board ;)


Know what else I love, how people keep saying homosexual marriage will lead to the acceptance of interspieces marriages.

'Cause, you know, dogs are people too.

Marrying an animal is like marrying a newborn. They have no say in it and thus cannot enter into a marriage. Marriage is a concesual binding.

Also, for insest, it is more of an abuse of a prexisting relationship, a violation of it, or a misplaced inturpritation of it.

You certainly can go down the road of allowing people all the freedom you can, however, the line comes when, and ONLY when, it affects another, or causes harm to another, or the individual.

You can argue that the risk of genetic defects are not 100% via insest, but it is obviously one large issue with regards to it affecting someone else, that is, any child that may be produced.

But largely it seems to be more the result of either abuse, or, as I mentioned, a misplacement of feelings etc, similar to Stockholmes (sp?)

These comments on insest are my own oppinions, and are not being claimed as fact. The rest of it, however, is as rock solid as the bible itself ;)

Do you mean the Stockholm Syndrome?

And do you want me to correct your spelling? :o

No offence. :)

[blind_fury]

I know many straight people that should stay away from children....and women....and animals....so what's your point.

...but gays are more likely to be perverted than the average, God-fearing heterosexual. :huh:

[pyromaniac]

Family and children is why state marriage was established. The state recognizing homosexual marriage would be an approval by the state of such parents as role models for children.

If the proponents of homosexual marriage wish to get their marriage recognized by the state, then they need to convince the state that two men or two women are proper role models for a child.

They do the same thing with the adoption process. For straight people.

Not every marriage wasn't done for the sake for procreation. If it did, it wouldn't be at first. If it was done with procreation in mind, kudos to that.

There are different reasons as to why a marriage might occur.

[gdw]

Do you mean the Stockholm Syndrome?

And do you want me to correct your spelling? :o

No offence. :)


None taken, my spelling is atrotious (sp???) nd I type fast without proofing and have trouble hitting only one key at a time ;)

And yes, Stockholm Syndrome is what I ment, thanks.

[Outsiderzedge]

I know many straight people that should stay away from children....and women....and animals....so what's your point.

I think his point is you can tell that those whom apply for gay marriage most likely have "the gay," while those whom apply for a heterosexual marriage are not necessarily the type whom "should stay away from children....and women....and animals....", though they may be.

[pyromaniac]

...but gays are more likely to be perverted than the average, God-fearing heterosexual. :huh:

You know you're assuming here. Go research.

A heterosexual who doesn't actually hold a few kinks in his bedroom?

Hmm. There isn't any difference.

[Outsiderzedge]

They do the same thing with the adoption process. For straight people.

Not every marriage wasn't done for the sake for procreation. If it did, it wouldn't be at first. If it was done with procreation in mind, kudos to that.

There are different reasons as to why a marriage might occur.

I was speaking of state recognized marriage and not marriage in general.

[gdw]

And God gave use Darwin, because his people took that 'be fruitfull and multiply' thing WAY too seriously.

Yeah, ensuring marriage is used exclusively for pro-creation is such a pertinent issue nowadays.

[pyromaniac]

I think his point is you can tell that those whom apply for gay marriage most likely have "the gay," while those whom apply for a heterosexual marriage are not necessarily the type whom "should stay away from children....and women....and animals....", though they may be.

This was really a roundabout argument.

[spideyboy_1111]

If teh gays do not like it the way it is here, then they have the right to get the $#@! out & move to an island, then they can all gay out

problem solved!

w00t

"It's people like you who made me afraid to go to school as a child" -X-

[gdw]

Anywho, as much as I've loved reading every post of this thread over the past few hours, I'm off to bed, and I imagine I will miss a lot, but nothing will change by tomorrow (assuming this thread hasn't been deleted or locked.)

[blind_fury]

Ok granted none of us can choose our parents but who would choose to have gay parents? I mean lets be honest ppl.

[pyromaniac]

I was speaking of state recognized marriage and not marriage in general.

I wasn't talking about marriage in general

I was referring to the same principles in the process that apply when people - gay or straight - might fight to assure the authorities that they're the best parenting role models for their children.

Adoption is one notable example.

A lot of heterosexual marriages are state recognised anyway. But I think I know what you mean in terms of the government agenda as far as procreation goes.

Then again, it isn't like heterosexual childless marriages and homosexual marriages threaten those who marry for procreation, of which there are aplenty.

... Unless the human population was in danger, a'la Children of Men. ;)

[spideyboy_1111]

Ok granted none of us can choose our parents but who would choose to have gay parents? I mean lets be honest ppl.
Your making that sound like a bad thing...

[Outsiderzedge]

And God gave use Darwin, because his people took that 'be fruitfull and multiply' thing WAY too seriously.

Yeah, ensuring marriage is used exclusively for pro-creation is such a pertinent issue nowadays.

If it weren't for the promise of procreation, then state recognition of marriage would not even exist.

If procreation is no longer an issue, then state recognition of marriage should just be abolished instead of given to additional groups that have nothing to do with the original purpose of state recognition.

[Hollow Wood Director]

...but gays are more likely to be perverted than the average, God-fearing heterosexual. :huh:

WTF?

You'd have a better chance of winning a bet if you said that average God_fearing heterosexuals were more perverted... if in "perveted" you meant practices that physycally and emotionally abused others.

[blind_fury]

I don't want to grow up watching two hairy dudes kissing all the time. That would like, scarr me for life.

[pyromaniac]

Ok granted none of us can choose our parents but who would choose to have gay parents? I mean lets be honest ppl.


... As opposed to alcoholic, wife beating, neglecting parents, right?

I've actually heard of a few children in a gay environment who say they wouldn't choose over their gay parents for anything in the world, as they often are more open minded, more honest and less judgemental. Still strong on discipline and child rearing of course, but it does cultivate a unique environment in which the child more often than takes as face value because - really, would he know better than if he were in a heterosexual environment?

In Australia, there was a children's book written by, um, a 8 year old or 12 year old, not sure exactly, and it made the circulation around schools. Naturally, it caused controversy and parental and teacher concerns as to the supposedly impressionable 'ideas' it might give other children.

All the book consisted of was colourful drawings and a house and a backyard and a tree and some stuff. The only difference was that the parents in the book were same sex. Obviously the author in question was proud of her parents.

[Hollow Wood Director]

Ok granted none of us can choose our parents but who would choose to have gay parents? I mean lets be honest ppl.

Gay parents who love and care for a child.

Straight parents who abuse their child.

Hmm...let me think this one through...

[pyromaniac]

I don't want to grow up watching two hairy dudes kissing all the time. That would like, scarr me for life.

By your logic, children would be fine seeing a mother and father kissing and groping in front of them, right...?

Also - if you let two hairy dudes kiss get to you and cut into your insecurities and think that they challenge your sexuality, you have a problem.

The reverse is true: does seeing affectionate heterosexual parents kiss make you question your own sexuality?

Just for the record, there have been plenty of gays who grew up in a heterosexual environment.

[gdw]

If it weren't for the promise of procreation, then state recognition of marriage would not even exist.

If procreation is no longer an issue, then state recognition of marriage should just be abolished instead of given to additional groups that have nothing to do with the original purpose of state recognition.

Whether it was initiated as it or not, marriage does not serve no purpose outside of making babies.

The entire purpose of our race is not to just prolong our existence.

I hate that Catholic view point. If that was all life was about and we were not ment to take joy in anything, then why would god have given use the ability to feel the enjoyment of doing things that we are supposed to do anyway?

Why in the name of Zenu would they suggest that sex is bad and something you should feel guilty about when it is also our main purpose?

Why would we be inlove, why would we be capable to feel love, if we are only ment to marry to reproduce?

MANY spicies feel no other purpose in their lives, but we are not one of them. Those spicies are also not monogamos(sp?). Heck, if the catholic church really is so obsessed with sex only being to reproduce, then why not encourage it with more people? Why insist on monogamy?

Sex obviously isn't ment as an expression of love for someone, at least not in the eyes of God.

[blind_fury]

WTF?

You'd have a better chance of winning a bet if you said that average God_fearing heterosexuals were more perverted... if in "perveted" you meant practices that physycally and emotionally abused others.
You're taking the worlds cross-dressers and transexuals and your throwing helpless, innocent children at them. It's unfair to the children.

[newwaveboy87]

i can't take anything blind_fury says seriously :o :huh:

[pyromaniac]

You're taking the worlds cross-dressers and transexuals and your throwing helpless, innocent children at them. It's unfair to the children.

Go out and experience that first to see if the evidence matches your theory and come back and tell us.

Because I have. No scarring on the children's part, as far as I can see.

I've even seen them march in the Mardi Gras parade, shock gasp. Certainly didn't see any upset or terror or anything.

And if you really doubt all this - go ask the children themselves. :rolleyes:

Just for the record: I know of straight cross dressers and transsexuals and they are happily married with children. They choose not to reveal them, but the point is that they exist. Yes indeed, the world is a more complex place than we think...

Shame about the labels though.

[gdw]

You're taking the worlds cross-dressers and transexuals and your throwing helpless, innocent children at them. It's unfair to the children.

Um, actually, a large portion of crossdressers are straight men. a VERY large percentage.

Also, transexuals are not specific to homosexuality either.

No offense to you, but this is sadly the ignorence that plagues almost all those who appose things like gay marriage.

Almost any time they try to actually back up their point of view, it is with non-facts like these. Pure assumptions and stateents of true ignorence. No actual knowledge of either homosexuality, or the other things they bring into it, as those other things are completely separate and unrelated, directly, to homosexuality.

So they display a lack of knowledge in at least two areas when they try to prove their point.

Sorry blind_fury, again, no offence intednded towards you, you just happened to bring up two of these such examples.

[pyromaniac]

Whether it was initiated as it or not, marriage does not serve no purpose outside of making babies.

The entire purpose of our race is not to just prolong our existence.

I hate that Catholic view point. If that was all life was about and we were not ment to take joy in anything, then why would god have given use the ability to feel the enjoyment of doing things that we are supposed to do anyway?

Why in the name of Zenu would they suggest that sex is bad and something you should feel guilty about when it is also our main purpose?

Why would we be inlove, why would we be capable to feel love, if we are only ment to marry to reproduce?

MANY spicies feel no other purpose in their lives, but we are not one of them. Those spicies are also not monogamos(sp?). Heck, if the catholic church really is so obsessed with sex only being to reproduce, then why not encourage it with more people? Why insist on monogamy?

Sex obviously isn't ment as an expression of love for someone, at least not in the eyes of God.

Hey, in regards to your spelling - well, as long as you recognise the incorrect words but that you just type too quickly and care little to change or have time for it, ok. ;)

[blind_fury]

By your logic, children would be fine seeing a mother and father kissing and groping in front of them, right...?

Also - if you let two hairy dudes kiss get to you and cut into your insecurities and think that they challenge your sexuality, you have a problem.

The reverse is true: does seeing affectionate heterosexual parents kiss make you question your own sexuality?

Just for the record, there have been plenty of gays who grew up in a heterosexual environment.
I'm not saying watching men kiss would turn a heterosexual into a gay. I'm saying watching two hairy men kiss is unhealthy for any heterosexual child. It's too graphic and twisted for a child's eyes.

[Outsiderzedge]

Whether it was initiated as it or not, marriage does not serve no purpose outside of making babies.

The entire purpose of our race is not to just prolong our existence.

I hate that Catholic view point. If that was all life was about and we were not ment to take joy in anything, then why would god have given use the ability to feel the enjoyment of doing things that we are supposed to do anyway?

Why in the name of Zenu would they suggest that sex is bad and something you should feel guilty about when it is also our main purpose?

Why would we be inlove, why would we be capable to feel love, if we are only ment to marry to reproduce?

MANY spicies feel no other purpose in their lives, but we are not one of them. Those spicies are also not monogamos(sp?). Heck, if the catholic church really is so obsessed with sex only being to reproduce, then why not encourage it with more people? Why insist on monogamy?

Sex obviously isn't ment as an expression of love for someone, at least not in the eyes of God.

Uh...

I'm not catholic or a scientologist... or religious, for that matter...

State recoginition of marriage was sanctioned to encourage couples to start a family because there was a shortage of population in the early 20th century. If the state believes that lack of population is no longer a problem, then they should abolish state marriage and not start giving it to everything under the sun whom asks for it...

[Holly Goodhead]

i can't take anything blind_fury says seriously :o :huh:

it's like he's a martian. a homo-hating martian :down what it comes down to is ignorance. which flourishes in threads like these. :csad:

[Sun_Down]

Um, actually, a large portion of crossdressers are straight men. a VERY large percentage.

Also, transexuals are not specific to homosexuality either.

No offense to you, but this is sadly the ignorence that plagues almost all those who appose things like gay marriage.

Almost any time they try to actually back up their point of view, it is with non-facts like these. Pure assumptions and stateents of true ignorence. No actual knowledge of either homosexuality, or the other things they bring into it, as those other things are completely separate and unrelated, directly, to homosexuality.

So they display a lack of knowledge in at least two areas when they try to prove their point.

Sorry blind_fury, again, no offence intednded towards you, you just happened to bring up two of these such examples.

Excellent post.

Ignorance is so incredibly dangerous when it comes to issues like this.

[C. Lee]

blind_fury is just making stupid off the wall statements to get a rise out of people....we can either ignore him, or ban him....what's the concensus of the people?

[newwaveboy87]

it's like he's a martian. a homo-hating martian :down what it comes down to is ignorance. which flourishes in threads like these. :csad:
againi, SHH! is were common sense comes to die a horrible and painful death.

[Holly Goodhead]

blind_fury is just making stupid off the wall statements to get a rise out of people....we can either ignore him, or ban him....what's the concensus of the people?

Ban him! :cmad:

[gdw]

I'm not saying watching men kiss would turn a heterosexual into a gay. I'm saying watching two hairy men kiss is unhealthy for any heterosexual child. It's too graphic and twisted for a child's eyes.


How does a child know what is twisted? How would a child know what is expected or not?

The easiest way to see is to look at the example of an older boy, and his younger sister. When he sees her nacked he askes where her penis is.

Children have no preconception of how things are "supposed" to be. Same as a child who has parents of different races. The child comes into the world with no preconcieved notion about this. Only what they see at first. Unlike the penis, this is something the are exposed to from day one, where as the penis is something they are exposed to only as far as knowing that they have one.

A chiled raised by two same sex parents actually would not see anything abnormal until they meet a kid with heterosexual parents. Then, to the goy parents kid, the hetero's would be the ones who seem out of place. But they would be exposed to it, and learn to understand that some families have a mommy AND a daddy, some have only a dad, some only a mom, some two of one, or two of the other, and they would learn this at a young age and it would simply be a natural part of their world so there is nothing abnormal about it to them.

As such no abnormallities can result in the childs development.

[Outsiderzedge]

blind_fury is just making stupid off the wall statements to get a rise out of people....we can either ignore him, or ban him....what's the concensus of the people?

I do not believe he is trying to get a rise out of anyone.

I believe he genuinely believes in everything he has said and does not consider anything he has said to be offensive to anyone.

Ignorance seems to be the culprit. Just ignore him.

[DOG LIPS]

Ban him! :cmad:
No! Give him probation forever instead! :cmad:

[Holly Goodhead]

No! Give him probation forever instead! :cmad:

What the hell is the difference.

[pyromaniac]

I'm not saying watching men kiss would turn a heterosexual into a gay. I'm saying watching two hairy men kiss is unhealthy for any heterosexual child. It's too graphic and twisted for a child's eyes.

You didn't address the question if the opposite were true of heterosexual affection.

To be honest, I've seen children who are playfully disgusted at heterosexual displays of affection on, say, tv.

Even I was, because you don't fully understand it and it's outside your comfort zone.

Don't see the difference with homosexual affection.

Besides, if it were that graphic, I'd have stopped in front of my ten year old brother, nor numerous godsons and nieces and nephews of my boyfriend's. Apparently, those parents - not because they know us or are familiar with us - don't have a problem.

Don't assume because you have a problem doesn't mean the same holds true of other people.

[DOG LIPS]

What the hell is the difference.
Your face. :cmad:

[Sun_Down]

I do not believe he is trying to get a rise out of anyone.

I believe he genuinely believes in everything he has said and does not consider anything he has said to be offensive to anyone.

Ignorance seems to be the culprit. Just ignore him.

As much as I disagree with blind_fury, I don't believe he's intentionally trying to start trouble. I believe he is just a very immature, ill-informed child. I don't think he deserves a banning, but maybe we should close this thread.

[pyromaniac]

I do not believe he is trying to get a rise out of anyone.

I believe he genuinely believes in everything he has said and does not consider anything he has said to be offensive to anyone.

Ignorance seems to be the culprit. Just ignore him.

I agree, except for the last bit.

He's not trolling or anything like that.

Your last comment was really ironic. Ignoring an ignorant person?

I prefer 're-education'.

:o

[cyborg ninja 14]

Heres my two cents. I dont have anything agaisnt gays persay but, homosexual marriage doesnt neccesarily preform the most essential function marriage being the ability to bear children and passing on to future generations. I mean hypothetically if everyone gay married, we wouldnt be making babies anymore with simple ****************, but instead it would be some random sperm in a random uterus.



***Watch the language***

[blind_fury]

Go out and experience that first to see if the evidence matches your theory and come back and tell us.

Because I have. No scarring on the children's part, as far as I can see.

I've even seen them march in the Mardi Gras parade, shock gasp. Certainly didn't see any upset or terror or anything.

And if you really doubt all this - go ask the children themselves. :rolleyes:

Just for the record: I know of straight cross dressers and transsexuals and they are happily married with children. They choose not to reveal them, but the point is that they exist. Yes indeed, the world is a more complex place than we think...

Shame about the labels though.

I wouldn't let a transexual adopt children.

ok maybe, but he/she would be at the bottom of the list.

Same goes for heterosexual alcoholics or religious extremists. I'm going to put that child in the healthiest environement. And a home where hairy men are kissing or dressing up as women is not a healthy environment.

[Holly Goodhead]

No! Give him probation forever instead! :cmad:

are you wearing underwear :huh: i thought we agreed..

[gdw]

Uh...

I'm not catholic or a scientologist... or religious, for that matter...

State recoginition of marriage was sanctioned to encourage couples to start a family because there was a shortage of population in the early 20th century. If the state believes that lack of population is no longer a problem, then they should abolish state marriage and not start giving it to everything under the sun whom asks for it...


What I ment is that it is a view that is largely prolonged by the catholic church. That is, it is strongly reflected there. Then I just went off on a rant from there :D

[Mr Sparkle]

Uh...

I'm not catholic or a scientologist... or religious, for that matter...

State recoginition of marriage was sanctioned to encourage couples to start a family because there was a shortage of population in the early 20th century. If the state believes that lack of population is no longer a problem, then they should abolish state marriage and not start giving it to everything under the sun whom asks for it...

but since that has NOT been the intent of state sanctioned marriage, for a long time now, and has been replaced by the usefulness of legal record in the case of rights and benefits of a living partner your point is moot.

don't get me wrong, anyone who didn't expect it would be all shicked and would think you're hitler and stuff, but nevertheless , it's still moot.

[C. Lee]

The debate is on.

[blind_fury]

blind_fury is just making stupid off the wall statements to get a rise out of people....we can either ignore him, or ban him....what's the concensus of the people?
You ban someone for saying silly yet harmless things?

Why? :meow:

[Mr Sparkle]

I wouldn't let a transexual adopt children.

ok maybe, but he/she would be at the bottom of the list.

Same goes for heterosexual alcoholics or religious extremists. I'm going to put that child in the healthiest environement. And a home where hairy men are kissing or dressing up as women is not a healthy environment.

hey, how about only letting beautiful people adopt, since nothing but aesthetic seems to be guding you.

I don't know, but I have a strong feeling you wouldn't be able to adopt under that rationale.

[gdw]

I wouldn't let a transexual adopt children.

ok maybe, but he/she would be at the bottom of the list.

Same goes for heterosexual alcoholics or religious extremists. I'm going to put that child in the healthiest environement. And a home where hairy men are kissing or dressing up as women is not a healthy environment.


Why not? Also, why do homosexual men have to be hairy? Or cross dressers? We've already established that crossdressing is NOT directly related to sexual orientation. Did you not watch Dre Carey;)

[Holly Goodhead]

You ban someone for saying silly yet harmless things?

Why? :meow:

He knows if he bans you I'll love him once more. My farmer Joe..

[blind_fury]

Ban him! :cmad:
Like you've never said anything offensive? :whatever:

Hypocrite. :ninja:

[Outsiderzedge]

but since that has NOT been the intent of state sanctioned marriage, for a long time now, and has been replaced by the usefulness of legal record in the case of rights and benefits of a living partner your point is moot.

don't get me wrong, anyone who didn't expect it would be all shicked and would think you're hitler and stuff, but nevertheless , it's still moot.

You don't need marriage for records and property rights. That's what civil unions are for; all the legal rights and records without the benefits intended for starting a family.

[pyromaniac]

I wouldn't let a transexual adopt children.

ok maybe, but he/she would be at the bottom of the list.

Same goes for heterosexual alcoholics or religious extremists. I'm going to put that child in the healthiest environement. And a home where hairy men are kissing or dressing up as women is not a healthy environment.

Dude, you missed the whole point.

Did you read the part where there are quite many a straight transsexual with children? You don't hear that the children are unhappy or that it breeds an unhealthy environment for them so don't automatically assume for sheer face value and for sheer principle--on your part.

We ALL agree that children benefit most in a healthy enviromnent. That's a given. I also agree with alcoholics and extremists. But two hairy male parents kissing hurts children, just because you speak from experience that the same must be true of everybody else who witnesses such a display?

I doubt my Christian friends, let alone anybody else, would object if my boyfriend and I adopt children, for instance. Would you, even though my Christian friends don't have a problem with it?

Are you speaking from a Christian viewpoint or a personal viewpoint?

Off the record, my body is smooth all over! :D :p

[Holly Goodhead]

Like you've never said anything offensive? :whatever:

Hypocrite. :ninja:

Yeah well I know when to stop (usually). :yay:

[C. Lee]

You ban someone for saying silly yet harmless things?

Why? :meow:
You are saying harmful bigoted hateful things......I know that in your warped mind you think they are funny....to many people they aren't. So knock it off.

Let's try and have a serious discussion....instead of the ramblings of the third grade peanut gallery.

[pyromaniac]

The debate is on.

Yet it's a recycled sort of debate.

It's still a fight.

*cracks knuckles*

[newwaveboy87]

i have grown tired of this thread.

ban blind_fury.
ban War Lord while you're at it.

[blind_fury]

He knows if he bans you I'll love him once more. My farmer Joe..
Don't believe her! She's just using you to hurt me!

I saw this kinda thing on Montel Williams! :ninja:

[Sun_Down]

You ban someone for saying silly yet harmless things?

Why? :meow:

So are you basically just trying to start trouble?

[cyborg ninja 14]

*Bows to C. Lee*

Have mercy:csad:

[Mr Sparkle]

You don't need marriage for records and property rights. That's what civil unions are for; all the legal rights and records without the benefits intended for starting a family.

oh, so you're saying eliminate marriage altogether for straight and gay and just have civil unions?
you're such a hippie.

[Addendum]

The U.S. population is currently around 300 million.

This country does not have a population shortage, nor does the government require married couples to have children.

[blind_fury]

You are saying harmful bigoted hateful things......I know that in your warped mind you think they are funny....to many people they aren't. So knock it off.

Let's try and have a serious discussion....instead of the ramblings of the third grade peanut gallery.
I find this offensive. Please ban yourself. :oldrazz:

Ok just so we're clear can you show me the line so I know where not to cross? Or must everything I say be as bland as plain yogurt?

[heypapajinx]

people who oppose same sex marriage have actually given the reasoning that "if we let them marry eachother, where does the line stop? before you know it, people might be petitioning to marry livestock".

the fact that anyone would be so stupid to use this for their argument shows that they're just bigots. uneducated bigots.

it's not like straight people have done anything redeeming for the "sanctity of marriage". where i work, i see many married people cheating on their spouses. it's disgusting. maybe the gays will being some honor back to the union.

[blind_fury]

So are you basically just trying to start trouble?
I never said I was trying to start trouble but I concede that some of things I've said were silly.

Sometimes I'm making fun of homophobes other times I'm playing devil's advocate.

You ppl really need to lighten up. And when I say "you ppl" I don't mean gays. :woot:

[pyromaniac]

I never said I was trying to start trouble but I concede that some of things I've said were silly.

Sometimes I'm making fun of homophobes other times I'm playing devil's advocate.

You ppl really need to lighten up. And when I say "you ppl" I don't mean gays. :woot:

I think the only thing that you were serious about was the two hairy men kissing argument.

Everything else - I forgot already.

[Kevin]

marriage is pointless to me. it's just a peice of paper to me.

[chaseter]

If you take religion out of this equation, can someone give me a logical answer as to why gays should not be allowed to marry? Try to answer this without using YOUR religion as the basis of your arguement.
If you take religion out of the equation, then yes, gays can marry and so can polygamists. That is about the biggest reason why politicians don't legalize it across the nation. A small group of this country wants to be married and be homosexuals. If that happens, then another small group of this country, polygamists, would want to have their union acknowledged too. Who ultimately draws the line at where marriage begins and where it ends? Who has the ultimate say as to who can be married and who can't? If homosexuals can marry, why can't polygamists or incestual partners marry? Hell, in may parts of the ancient world and today's world, incest is not conisdered taboo. It's a slippery slope.

[chaseter]

marriage is pointless to me. it's just a peice of paper to me.
I am sure your partner, if or when you do get married, will love to know that your commitment to them is 100%.

[Sun_Down]

I never said I was trying to start trouble but I concede that some of things I've said were silly.

Sometimes I'm making fun of homophobes other times I'm playing devil's advocate.

You ppl really need to lighten up. And when I say "you ppl" I don't mean gays. :woot:

I see what you're saying, but the things you're saying are pretty serious and are very offensive. Even if you are just being "silly", you are insulting and demeaning real people and their lifestyle. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if heterosexuals were the minority and it was common for people to call your sexual life gross/sick/wrong/etc.

[spideyboy_1111]

I don't want to grow up watching two hairy dudes kissing all the time. That would like, scarr me for life.
if you grew up with it, it would scar you.. and not all gay guys are hairy... lol alot wax

[Kevin]

I am sure your partner, if or when you do get married, will love to know that your commitment to them is 100%.look, as long as i love him enough, and he knows that, it should be enough. We can live together, be together all the time and the works. But ever since i was younger, and lied to myself about being straight, i still didn't wanna get married. It's just kinda pointless to me. If other people want to marry though, that's kool.

EDIT: I also think some types of love are stupid.

[thedeadite]

I am sure your partner, if or when you do get married, will love to know that your commitment to them is 100%.

commitment to a partner is very rarely 100%. Though it's a nice idea to think about, and to hear from someone.

[spideyboy_1111]

blind_fury is just making stupid off the wall statements to get a rise out of people....we can either ignore him, or ban him....what's the concensus of the people?
BAN

[blind_fury]

I see what you're saying, but the things you're saying are pretty serious and are very offensive. Even if you are just being "silly", you are insulting and demeaning real people and their lifestyle. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if heterosexuals were the minority and it was common for people to call your sexual life gross/sick/wrong/etc.
If a gay person needs anything it's a sense of humor.

[spideyboy_1111]

If a gay person needs anything it's a sense of humor.
I think Ellen kinda proves you wrong with that comment... us gays are hilarious.. but dont degrade us

[blind_fury]

BAN
UNBAN

[Kevin]

I have sexy humor... no, no i really don't. I don't even like having sex. but that's a different problem altogether.

[blind_fury]

I think Ellen kinda proves you wrong with that comment... us gays are hilarious.. but dont degrade us
No. I'm not saying gays are humorless. I'm saying a gay person needs a sense of humor to get through life.

[pyromaniac]

No. I'm not saying gays are humorless. I'm saying a gay person needs a sense of humor to get through life.

You heteros make us sick! :mad:

[Crowforge]

Sure, um... just not for me.

[spideyboy_1111]

No. I'm not saying gays are humorless. I'm saying a gay person needs a sense of humor to get through life.
yes.. of course.. because we have the tormenting decision of stayin in the closet (wich usually leads to a loveless marriage to a wife, and having kids, when suddenly you cant take it anymore and ruin a marriage because it was based on a lie) or coming out and being ridiculed by ignorant people like you... now tell me just exactly when and where are we suppose to find insults from people like you funny?

[blind_fury]

yes.. of course.. because we have the tormenting decision of stayin in the closet (wich usually leads to a loveless marriage to a wife, and having kids, when suddenly you cant take it anymore and ruin a marriage because it was based on a lie) or coming out and being ridiculed by ignorant people like you... now tell me just exactly when and where are we suppose to find insults from people like you funny?
Jeeze, if my baseless comments really hurt you that badly then you better toughen up or you're not going to last very long in a world like ours.

I'm black and I welcome honesty from people who have less than perfectly politcally correct ideas. They challenge my beliefs and I challenge theirs. It keeps me on my toes.

Perhaps you prefer a perfectly sterile environemnt. Too bad that really doesn't help your immune system in the long run.

[spideyboy_1111]

Jeeze, if my baseless comments really hurt you that badly then you better toughen up or you're not going to last very long in a world like ours.

I'm black and I welcome honesty from people who have less than perfectly politcally correct ideas. They challenge my beliefs and I challenge theirs. It keeps me on my toes.

Perhaps you prefer a perfectly sterile environemnt. Too bad that really doesn't help your immune system in the long run.

well hate to dissapoint you.. but much more gay bashings happen in this day in age then racial bashings do today.. yes, we don't have it as bad as you guys did in the 60's but guess what.. i doubt you experienced that first hand either... and you of all people should understand tolerance..

and to be honest.. i love how when people mention banning .. suddenly you act like you were "just playing" or "had no basis" or just "trying to keep us on our toes" :whatever:

[blind_fury]

well hate to dissapoint you.. but much more gay bashings happen in this day in age then racial bashings do today.. yes, we don't have it as bad as you guys did in the 60's but guess what.. i doubt you experienced that first hand either... and you of all people should understand tolerance..

and to be honest.. i love how when people mention banning .. suddenly you act like you were "just playing" or "had no basis" or just "trying to keep us on our toes" :whatever:
Well if I say " gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt" you can:

A) Ignore it

B) Disprove it

C) Cry like little baby because someone feels different from you and try to have them banned for life

[spideyboy_1111]

Let me put it this way... if i said "black people shouldn't adopt" I'd be getting the same backlash as you... but im not that ignorant

[WorthyStevens]

As long as I don't get killed somehow, I'm ok with gay marriage.

[spideyboy_1111]

haha.. ok.. fine with me.. dont see how gay marriage could be harmful in anyway but glad your with us! :D

[blind_fury]

Let me put it this way... if i said "black people shouldn't adopt" I'd be getting the same backlash as you... but im not that ignorant
I already said I was playing devils advocate and you can't get that through your head.

And you can pretend billions of people are not really against gay people adopting. Maybe that sentiment will magically go away. :heart:

[Kevin]

This is the thread that just won't ennnnd. Yes it goes on and on, my friends.
Some people started saying things they knew would start a buzz,
and they'll continue saying things forever just because...

This is the thread that just won't die. It makes me really want to cry.
Some people started saying things, don't know why they won't stop,
maybe they need to have a chat with friends of baby bop.

I love you, you love me. We're the best SHH! family...

do I really need to continue? this thread is not going anywhere.

[spideyboy_1111]

I already said I was playing devils advocate and you can't get that through your head.

And you can pretend billions of people are not really against gay people adopting. Maybe that sentiment will magically go away. :heart:
billions.. no.. millions yes..

and again.. you say ur playing devils advocate.. AFTER the ban threat... personally sounds like your covering your own ass

[blind_fury]

billions.. no.. millions yes..

and again.. you say ur playing devils advocate.. AFTER the ban threat... personally sounds like your covering your own ass
There are 1.5 billion muslims in the world. how many of them do you think are huge fans of gays adopting? That doesn't include christains and many other tradition minded people.

and if you don't realize I'm being sarcastic when I say this:
...but gays are more likely to be perverted than the average, God-fearing heterosexual. :huh:
well I don't know what to tell you.

[spideyboy_1111]

There are 1.5 billion muslims in the world. how many of them do you think are huge fans of gays adopting? That doesn't include christains and many other tradition minded people.

and if you don't realize I'm being sarcastic when I say this:

well I don't know what to tell you.
I think gay adoption is one of the last things on muslims minds... and im not talking the whole world.. im talkin the US... due to the fact this debate is over the US gay marriage considering most of europe and canada has already allowed it

[Spider-Bite]

I wouldn't want blind fury banned for freedom of speech reasons, however I have to say his comments are quite disgusting and counter productive to freedom.

some people say "I'm not against gays i just believe that hetero sexual marriage should have a special place and allowing gays to get married threatens the tradition of traditional marriage"

some people say "marriage should be between a man and a woman"

some people say "gay marriage is immoral"

how would you feel blind fury, if somebody said (beware I do not share these following opinions. they are equally disgusting to the ones you have been making)

"marriage should be between a white man and a white woman"
"marriage between white people should have a special place and allowing blacks to get married diminishes the meaning and specialness of it"
"blacks getting married is immoral and threatens the tradition of white marriage"
"If I grew up watching two black people kissing and hugging each other I'd be scarred for life"

How would you feel if our government leaders made those comments and and Bush denounced your family the way he has publicly and offically denounced the gay marriages that have taken place? How would you feel if the government tried to tear apart your family and take your kids away from you or took you away from your parents or break up your marriage? This is what you want done to gay people, and you should try to put yourself in their shoes.


There are people of different religions, skin colors, sexual orientations and different everything. We need to live together in peace and quit trying to alienate, go to war with, and discriminate against our fellow humans.

[Spider-Bite]

If a gay person needs anything it's a sense of humor.

what a prejudcial and discriminatory comment. just because somebody's gay that means they can't laugh?

[Dan33977]

If you had asked me a year ago, I would have given you a much different answer than the one below, but I have radically different views now than I did then. I did post some of my views on this subject in another thread in this forum, but I'm going to post them here, too.

If you wish to give more rights, privileges, and/or the actual ability do something that doesn't require something man-made or man-instituted like money or education (in other words, it requires natural things like love or the ability to breath and live) to just some people (be it the majority or a select few), but not to all people, then you are unpatriotic and un-American. You're a traitor to this country and hate that it was founded on the notion of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I'm so sick of neoconservatives tearing apart this country by simply ignoring the ideals on which it was built (which is freedom and equality for all, I REPEAT, ALL (CAN YOU HEAR ME?) ALL of its goddamned, mother-****ing citizens)! By denying a certain group of people the ability to do something that you are still allowed to do is simply going against these very notions on which our country was founded, thus making you unpatriotic and un-American, in my eyes.

All the social conservatives, religious zealots, radical Republicans, conservative Democrats, war-loving hicks, and bigoted rednecks who are not only opposed to gay marriage, but also just opposed to homosexuality in general, need to wake up and the smell the ****ing coffee. Stop labeling those who don't support this war as unpatriotic; stop accusing those who don't agree with the President of treachery—it's foolish and obnoxious because it's not true. Start remembering what it was that our Founding Fathers fought for 200 years ago, and start thinking about what it ACTUALLY MEANS TO BE A ****ING AMERICAN! Last time I checked, it didn't mean agreeing with everything our President does or says. I mean, sure, part of the idea of the United States is to be united, but fundamentally I would go as far as to say that to be an American is to oppose the very idea of government. I mean, isn't that what our Founding Fathers were essentially doing? I love this country, I love what it (at least is supposed to) stand for, and I'll be damned if some bible-thumping hicks are going to call me unpatriotic and un-American, accusing me of hating America and being a traitor when THEY ARE THE DOLTS WHO ARE NOT ONLY IGNORING, BUT ALSO OPPOSING THE SIMPLE FUDNEMENTALS THAT OUR COUNTRY IS SUPPOSED TO STAND FOR BY DENYING GAYS THE RIGHT TO MARRY!

Please note, though, that I am certainly not a socialist—I'm far from this. In fact, I might be even more opposed to socialism than I am to bigotry. Just remember what I originally stated at the beginning of this reply: I want only freedom and equality when it comes to social issues. In other words, I consider myself a Libertarian: though I'm socially liberal, I'm also fiscally conservative; I have qualms with liberal Democrats, too, but Republicans are far worse right now, in my opinion.

[Kyalesyin]

For all those who are saying 'just take the civil union' option. I did that.

Now let me tell you this. I am looking for a job. Because an application form is a legal document, when 'marital status' is asked, I have to put 'in a civil union'. It is a crime for me to state 'married' because I am not. I am gay. If I was heterosexual and married the same way, in a register office, under the supervision of a registrar, nowhere near a religious building, I would still be allowed to use 'married'. A new shopping centre just opened in the centre of the city, needing a few thousand people to fill the vacant jobs. It seems odd that I am now one of the only people who applied for the jobs that didn't get one. Its even stranger that I haven't heard back from a single application. I wonder if the fact that only gay people have to register as 'civily partnered' has anything to do with it?

[Mr Sparkle]

If you take religion out of the equation, then yes, gays can marry and so can polygamists. That is about the biggest reason why politicians don't legalize it across the nation. A small group of this country wants to be married and be homosexuals. If that happens, then another small group of this country, polygamists, would want to have their union acknowledged too. Who ultimately draws the line at where marriage begins and where it ends? Who has the ultimate say as to who can be married and who can't? If homosexuals can marry, why can't polygamists or incestual partners marry? Hell, in may parts of the ancient world and today's world, incest is not conisdered taboo. It's a slippery slope.

no, maybe many parts of the ancient world, yes, not the modern world.
and Incest can result in harm to potential offspring so your argument is null.

[the_joker]

For all those who are saying 'just take the civil union' option. I did that.

Now let me tell you this. I am looking for a job. Because an application form is a legal document, when 'marital status' is asked, I have to put 'in a civil union'. It is a crime for me to state 'married' because I am not. I am gay. If I was heterosexual and married the same way, in a register office, under the supervision of a registrar, nowhere near a religious building, I would still be allowed to use 'married'. A new shopping centre just opened in the centre of the city, needing a few thousand people to fill the vacant jobs. It seems odd that I am now one of the only people who applied for the jobs that didn't get one. Its even stranger that I haven't heard back from a single application. I wonder if the fact that only gay people have to register as 'civily partnered' has anything to do with it?

It is ridiculous that we still live in a society that discriminates against a particular social group. First it was race, then women, and now it's sexual orientation, it's laughable really. Since when was it the government's business to choose who marries whom? I think they should legalise marriage for all, but leave the choice up to the church ministers to decide whether they want to marry the said couple or not. That way, you wouldn't be inflicting something that might conflict with certain people's (out of date) views and those who are happy to do it, will! Thus, everybody is happy and we will all live happily ever after. :yay:

[triplefive]

For all those who are saying 'just take the civil union' option. I did that.

Now let me tell you this. I am looking for a job. Because an application form is a legal document, when 'marital status' is asked, I have to put 'in a civil union'. It is a crime for me to state 'married' because I am not. I am gay. If I was heterosexual and married the same way, in a register office, under the supervision of a registrar, nowhere near a religious building, I would still be allowed to use 'married'. A new shopping centre just opened in the centre of the city, needing a few thousand people to fill the vacant jobs. It seems odd that I am now one of the only people who applied for the jobs that didn't get one. Its even stranger that I haven't heard back from a single application. I wonder if the fact that only gay people have to register as 'civily partnered' has anything to do with it?
that's pretty crazy that they're still allowed to ask your marital status. in canada all of that stuff is NYOB. they can figure out your gender, of course, your ethnicity, and glean your age (from your interviews/resume) but that's it. they're not allowed to ask for anything else that they might discriminate against.

[Spider-Fett]

Do I care if two guys or girls get married and recieve the spiritual, emotional and financial happiness it brings? No.

Do I care what it means for the next group who want to shove there "rights" down our throats till we gag and pass out and finally just give them what they want too if gay marriage passes? Yes.

[gdw]

no, maybe many parts of the ancient world, yes, not the modern world.
and Incest can result in harm to potential offspring so your argument is null.

So can non related sexual partners. Random chance can result in two people who are simply not genetically compatible. The chances are far less than related sex partmers, but they are still there.

Also, what about relatives who have no intention of having children together? Or are infertile? Seems that your argument has just been made null . . .

[jaguarr]

I think Ellen kinda proves you wrong with that comment... us gays are hilarious.. but dont degrade us

Ummm....Ellen is in need of a sense of humor more than pretty much 98% of Earth's inhabitants. Bad example, even if I do agree with you.

jag

[jaguarr]

So can non related sexual partners. Random chance can result in two people who are simply not genetically compatible. The chances are far less than related sex partmers, but they are still there.

Also, what about relatives who have no intention of having children together? Or are infertile? Seems that your argument has just been made null . . .

Are you actually arguing in favor of incest? :huh:

jag

[gdw]

that's pretty crazy that they're still allowed to ask your marital status. in canada all of that stuff is NYOB. they can figure out your gender, of course, your ethnicity, and glean your age (from your interviews/resume) but that's it. they're not allowed to ask for anything else that they might discriminate against.


But they will need it for spousal benifits.

[gdw]

Are you actually arguing in favor of incest? :huh:

jag


Well, it's more that I am finding it hard to argue against, out side of the Stockholm comparison I brought up earlier, and the uggh factor.

[jaguarr]

Well, it's more that I am finding it hard to argue against, out side of the Stockholm comparison I brought up earlier, and the uggh factor.

The uggggh factor isn't enough for you? :huh:

jag

[gdw]

The uggggh factor isn't enough for you? :huh:

jag


Well, you realise that the ugggh factor is enough for those who are against homosexuality . . .

[Mr Sparkle]

So can non related sexual partners. Random chance can result in two people who are simply not genetically compatible. The chances are far less than related sex partmers, but they are still there.

Also, what about relatives who have no intention of having children together? Or are infertile? Seems that your argument has just been made null . . .

no, actually the "chances are far less" (which you underplayed dramatically) about covers it. because chances are quite high in case of blood realtives.
see? so it may seem to you my argument is null, but not really.

[Holly Goodhead]

Well, you realise that the ugggh factor is enough for those who are against homosexuality . . .

im fairly certain there's a ginormous difference between ****ing someone you love (who isnt related to you) and ****ing your father. let's use our heads

[gdw]

Here's an insesty delama for you.

Lets say a couple give up a child for adoption, a boy, and then a few years later gets pregnant again and gives up the second child, a girl, for adoption (you'd think that they would have learned to just not get pregnant.)

Now, given the time difference the children are adopted by two different families, but all of them live in the same town and the two adopted children meet in highschool and become highschool sweethearts.

You see where this is going. They would have no reason to suspect that they are related, but say they find out? Say they don't find out until they are engaged, or are planning on having children themselves and do genetic testing and phisicals, and they stumble across the fact that they are siblings.

Sounds pretty improbable, but obviously possible.


Here's a less pretty, but more likely scenario;

A man has a son, but also has an affair with a neighbour and fathers a daughter. The two grow up in the same city and are clearly more likely to meet given that they are neighbours.

The father obviously has his reasons to NOT tell anyone about it, neither does the mother of the daughter. Infact, they may not even know that the child is his, she might have assumed it was her husband, or she knew and did not tell the father.

IF the parents even knew that the kids were half siblings, they would not come right out and say it, but would probably try to prevent them from dating.

Obviously, rebelious kids would date anyway and may even run away together to get away from the unapproving parents. they obviously have no idea of the truth, and everything would just seem as normal to them as any other rebelious teens dating.

What happens when these two find out the truth? If they ever do?

I am sure some of you will recognize this scenario from House.

These kinds of things do happen. What do the people do then? You can't just un-love someone.


I don't think that insest should occur, and I believe that when it usually does occur it is a misunderstanding of the love that people have for their relatives, or is a result of abuse, either between the two, or the result of one being abused previously in their life, as that can have devistating affects on one's sex and love life.

However, it is vary hard to argue against those cases where it is not a atter of abuse and is just a relationship that developed out of something different. The same procces that happens when a life long friendship turns into a romance perhaps.

Aside from the uggh factor, how the hell do you argue against it?

[Holly Goodhead]

youre having sex with your sister arent you.

[gdw]

im fairly certain there's a ginormous difference between ****ing someone you love (who isnt related to you) and ****ing your father. let's use our heads


there's also a huge difference between having sex with a man, and having sex with a woman.

The degree to which it grosses you out doesn't make it any more effective an argument.

[X-Chick]

I don't understand why people they have a right to tell people who they are allowed to love. While we're at it, why don't we ban inter-racial marriages.

[maxwell's demon]

insesty delama is a soap opera star from irkutsk. i'm 13% sure.

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't understand why people they have a right to tell people who they are allowed to love. While we're at it, why don't we ban inter-racial marriages.

I wouldnt care if gays and polygymists got the privledge to marry. It's the people who have sex with animals, their family, and little kids who worry me.

[gdw]

youre having sex with your sister arent you.


Hell no, lol.

I find the idea far tooo disturbing. I do not agree with incest and can not really say that it should be allowed.

Just observing that it IS hard to argue against it in a situation where both people are truely consenting adults.

I still feel that it is a misinturpritation of their family love that leads to it, or just a damn fine cousin ;) but the aruments against it are the same as the ones against homosexuality, and seem to carry the same amount of validity.

[Dangerous]

I think its wrong.

[Holly Goodhead]

do not compare homosexuality with beastiality, pedophilia, incest. they really have nothing do with each other and it;s mean. except for the pedophiles.

[Mr Sparkle]

Here's an insesty delama for you.

Lets say a couple give up a child for adoption, a boy, and then a few years later gets pregnant again and gives up the second child, a girl, for adoption (you'd think that they would have learned to just not get pregnant.)

Now, given the time difference the children are adopted by two different families, but all of them live in the same town and the two adopted children meet in highschool and become highschool sweethearts.

You see where this is going. They would have no reason to suspect that they are related, but say they find out? Say they don't find out until they are engaged, or are planning on having children themselves and do genetic testing and phisicals, and they stumble across the fact that they are siblings.

Sounds pretty improbable, but obviously possible.


Here's a less pretty, but more likely scenario;

A man has a son, but also has an affair with a neighbour and fathers a daughter. The two grow up in the same city and are clearly more likely to meet given that they are neighbours.

The father obviously has his reasons to NOT tell anyone about it, neither does the mother of the daughter. Infact, they may not even know that the child is his, she might have assumed it was her husband, or she knew and did not tell the father.

IF the parents even knew that the kids were half siblings, they would not come right out and say it, but would probably try to prevent them from dating.

Obviously, rebelious kids would date anyway and may even run away together to get away from the unapproving parents. they obviously have no idea of the truth, and everything would just seem as normal to them as any other rebelious teens dating.

What happens when these two find out the truth? If they ever do?

I am sure some of you will recognize this scenario from House.

These kinds of things do happen. What do the people do then? You can't just un-love someone.


I don't think that insest should occur, and I believe that when it usually does occur it is a misunderstanding of the love that people have for their relatives, or is a result of abuse, either between the two, or the result of one being abused previously in their life, as that can have devistating affects on one's sex and love life.

However, it is vary hard to argue against those cases where it is not a atter of abuse and is just a relationship that developed out of something different. The same procces that happens when a life long friendship turns into a romance perhaps.

Aside from the uggh factor, how the hell do you argue against it?

that's just it, those 2 instances you described are flukes, freak occurrences.
"I am sure some of you will recognize this scenario from House" LMAO

[gdw]

I wouldnt care if gays and polygymists got the privledge to marry. It's the people who have sex with animals, their family, and little kids who worry me.

See, the issue is a matter of consent. Children and animals cannot consent to having sex with adults.

Well, kids can say they do, but they do not know what they are doing, and have been mind ****ed. Yes, that is the technial term.

Often insestuous relationships can be the result of sexual abuse within a family, and is clearly wrong at that point.

But how can you argue it past that? I am really in a delema here. Outside of it being revolting (we don't need any more revolutions of the sexual kind ;) ) I am truely lost at how to argue against it.

Please, someone prove me wrong. Seriously, give me an argument.

[Holly Goodhead]

it's spelled "dilemma"

[X-Chick]

I think people who are against homosexuality because of a religious issue are the stupidest of all.

[Darren Daring]

He's got a point. If a pair O' 20 year old cousins wanna ****, why not?

[Mr Sparkle]

Often insestuous relationships can be the result of sexual abuse within a family, and is clearly wrong at that point.

But how can you argue it past that? I am really in a delema here. Outside of it being revolting (we don't need any more revolutions of the sexual kind ;) ) I am truely lost at how to argue against it.

Please, someone prove me wrong. Seriously, give me an argument.


what percentage of incestuous relationships happen between happy well adjusted individuals with no proven traumas.
(you'll see how this happens in homosexuals who are attracted to same sex members regardless of environment)

[gdw]

no, actually the "chances are far less" (which you underplayed dramatically) about covers it. because chances are quite high in case of blood realtives.
see? so it may seem to you my argument is null, but not really.


It is just a null as the argumet you attempted to nullify.

[GoldenAgeHero]

I think people who are against homosexuality because of a religious issue are the stupidest of all.

yeah people who have thier own beliefs are stupid.:whatever: your stupidity insult is irony at its best.

[gdw]

that's just it, those 2 instances you described are flukes, freak occurrences.
"I am sure some of you will recognize this scenario from House" LMAO


Yes, but they happen. I am just asking what the hell you think should be done in those situations.

You can't just say that there is an acception.

[X-Chick]

yeah people who have thier own beliefs are stupid.:whatever: your stupidity insult is irony at its best.

It's not really an insult. People who believe homosexuality is wrong because of their own beliefs are one thing, but people who believe its wrong because "The Bible says it is" are different.

[Holly Goodhead]

It's not really an insult. People who believe homosexuality is wrong because of their own beliefs are one thing, but people who believe its wrong because "The Bible says it is" are different.

If we keep opressing them..one day the gays will take over the world. :heart: And everyone will dress better.

[gdw]

what percentage of incestuous relationships happen between happy well adjusted individuals with no proven traumas.
(you'll see how this happens in homosexuals who are attracted to same sex members regardless of environment)


Just because it's rare doesnt mean it doesn't happen. It also means that the true issue with the majority of situations is not the incest but what preluded it.

I am not sure what you are saying about the homosexual situation. Are you saying that it is similar with homosexuals and that they are usually the result of an abusive situation? They are not actually.

Although there are cases where someone DOES make it a choice to be with someone of the same sex after being abused by a member of the opposite sex. This is actually more of the result of a hatred to the opposite sex, a resentment displaced onto the entire sex after the actions of one.

It is not so much a matter of likeing the same sex as it is despising the opposite sex.

Most homosexuals do not hate the opposite sex.

[jaguarr]

Incest is generally about the sexual aspects of a relationship that is considered taboo (and often those taboo elements are a big part of the turn-on for some of those who participate in incestuous relationships). Actual procreation between people who aren't very far from each other on the family tree is technically inbreeding, so that's a bit of a different discussion. Like it or not, incest and inbreeding are linked with the survival and healthy evolution of the human species and engaging in those acts puts the gene pool at a greater risk of abnormality developing. This argument is moot where homosexuals are concerned, because generally are not related to one another; the also do not procreate as a general rule and when they do it's usually from a selected sperm or egg donor who was chosen specifically because they would increase the chances of a healthy, intelligent child.

Both incest and homosexuality are frowned upon, and even legislated against, due to social outlook about the practices. But if you look at the reasons behind those social beliefs, the reasons are very different. Homosexuality is looked down up on primarily because of religious beliefs that say it is wrong. It really affects nobody in a negative way for someone to be gay other than the "ugggh factor".

Incest and inbreeding are looked down upon, and largely illegal in most states, because of the risk of children with physical and mental health issues due to traits running within families and their genes and that is a large reason as to why it's considered wrong. Another problem with incest is that the practice of it undermines the integrity of the concept of a family. The ideal is that a family loves and supports each other through thick and thin in that familial sort of way, untampered by sexuality and the behaviors it can bring that might undermine that. It would devastate a family's closeness if a father and his daughter were to start having sex once she was of legal age and probably disintegrate that family, regardless of whether it was socially acceptable or not. This could result in a higher instance of people developing other societal problems such as alcoholism, sex abuse, drug use, lack of drive and thus not contributing to society in the workforce and therefore reducing tax revenue, and so on. So, all biological reasons aside, there are very good sociological reasons for incest or inbreeding not to be accepted by society.

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

It is just a null as the argumet you attempted to nullify.

is it really? or are you merely unable to discern between the likelyhood of real situations and episodes of House?

[GoldenAgeHero]

It's not really an insult. People who believe homosexuality is wrong because of their own beliefs are one thing, but people who believe its wrong because "The Bible says it is" are different.

same difference. beliefs can stem from anything,religion, personal experience, etc. some take thier religious beliefs to heart, if thats the way they feel then that's that. calling them stupid because of it, is'nt called for.

[Mr Sparkle]

Just because it's rare doesnt mean it doesn't happen. It also means that the true issue with the majority of situations is not the incest but what preluded it.

I am not sure what you are saying about the homosexual situation. Are you saying that it is similar with homosexuals and that they are usually the result of an abusive situation? They are not actually.

Although there are cases where someone DOES make it a choice to be with someone of the same sex after being abused by a member of the opposite sex. This is actually more of the result of a hatred to the opposite sex, a resentment displaced onto the entire sex after the actions of one.

It is not so much a matter of likeing the same sex as it is despising the opposite sex.

Most homosexuals do not hate the opposite sex.


:huh: the hell? read much?

[Mr Sparkle]

there are very good sociological reasons for incest or inbreeding not to be accepted by society.

jag


yeah, that's the whole "healthy people can be homosexuals but it is far more likely for people seeking incestuous relationships to not be healthy" argument (by healthy I mostly mean a developmental health)

[Dan33977]

yeah people who have thier own beliefs are stupid.:whatever: your stupidity insult is irony at its best.

No, she has a point actually. Show me where in the Bible that homosexuality being bad is mentioned and I will admit defeat. The problem is, the actual meaning behind the Bible has been lost in translations and it's totally open to interpretation. Regardless, if you're going to be making laws that are going to affect a large group of actual human beings, you shouldn't be doing it based on a "blind faith" belief in something that cannot be 99% scientifically proven to be true, let alone the fact that the majority of the people in this group don't even agree with what this thing says.

Anyway, if you had asked me a year ago, I would have given you a much different answer than the one below, but I have radically different views now than I did then. I did post some of my views on this subject in another thread in this forum, but I'm going to post them here, too.

If you wish to give more rights, privileges, and/or the actual ability do something that doesn't require something man-made or man-instituted like money or education (in other words, it requires natural things like love or the ability to breath and live) to just some people (be it the majority or a select few), but not to all people, then you are unpatriotic and un-American. You're a traitor to this country and hate that it was founded on the notion of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I'm so sick of neoconservatives tearing apart this country by simply ignoring the ideals on which it was built (which is freedom and equality for all, I REPEAT, ALL (CAN YOU HEAR ME?) ALL of its goddamned, mother-****ing citizens)! By denying a certain group of people the ability to do something that you are still allowed to do is simply going against these very notions on which our country was founded, thus making you unpatriotic and un-American, in my eyes.

All the social conservatives, religious zealots, radical Republicans, conservative Democrats, war-loving hicks, and bigoted rednecks who are not only opposed to gay marriage, but also just opposed to homosexuality in general, need to wake up and the smell the ****ing coffee. Stop labeling those who don't support this war as unpatriotic; stop accusing those who don't agree with the President of treachery—it's foolish and obnoxious because it's not true. Start remembering what it was that our Founding Fathers fought for 200 years ago, and start thinking about what it ACTUALLY MEANS TO BE A ****ING AMERICAN! Last time I checked, it didn't mean agreeing with everything our President does or says. I mean, sure, part of the idea of the United States is to be united, but fundamentally I would go as far as to say that to be an American is to oppose the very idea of government. I mean, isn't that what our Founding Fathers were essentially doing? I love this country, I love what it (at least is supposed to) stand for, and I'll be damned if some bible-thumping hicks are going to call me unpatriotic and un-American, accusing me of hating America and being a traitor when THEY ARE THE DOLTS WHO ARE NOT ONLY IGNORING, BUT ALSO OPPOSING THE SIMPLE FUDNEMENTALS THAT OUR COUNTRY IS SUPPOSED TO STAND FOR BY DENYING GAYS THE RIGHT TO MARRY!

Please note, though, that I am certainly not a socialist—I'm far from this. In fact, I might be even more opposed to socialism than I am to bigotry. Just remember what I originally stated at the beginning of this reply: I want only freedom and equality when it comes to social issues. In other words, I consider myself a Libertarian: though I'm socially liberal, I'm also fiscally conservative; I have qualms with liberal Democrats, too, but Republicans are far worse right now, in my opinion.

[Holly Goodhead]

Have you studied early American history? Equality is on the bottom of the to do list.

[GoldenAgeHero]

Have you studied early American history? Equality is on the bottom of the to do list.


i dunno about you, but early american history has taught us equality can be achieved. so your argument goes out the window.


dan3397 sounds like you have some issues.

[maxwell's demon]

i dunno about you, but early american history has taught us equality can be achieved. so your argument goes out the window.


dan3397 sounds like you have some issues.


gah! i hate when i quote someone and extra comments pop up becase they edited in the moment between reading and hitting reply.

anyhow, perhaps holly should have specified years or something. Or maybe you need a better brain. its one of those

[gdw]

Incest is generally about the sexual aspects of a relationship that is considered taboo (and often those taboo elements are a big part of the turn-on for some of those who participate in incestuous relationships). Actual procreation between people who aren't very far from each other on the family tree is technically inbreeding, so that's a bit of a different discussion. Like it or not, incest and inbreeding are linked with the survival and healthy evolution of the human species and engaging in those acts puts the gene pool at a greater risk of abnormality developing. This argument is moot where homosexuals are concerned, because generally are not related to one another; the also do not procreate as a general rule and when they do it's usually from a selected sperm or egg donor who was chosen specifically because they would increase the chances of a healthy, intelligent child.

Both incest and homosexuality are frowned upon, and even legislated against, due to social outlook about the practices. But if you look at the reasons behind those social beliefs, the reasons are very different. Homosexuality is looked down up on primarily because of religious beliefs that say it is wrong. It really affects nobody in a negative way for someone to be gay other than the "ugggh factor".

Incest and inbreeding are looked down upon, and largely illegal in most states, because of the risk of children with physical and mental health issues due to traits running within families and their genes and that is a large reason as to why it's considered wrong. Another problem with incest is that the practice of it undermines the integrity of the concept of a family. The ideal is that a family loves and supports each other through thick and thin in that familial sort of way, untampered by sexuality and the behaviors it can bring that might undermine that. It would devastate a family's closeness if a father and his daughter were to start having sex once she was of legal age and probably disintegrate that family, regardless of whether it was socially acceptable or not. This could result in a higher instance of people developing other societal problems such as alcoholism, sex abuse, drug use, lack of drive and thus not contributing to society in the workforce and therefore reducing tax revenue, and so on. So, all biological reasons aside, there are very good sociological reasons for incest or inbreeding not to be accepted by society.

jag

Thank you for a very inteligible response. Unlick most of the arguments against homosexuality.

However, like most good arguements, they are open to well formulated rebutles (sp, I know, my spelling is atrotious);

"[it] undermines the integrity of the concept of a family"
The same is said about homosexuality and the integrity of the concept of marriage.

"The ideal is that a family loves and supports each other through thick and thin in that familial sort of way, untampered by sexuality and the behaviors it can bring that might undermine that."
Accept for the two heads of said family, who are responsible for all of this, and they are sleeping together.

"It would devastate a family's closeness if a father and his daughter were to start having sex once she was of legal age and probably disintegrate that family,"
Kinda like it would if he started having sex with anyone other than his wife . . . The issue here is not the incest, but the adultry.

"This could result in a higher instance of people developing other societal problems such as alcoholism, sex abuse, drug use, lack of drive and thus not contributing to society in the workforce and therefore reducing tax revenue, and so on."
Similar things are said about the affects of homosexuality on society. They are at higher risk of contracting std's due to the higher occurance of bleeding in male homosexual sex.
But the things that lead to these issues are the abuse scenarios and instances where one spouse cheats on another leading to resentment between them as well as resentment from the children directed at one, or both, of the parents.

Your arguments seemed to focus on a situation where a "complete nuclear family" is broken up by one member cheating on their spouse with another member of the family.
The same arguements apply to any situation where adultry is the root problem.
A closer comparison would be if a woman left a man and married his brother, the childrens uncle. The true issue is adultry, and it is only compounded by the close relation of all involved.


Now, you could argue that in a situation where a single father of two gets involved with one of his daughters would lead to a very complicated sibling rivalry though.

So, the only arguments left are again the social acceptance and pre-concieved notions, sadly.

[Holly Goodhead]

i dunno about you, but early american history has taught us equality can be achieved. so your argument goes out the window.


dan3397 sounds like you have some issues.

yeah...ask anyone who wasnt a white male that. I'm sure the women/african americans/native americans/catholic irish immigrants will agree with you. :whatever:

[Neptune]

I say yes. Let them be happy. It's not like it's hurting straight people.

[gdw]

is it really? or are you merely unable to discern between the likelyhood of real situations and episodes of House?

Um, as I mentioned before, the situations DO occure. I simply used an easily accesible one that people could relate to, or recognize.

But the DO happen. their rarity doesn't negate them. What do you think should happen in said situations? Please don't dismiss the question because it won't happen OFTEN. There is not a huge change of you getting cancer, but that doesn't mean you can't answer what you would do in such a case, or what you think should be done.

[GoldenAgeHero]

yeah...ask anyone who wasnt a white male that. I'm sure the women/african americans/native americans/catholic irish immigrants will agree with you.:whatever:


the point is eventually equality was given. of course it was through hardships, but at the end of the day equality was still achieved. so apparently its not at the bottom of any list. if ya want something badly, the fight for it! and yes those groups will agree with me.

[gdw]

is it really? or are you merely unable to discern between the likelyhood of real situations and episodes of House?

Um, as I mentioned before, the situations DO occure. I simply used an easily accesible one that people could relate to, or recognize.

But the DO happen. their rarity doesn't negate them. What do you think should happen in said situations? Please don't dismiss the question because it won't happen OFTEN. There is not a huge change of you getting cancer, but that doesn't mean you can't answer what you would do in such a case, or what you think should be done.

[gdw]

yeah...ask anyone who wasnt a white male that. I'm sure the women/african americans/native americans/catholic irish immigrants will agree with you. :whatever:


Why do you think it was a concern back then. This is why the problem has gotten somewhat better.

[maxwell's demon]

the point is eventually equality was given. of course it was through hardships, but at the end of the day equality was still achieved. so apparently its not at the bottom of any list. if ya want something badly, the fight for it! and yes those groups will agree with me.


A) she said EARLY american history. my word, man!

B)well what the hell do you think gays are doing right now?!!?

[Holly Goodhead]

A) she said EARLY american history. my word, man!

B)well what the hell do you think gays are doing right now?!!?

seriously, and he's black! you would think he would have a little more understanding towards a group of people being singled out.

[Mr Sparkle]

"[it] undermines the integrity of the concept of a family"
The same is said about homosexuality and the integrity of the concept of marriage.

actually no, since Incestual relation come directly from within the family

"The ideal is that a family loves and supports each other through thick and thin in that familial sort of way, untampered by sexuality and the behaviors it can bring that might undermine that."
Accept for the two heads of said family, who are responsible for all of this, and they are sleeping together.

and that's the dynamic of the Spousal relationship, the Parental realtionship or the sibbling relationship would be "tampered" and therefore strain the corresponding relationship

"It would devastate a family's closeness if a father and his daughter were to start having sex once she was of legal age and probably disintegrate that family,"
Kinda like it would if he started having sex with anyone other than his wife . . . The issue here is not the incest, but the adultry.

again, you seem to conveniently ignored the fact that a factor from "without" the family is different from a factor from "within"

"This could result in a higher instance of people developing other societal problems such as alcoholism, sex abuse, drug use, lack of drive and thus not contributing to society in the workforce and therefore reducing tax revenue, and so on."
Similar things are said about the affects of homosexuality on society. They are at higher risk of contracting std's due to the higher occurance of bleeding in male homosexual sex.

actually you're wrong, since lesbians are also homosexuals and safe sex practices are more common amongst all since the 80's and the age of aids


But the things that lead to these issues are the abuse scenarios and instances where one spouse cheats on another leading to resentment between them as well as resentment from the children directed at one, or both, of the parents.

:huh: whaaaaaat what does this have to do with what Jag said


Your arguments seemed to focus on a situation where a "complete nuclear family" is broken up by one member cheating on their spouse with another member of the family.
The same arguements apply to any situation where adultry is the root problem.
A closer comparison would be if a woman left a man and married his brother, the childrens uncle. The true issue is adultry, and it is only compounded by the close relation of all involved.

no, actually, the true issue is not adultery, not by a long shot
the "true issue" is that in the case of Incestuous relationships it is often one parent that manipulates the child into the belief that a given situation is normal or abnormal, also when oedipus or Elektra complexes develop they usually from trauma suffered at a young age or lack of a healthy development during puberty.
most children idolize their parents and wish to "marry" them when young but natural tendencies along with societal conditioning usually kick in because some species of animals have incestuous relationship (when regarded to sexual activity) but mostly in given situations where diversity is scarce and the drive to procreate overrides al other impulses.


Now, you could argue that in a situation where a single father of two gets involved with one of his daughters would lead to a very complicated sibling rivalry though.

So, the only arguments left are again the social acceptance and pre-concieved notions, sadly.

no, only when we oversimplify, something that you are doing is, is this "pre-conceived notion" argument valid.

[jaguarr]

"[it] undermines the integrity of the concept of a family"
The same is said about homosexuality and the integrity of the concept of marriage.

Ahh, but you are citing propaganda rhetoric from people who are anti-gay who utilize twisted logic in order to suit their own needs and beliefs. There are plenty of instances of homosexuals who have very loving family environments with committed partners where they have either adopted children or found a way to have them through sperm or egg donors. They don't push their sexuality on their kids and just want them to grow up to be happy, healthy, and accepting of other people's sexual preferences. Sounds like a healthy family environment to me, and it completely undermines any argument someone might make that homosexuality in of itself goes against the grain of the concept of "family". Incest typically happens in homes where there are some serious issues happening in the family environment because boundaries and self-control are not excercised.


"The ideal is that a family loves and supports each other through thick and thin in that familial sort of way, untampered by sexuality and the behaviors it can bring that might undermine that."
Accept for the two heads of said family, who are responsible for all of this, and they are sleeping together.

All families have a patriarchal/matriarchal head as a foundation (or even two patriarchs or matriarchs in the case of a family where the parents are gay). They STARTED the family together, after all. In fact, their staying together and faithful to one another is a big part of what makes the family stay together, so I really don't see an argument, here.


"It would devastate a family's closeness if a father and his daughter were to start having sex once she was of legal age and probably disintegrate that family,"
Kinda like it would if he started having sex with anyone other than his wife . . . The issue here is not the incest, but the adultry.

Or an Uncle and his niece. Or a grandmother and her grandson. Or any other combination you can think of. It still undermines family integrity. Adultery is a whole other issue.


"This could result in a higher instance of people developing other societal problems such as alcoholism, sex abuse, drug use, lack of drive and thus not contributing to society in the workforce and therefore reducing tax revenue, and so on."
Similar things are said about the affects of homosexuality on society. They are at higher risk of contracting std's due to the higher occurance of bleeding in male homosexual sex.

Unprotected sex of any kind puts it's participants at risk for contraction of an STD regardless of their sexual orientation, particuarly if it's not monogomous.


But the things that lead to these issues are the abuse scenarios and instances where one spouse cheats on another leading to resentment between them as well as resentment from the children directed at one, or both, of the parents.

Agreed.


Your arguments seemed to focus on a situation where a "complete nuclear family" is broken up by one member cheating on their spouse with another member of the family.

It was just one example and it still applies to any kind of family, and any of it's members, where trust and integrity is violated by incestual activity.


The same arguements apply to any situation where adultry is the root problem.

Not really. Adultery doesn't happen between two siblings, yet is potentially very damaging to the relationship.


A closer comparison would be if a woman left a man and married his brother, the childrens uncle. The true issue is adultry, and it is only compounded by the close relation of all involved.

Adultery is a separate issue. Stop trying to tie adultery to incest or inbreeding. Does it happen? Sure. But the two are not mutually exclusive.


Now, you could argue that in a situation where a single father of two gets involved with one of his daughters would lead to a very complicated sibling rivalry though.

Or if his brother started screwing one of his daughters. Or if he started screwing his brother's daughter. Or if his Mom started screwing his daughters. Etc., etc., etc. In any of those instances, the integrity of the family would be damaged. It's not just limited to a "perfect nuclear family".


So, the only arguments left are again the social acceptance and pre-concieved notions, sadly.

I disagree, as noted above. I really think you're grasping at straws on this issue, in all honesty.

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

Um, as I mentioned before, the situations DO occure. I simply used an easily accesible one that people could relate to, or recognize.

But the DO happen. their rarity doesn't negate them. What do you think should happen in said situations? Please don't dismiss the question because it won't happen OFTEN. There is not a huge change of you getting cancer, but that doesn't mean you can't answer what you would do in such a case, or what you think should be done.

actually, it surely doesn't "negate" them, but it makes them a singular ocurrence.
it gives them a quality of uniqueness that makes them not fit to be compared to situations that are NOT unique as the ones you mention.
hence trying to argue against one while citing the other would be misguided at best, disingenious at worst.

[gdw]

I wasn't, your argument brought it up.

Also, I am not speaking about child abuse situations. Not all incest evolves out of that, and again, when it does, the incest is not the major concern, the abuse is.

Looking at a situation where two consenting adults who are not involved with anyone else engage in a sexual relationship, and they just happen to be related. What is the argument against THIS.

Not incest evolving from child abuse, or anyform of abuse, or an affair.

Just two single consenting adults who are related. Obviously problems will arise with other members of their family not approving, but again, this is just something inherent with people not agreeing with someone.
Family members often do not approve of homosexual relationships, and interracial relationships. I am not saying that incest is the same as those, but the lack of approval IS.

Thus the issues it brings to the table are not unique to the incest scenario and are also not a direct result of the incest, but rather others intolerance.

So, please, addressing this situation, two consenting, single, related adults involved in a sexual/romantic relationship, what is the arguement against it, that applies specifically to the situation, NOT other lack of willingness to tolerate it.

And again, please keep in mind that I do not really agree with incest, I am just trying to formulate what a real argument against it is.

All of the situations in which it is "bad" are specific situations and everything surounding them, and are not directly related to the acual incest. In the same way in which all of those issues can be found around a homosexual relationship.

[gdw]

actually, it surely doesn't "negate" them, but it makes them a singular ocurrence.
it gives them a quality of uniqueness that makes them not fit to be compared to situations that are NOT unique as the ones you mention.
hence trying to argue against one while citing the other would be misguided at best, disingenious at worst.


No, but they are a situation that does contain incest. Again, please, without just dismissing the situation, what should be done in it? It's a very straight forward question.

[jaguarr]

So, please, addressing this situation, two consenting, single, related adults involved in a sexual/romantic relationship, what is the arguement against it, that applies specifically to the situation, NOT other lack of willingness to tolerate it.


I feel like David Duchovny's character in Zoolander when I say..."Are you serious? I.....just told you...". :huh:

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

I seriously already answered this, numerous times.
my argument was not based (as shown) solely on the potential product of an incestuous relationship. it was merely adressing in 4 lines a poorly constructed idea chaseter had put forth as an opossing reason.
my "argument" if you will is that incest and homosexuality are simply NOT comparable and citing one as precursor to legitimizing the other and citing the ever present "slippery slope" is wrong.

[jaguarr]

I seriously already answered this, numerous times.
my argument was not based (as shown) solely on the potential product of an incestuous relationship. it was merely adressing in 4 lines a poorly constructed idea chaseter had put forth as an opossing reason.
my "argument" if you will is that incest and homosexuality are simply NOT comparable and citing one as precursor to legitimizing the other and citing the ever present "slippery slope" is wrong.

It's not just wrong it's a philosophically and sociologically flawed argument to begin with.

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

It's not just wrong it's a philosophically and sociologically flawed argument to begin with.

jag


that too:cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad:

[Spider-Fett]

The reason people associate homosexuality with beastiality, necrophilia, pedophilia etc. is simple. If you are having an arguement and you are trying to compare the situation to another situation you stick with the same basic scheme.

Right now homosexuality is considered a sexual deviance, a sexual act that does not promote procreation between two consenting human adults (which, sorry, is the actual primal point of sex) as are all of the other things in that list. So therefore THAT is why they are compared. You couldn't say, compare homosexuality to eating chocolate cake with chocolate icing. You have to have some ground basis for the comparison. So therefore people who believe homosexuality is a sexual deviance are going to compare it to other sexual deviances, just like if you were trying to compare a theme park ride, you would compare it to another theme park ride.

[Mr Sparkle]

Mr. T would've said it better.

[jaguarr]

The reason people associate homosexuality with beastiality, necrophilia, pedophilia etc. is simple. If you are having an arguement and you are trying to compare the situation to another situation you stick with the same basic scheme.

Right now homosexuality is considered a sexual deviance, a sexual act that does not promote procreation between two consenting human adults (which, sorry, is the actual primal point of sex) as are all of the other things in that list. So therefore THAT is why they are compared. You couldn't say, compare homosexuality to eating chocolate cake with chocolate icing. You have to have some ground basis for the comparison. So therefore people who believe homosexuality is a sexual deviance are going to compare it to other sexual deviances, just like if you were trying to compare a theme park ride, you would compare it to another theme park ride.

Yes, but there are also plenty of people who don't regard homosexuality as a sexual deviance (often citing instances of animals in the wild who also have homosexual relations), and therein lies the rub. Perhaps that last part was a poor choice of words. :csad:

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

but is sex really solely used for procreation nowadays?

[Spider-Fett]

Yes, but there are also plenty of people who don't regard homosexuality is a sexual deviance (often citing instances of animals in the wild who also have homosexual relations), and therein lies the rub. Perhaps that last part was a poor choice of words. :csad:

jag


The whole "It happens in nature so it must be natural" way of thinking is a load of crap to be quite honest.

Nobody ever said that animals cannot be sexual deviant. For some reason human beings have this "holier than thou" complex that makes us forget that just like penguins and monkeys we too are animals who live on this earth. If a male monkey has sex with a male monkey that doesn't mean that it's perfectly natural. If that were the case, eating our young, murder, physical violence to gain territory, mating with more then one of the opposite sex and incest would all be considered acceptable as well.

Hence the reason I will always vote "No" for gay marriage. Not because I have a problem with it, but because I have a problem with what will come next.

[jaguarr]

It's no more of a crappy argument than "It's deviant". :)

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

that same argument could be used for anything we don't happen to like Fett , slavery, women's rights....so on.

[Spider-Fett]

but is sex really solely used for procreation nowadays?


The purpose of sex is to have children, biologically. The use of condoms, birth control etc to not have children is a preventive choice, it doesn't change the purpose of sex. That's like saying if you use a chainsaw to brush your teeth you can start calling it a toothbrush.

[gdw]

I seriously already answered this, numerous times.
my argument was not based (as shown) solely on the potential product of an incestuous relationship. it was merely adressing in 4 lines a poorly constructed idea chaseter had put forth as an opossing reason.
my "argument" if you will is that incest and homosexuality are simply NOT comparable and citing one as precursor to legitimizing the other and citing the ever present "slippery slope" is wrong.


Yes, but that is not the debate I am presenting. I am discussing what is wrong with incest unto itself. I am saying that any arguemen used against it that is the same as an arguement used against homosexuality really has no grounds as they are all arguements based on not tolerating the situation and the effects people having a prooblem with the situation present, not the problems the situation itself presents.

[Mr Sparkle]

Yes, but that is not the debate I am presenting. I am discussing what is wrong with incest unto itself. I am saying that any arguemen used against it that is the same as an arguement used against homosexuality really has no grounds as they are all arguements based on not tolerating the situation and the effects people having a prooblem with the situation present, not the problems the situation itself presents.

and both Jag and I have already proven you wrong, numerous times.
I'm seriously done with this.

[Spider-Fett]

It's no more of a crappy argument than "It's deviant". :)

jag

deviant: Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dee-vee-uhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.

No, because biologically it IS deviant. It is not normal for a man and a man to have sex, or a woman and a woman to have sex. It does not do what sex is intended to do and that is to procreate.

So therefore saying that homosexuality is deviant sexually is a fact. In fact one could argue that having sex with a sibling of the opposite sex or a child under the age of 18 but old enough to procreate are LESS deviant then homosexuality due to the fact that they are morally and legally wrong, not naturally. Except for the incestual sex leading to a genetically inferior child. But a child nonetheless.

[jaguarr]

The purpose of sex is to have children, biologically.


On the surface, perhaps, but there's also underlying things about it that don't apply to a specific sexuality that could be argued. For instance, it could be argued that sex increases feelings of love and intimacy and serves as an anchor for people to stay together monogomously. It could also be argued that sex provides many health benefits for both participants including prostate health, hormone balancing and circulation to the extremeties. It could also be argued that sex can be a way of not only keeping a mate, but finding and attracting one to begin with (truly not something heterosexuals have cornered the free market on). Like many things in life, there are those that will abuse sex, just because it feels good, and in this day and age there are a lot of people who use sex as a social tool with absolutely NO intention of having children. It's sociology through biology, so to speak.

jag

[jaguarr]

deviant: Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dee-vee-uhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.

No, because biologically it IS deviant. It is not normal for a man and a man to have sex, or a woman and a woman to have sex. It does not do what sex is intended to do and that is to procreate.

So therefore saying that homosexuality is deviant sexually is a fact. In fact one could argue that having sex with a sibling of the opposite sex or a child under the age of 18 but old enough to procreate are LESS deviant then homosexuality due to the fact that they are morally and legally wrong. Not naturally, except for the incestual sex leading to a genetically inferior child. But a child nonetheless.

Deviant is in the eye of the beholder, though. It becomes a matter of perspective. If I don't agree that the sole natural purpose of sex is to have children, then this argument becomes two-sided because then I don't view it as deviant.

jag

[maxwell's demon]

The purpose of sex is to have children, biologically. The use of condoms, birth control etc to not have children is a preventive choice, it doesn't change the purpose of sex. That's like saying if you use a chainsaw to brush your teeth you can start calling it a toothbrush.
yeah if you want to severely distort the issue, yo can say that.


No, Sex is not used solely for procreation. it is not the only biological reason it happens, otherwise sex between animals (in both hetero and homo groupings) where intercourse is not involved would not have been observed many times over by scinetists.

Sex is also a bonding ritual, not to mention an act of simple pleasure - a way to recalibrate hormones, adjust moods, etc. Our biology is not limited to macrocosmic changes (like pregnancies) but also to the less obvious, but equally important, inner changes. we are not machines parts that "fit together in one and only one way".

Our biology does not dictate that each function of our bodies (and our way of interacting) with other bodies) is singular in purpose. nor should it.

to believe otherwise it to be wrong. demonstrably so. end of story.

[Mr Sparkle]

The purpose of sex is to have children, biologically. The use of condoms, birth control etc to not have children is a preventive choice, it doesn't change the purpose of sex. That's like saying if you use a chainsaw to brush your teeth you can start calling it a toothbrush.

no, that's not what I'm saying.
are people who also have sex with no intention to procreate at the time "sexual deviants"?

[Spider-Fett]

On the surface, perhaps, but there's also underlying things about it that don't apply to a specific sexuality that could be argued. For instance, it could be argued that sex increases feelings of love and intimacy and serves as an anchor for people to stay together monogomously. It could also be argued that sex provides many health benefits for both participants including prostate health, hormone balancing and circulation to the extremeties. It could also be argued that sex can be a way of not only keeping a mate, but finding and attracting one to begin with (truly not something heterosexuals have cornered the free market on). Like many things in life, there are those that will abuse sex, just because it feels good, and in this day and age there are a lot of people who use sex as a social tool with absolutely NO intention of having children. It's sociology through biology, so to speak.

jag

Exactly.

But I was speaking in terms of biology, and in the context of it proving the homosexuality is sexually deviant. There are many emotional and physical things that are tied into sex. Emotionally and physically homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality. But if your going to use that arguement, then pedophilia, beastiality and incest can also be considered sexually normal because people can be emotionally attached to children, family and animals and the act of having sex with them will have the same physical effects (for the person doing it at least) as having sex with a consenting human adult.

And thus the problem that I have with gay marriage. It opens the door, legally, for much much more.

[jaguarr]

Exactly.

But I was speaking in terms of biology, and in the context of it proving the homosexuality is sexually deviant. There are many emotional and physical things that are tied into sex. Emotionally and physically homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality. But if your going to use that arguement, then pedophilia, beastiality and incest can also be considered sexually normal because people can be emotionally attached to children, family and animals and the act of having sex with them will have the same physical effects (for the person doing it at least) as having sex with a consenting human adult.

And thus the problem that I have with gay marriage. It opens the door, legally, for much much more.

Except that animals and children can't give consent to sexual relationships, so, yeah....door is still locked pretty tight with the deadbolt, chain, the lock in the handle and a big bar across the frame. No ned to worry. :)

jag

[C. Lee]

For the people who say - marriage is only for procreation - do you advocate doing medical tests on all perspective heterosexual couples to determine if they are able to have children, and in so doing, if any are found that can't have them, not letting them marry? Do you advocate not letting women who have had a hysterectomy or have went through menopause to get married?

[Spider-Fett]

Deviant is in the eye of the beholder, though. It becomes a matter of perspective. If I don't agree that the sole natural purpose of sex is to have children, then this argument becomes two-sided because then I don't view it as deviant.

jag

Which is why I am not trying to argue opinion. We would be here all day arguing whether we believe homosexuality is deviant or not, just like we could argue whether there is life beyond our planet. You cannot prove an opinion.

But you can prove science.

A man having sex with a man will not produce a child.

A woman having sex with a woman will not produce a child.

They can have sexual intercourse for 12 hours a day every day for a 100 years and they will never produce a child. Which is the biological purpose for sex.

So therefore having sex with someone of the same sex, is a sexual encounter that does not fullfill the biological point of sex. So therefore is deviant in the biological sense.

It may produce emotional attachment, love, improved prostate health, burn calories, whatever. But it will not succeed in the purpose of intercourse.

There is no arguing that.

[Spider-Fett]

yeah if you want to severely distort the issue, yo can say that.


No, Sex is not used solely for procreation. it is not the only biological reason it happens, otherwise sex between animals (in both hetero and homo groupings) where intercourse is not involved would not have been observed many times over by scinetists.

Sex is also a bonding ritual, not to mention an act of simple pleasure - a way to recalibrate hormones, adjust moods, etc. Our biology is not limited to macrocosmic changes (like pregnancies) but also to the less obvious, but equally important, inner changes. we are not machines parts that "fit together in one and only one way".

Our biology does not dictate that each function of our bodies (and our way of interacting) with other bodies) is singular in purpose. nor should it.

to believe otherwise it to be wrong. demonstrably so. end of story.

Using science and fact is not a distortion of the issue.

Using feelings, "bonding rituals", moods etc is in actuality distorting the issue. Things that you can not see, taste, study.

What color is love? How does it feel? Where does it come from and where does it go?

Love, emotions, etc are not based off of fact or science. They are based off of feelings and thoughts which is not the arguement that we are having here.

Also if you look back you will see that we have already discussed the human/animal comparison.

[jaguarr]

Which is why I am not trying to argue opinion. We would be here all day arguing whether we believe homosexuality is deviant or not, just like we could argue whether there is life beyond our planet. You cannot prove an opinion.

But you can prove science.

A man having sex with a man will not produce a child.

A woman having sex with a woman will not produce a child.

They can have sexual intercourse for 12 hours a day every day for a 100 years and they will never produce a child. Which is the biological purpose for sex.

So therefore having sex with someone of the same sex, is a sexual encounter that does not fullfill the biological point of sex. So therefore is deviant in the biological sense.

It may produce emotional attachment, love, improved prostate health, burn calories, whatever. But it will not succeed in the purpose of intercourse.

There is no arguing that.

There's plenty of arguing that if you feel that hormone balancing, the release of chemicals into the brain that promote feelings of intimacy and closeness, and the health of a person's sexual function (which is also tied to many other aspects of their health) are all fundamental biological reasons and purposes of sexual activity and just as valid a reason as procreation is. Perhaps maybe more so since so many people have sex with procreation being the LAST of their intentions these days.

jag

[jaguarr]

Using science and fact is not a distortion of the issue.

Using feelings, "bonding rituals", moods etc is in actuality distorting the issue. Things that you can not see, taste, study.

What color is love? How does it feel? Where does it come from and where does it go?

Love, emotions, etc are not based off of fact or science. They are based off of feelings and thoughts which is not the arguement that we are having here.

Also if you look back you will see that we have already discussed the human/animal comparison.

Do you not believe that "love" and "emotions" are products of chemical releases and interactions within the body, particularly in the brain?

jag

[Spider-Fett]

Except that animals and children can't give consent to sexual relationships, so, yeah....door is still locked pretty tight with the deadbolt, chain, the lock in the handle and a big bar across the frame. No ned to worry. :)

jag

They can't legally give consent to sexual relationships. But homosexuals can't legally get married either, at least by federal standards.

The law unfortunately works on words, and rights and slick lawyers. Not on morals and opinions.

Hence the reason we've gone from a country where you could legally kill a man if he had a pistol in his hand to a country where if someone is in your house trying to rob you and you shoot him in the leg out of mercy he can sue you and win.

[gdw]

Ahh, but you are citing propaganda rhetoric from people who are anti-gay who utilize twisted logic in order to suit their own needs and beliefs. There are plenty of instances of homosexuals who have very loving family environments with committed partners where they have either adopted children or found a way to have them through sperm or egg donors. They don't push their sexuality on their kids and just want them to grow up to be happy, healthy, and accepting of other people's sexual preferences. Sounds like a healthy family environment to me, and it completely undermines any argument someone might make that homosexuality in of itself goes against the grain of the concept of "family".

Yeah, that was the point. I was juxtaposing your argument with the obsurd one used against homosexuality. Showing the parallels in the arguments. I agree that homosexuals SHOULD be allowed to raise children.

Incest typically happens in homes where there are some serious issues happening in the family environment because boundaries and self-control are not excercised.

Agreed, but typically is not always.

["The ideal is that a family loves and supports each other through thick and thin in that familial sort of way, untampered by sexuality and the behaviors it can bring that might undermine that."


Except for the two heads of said family, who are responsible for all of this, and they are sleeping together.]

All families have a patriarchal/matriarchal head as a foundation (or even two patriarchs or matriarchs in the case of a family where the parents are gay). They STARTED the family together, after all. In fact, their staying together and faithful to one another is a big part of what makes the family stay together, so I really don't see an argument, here.

Yeah, what you just said here is irrelevent to the arguement. Ofcourse their staying together is a big part of making a family work, and ANYTHING that is introduced to separate them will be a factor that can lead to the family falling apart. But again, not just applied tyo incest, and doesn't always accompany incest. You cannot argue against something by saying that it causes scenarios SOME of the time, when it is introduced into THESE scenarios, you have to argue against the subject itself, not just what CAN happen.

What destroys the family is the couple not staying together, not WHAT makes them separate. What makes them separate can only compound it, but it is not the direct cause of destroying families. A family can be destroyed because a man finally accepts that he is gay, and his children and wife resent him for lying to them (in their eyes) It doesn't mean that being gay is the wrong.


Or an Uncle and his niece. Or a grandmother and her grandson. Or any other combination you can think of. It still undermines family integrity. Adultery is a whole other issue.

No, adultry IS the issue in this scenario, and is exactly why this issue comes up in any other situation of infedelity. Thus it is NOT a problem exclusive to incest. It is not the incest that causes the problem in this scenario, it only compounds it.



Unprotected sex of any kind puts it's participants at risk for contraction of an STD regardless of their sexual orientation, particuarly if it's not monogomous.

Yes, my point as well. Just observing how things like this are applied as arguments when they really are not.

"But the things that lead to these issues are the abuse scenarios and instances where one spouse cheats on another leading to resentment between them as well as resentment from the children directed at one, or both, of the parents.

Agreed.

What you are wgreeing with is the basis of my counter arguement. That the issue is the separation of the family caused by infedelity by a spouse. It doesn't matter that the infedelity was incestual, it only complicated it.

It was just one example and it still applies to any kind of family, and any of it's members, where trust and integrity is violated by incestual activity.

Or any other incident that violates the itegrity of the marriage. Again, try going that with the "husband being gay" replacing "incestual" and you will see what I mean. The prolem is not one inherent with incest, only one compounded by it. In other words, it doesn't go hand in hand with incest, so you cannot use it as an arguement against incest.

This is like saying that homosexuality is wrong because a family is broken up when a man leaves his wife for a man. It is not the homosexuality, or the incest that breaks up the family, it only is an additional factor, but not one that always goes hand in hand with destroying a family.



Not really. Adultery doesn't happen between two siblings, yet is potentially very damaging to the relationship.

Sleeping with a friend can be potentially damaging to your relationship with them to. Doesn't mean it's wrong.



Adultery is a separate issue. Stop trying to tie adultery to incest or inbreeding. Does it happen? Sure. But the two are not mutually exclusive.

Exactlly! But this scenario is one where they are intertwined, and that is the problem with using it as an arguement against incest. It is just the type of knife used in the stabing, but the problem is the stabing, not the knife.




Or if his brother started screwing one of his daughters. Or if he started screwing his brother's daughter. Or if his Mom started screwing his daughters. Etc., etc., etc. In any of those instances, the integrity of the family would be damaged. It's not just limited to a "perfect nuclear family".

No, it's not, but what I am saying is that incest is not just limited to this type of situation. It is only limited to sexual relations with reatives. You can't just say "look, it screws things up here, so it's always wrong" rather then saying it is wrong in this scenario, but there are others were it obviously does NOT screw things up, what about those? If it is NOt wrong in THOSE situations but is wrong in others, then obviously the problem is not the incest, but the situation.

If a lightbuld works in one place but not the other, the problem is not the lightbulb.



I disagree, as noted above. I really think you're grasping at straws on this issue, in all honesty.

jag

Do you see what I am saying?

And again, no you haven't said it already. Nowhere did you address two, single, consenting adults who are related, engaging in sexual conduct, that they both agree to be involved in of their own free will. Be damned what others think. It's not wrong just because others don't agree with it.

It doesn't matter what the rest of the family thinks of them for it unless it is the spouse of one of them, then it is a matter of infedelity, but we are not talking about married couples, so that is not an issue.

I don't care what others think about me marrying my fiance, her family went through a long period of disapproving. They had their issues with it, and it could have rippped them apart (her and her family's relationship that is) but that doesn't make our relationship wrong.

An the relationship is what we are debating. What is wrong with the incestual relationship, one devoid of abuse?

[Spider-Fett]

There's plenty of arguing that if you feel that hormone balancing, the release of chemicals into the brain that promote feelings of intimacy and closeness, and the health of a person's sexual function (which is also tied to many other aspects of their health) are all fundamental biological reasons and purposes of sexual activity and just as valid a reason as procreation is. Perhaps maybe more so since so many people have sex with procreation being the LAST of their intentions these days.

jag


Oh I agree whole heartedly that sex leads to intimacy etc. and that sex is a valueable and necessary part is almost every relationship homosexual or otherwise.

But once again you stand on the slippery slope of an arguement that could be used for more then just homosexual sex.

And if we've learned anything, we've learned that what people intend to do, and what is supposed to be done are usually the exact opposite. People not wanting to have children, doesn't abstain from the fact that sex is designed to create children. And in certain moral structures (like Catholocism) sex for anything but the attempt to make children is considered morally wrong.

[gdw]

The whole "It happens in nature so it must be natural" way of thinking is a load of crap to be quite honest.

Nobody ever said that animals cannot be sexual deviant. For some reason human beings have this "holier than thou" complex that makes us forget that just like penguins and monkeys we too are animals who live on this earth. If a male monkey has sex with a male monkey that doesn't mean that it's perfectly natural. If that were the case, eating our young, murder, physical violence to gain territory, mating with more then one of the opposite sex and incest would all be considered acceptable as well.

Hence the reason I will always vote "No" for gay marriage. Not because I have a problem with it, but because I have a problem with what will come next.


So by that logic you would have voted agains't interracial marriages ased on what was next. If we let different races marry, what's to stop use from letting different species marry? That is a much more logical jump then gay marriage to beastiality.

[triplefive]

Which is why I am not trying to argue opinion. We would be here all day arguing whether we believe homosexuality is deviant or not, just like we could argue whether there is life beyond our planet. You cannot prove an opinion.

But you can prove science.

A man having sex with a man will not produce a child.

A woman having sex with a woman will not produce a child.

They can have sexual intercourse for 12 hours a day every day for a 100 years and they will never produce a child. Which is the biological purpose for sex.

So therefore having sex with someone of the same sex, is a sexual encounter that does not fullfill the biological point of sex. So therefore is deviant in the biological sense.

It may produce emotional attachment, love, improved prostate health, burn calories, whatever. But it will not succeed in the purpose of intercourse.

There is no arguing that.
I hate this argument. If you believe this, then sterile heterosexual men are also sexual deviants because they can have sex 24/7/52 and will never produce children.

[jaguarr]

They can't legally give consent to sexual relationships. But homosexuals can't legally get married either, at least by federal standards.

The law unfortunately works on words, and rights and slick lawyers. Not on morals and opinions.

Hence the reason we've gone from a country where you could legally kill a man if he had a pistol in his hand to a country where if someone is in your house trying to rob you and you shoot him in the leg out of mercy he can sue you and win.

Errr....no. An animal can't give consent at all for that kind of interaction. Legally. Verbally. Through an elaborate act of charades. And if you are going to sit there and tell me that any child is mentally and emotionally developed enough to truly be able to make a proper judgement call on whether they can have sex, particularly with an adult, then I am going to sit here and just chuckle. :)

Your gun analogy is irrelevant.

jag

[Addendum]

The purpose of sex is to have children, biologically. The use of condoms, birth control etc to not have children is a preventive choice, it doesn't change the purpose of sex.
Although, when you get down to specific couples instead of general terms, the purpose for sex in their relationship is different for every couple

[gdw]

The purpose of sex is to have children, biologically. The use of condoms, birth control etc to not have children is a preventive choice, it doesn't change the purpose of sex. That's like saying if you use a chainsaw to brush your teeth you can start calling it a toothbrush.


Well the purpose of eating is to sustain energy, that doesn't mean that eating for a different reason is wrong, now does it?

[gdw]

and both Jag and I have already proven you wrong, numerous times.
I'm seriously done with this.


Where? You've done nothing of the sort.

[jaguarr]

It doesn't matter what the rest of the family thinks of them for it unless it is the spouse of one of them, then it is a matter of infedelity, but we are not talking about married couples, so that is not an issue.


In the context of what constitutes a family, though, it does matter. It still puts a strain on the family and how the relate to one another, no matter how someone may say "The rest of the family be damned, I'm sleeping with my aunt!". You can't exclude the rest of the family and just take them out of the equation. I already answered this. Seriously.

jag

[Spider-Fett]

Do you not believe that "love" and "emotions" are products of chemical releases and interactions within the body, particularly in the brain?

jag

Science has shown that hormones and chemicals in the brain etc. lead to our bodies reacting positively or negatively towards another person. Much like the musk of a deer attracts male deer, or any number of other animals that release a pheremone to initiate mating.

But the whole concept of this magical force that entrances you to be with one person for the rest of your life is a bit of hooey scientifically speaking.

[gdw]

no, that's not what I'm saying.
are people who also have sex with no intention to procreate at the time "sexual deviants"?


By his deffinition, yes, along with oral sex and masturbation.

[Addendum]

I just deviated into an old gym sock :woot:

[jaguarr]

But once again you stand on the slippery slope of an arguement that could be used for more then just homosexual sex.


I disagree. I think you're trying to tie issues together that are completely unrelated when explored and understood in earnest. While an argument may work in support of one instance, it doesn't necessarily work in support of another because that separate instance comes with it's own set of other implications that have to be worked through. It's not an automatic free pass for bestiality if gay marriage is legalized and it's short-sighted with blinders on to think so.

jag

[Spider-Fett]

Although, when you get down to specific couples instead of general terms, the purpose for sex in their relationship is different for every couple


Once again you are looking at opinions and beliefs. We are speaking in a primal animalistic natural functionality here.

Sex is not so you "will fall in love"

A mans sperm isn't designed to connect emotionally with someone.

A womans ovaries do not produce eggs to "find Mr. Right"

The emotions and feelings behind the sexual act may be to do those things. But the biological point of sex is to procreate.

[jaguarr]

Science has shown that hormones and chemicals in the brain etc. lead to our bodies reacting positively or negatively towards another person. Much like the musk of a deer attracts male deer, or any number of other animals that release a pheremone to initiate mating.

But the whole concept of this magical force that entrances you to be with one person for the rest of your life is a bit of hooey scientifically speaking.

Then explain to me how else those hormones and chemicals are to get released into the system just as they are through sexual expression if that is taken out of the equation.

jag

[maxwell's demon]

Using science and fact is not a distortion of the issue.

Using feelings, "bonding rituals", moods etc is in actuality distorting the issue. Things that you can not see, taste, study.

What color is love? How does it feel? Where does it come from and where does it go?

Love, emotions, etc are not based off of fact or science. They are based off of feelings and thoughts which is not the arguement that we are having here.

Also if you look back you will see that we have already discussed the human/animal comparison.


WRONG again, Fett. i'm not distorting the issue- and the distortion wasn't using (incomplete) science, but the toothbursh, chainsaw example.

i never once mentioned love, so i'm not going to bother entertaining that avenue.

Also if you look back the comparison has been brought up many times before even this thread, but in those cases it was being used to illustrate a different (sublty different, but still different) point.

Procreation is ONE purpose of sex. it maybe be the major purpose, but you cannot justifiably say it is the only purpose. that shows an utter lack of knowledge when it comes to the complexities of biology.
biology is not nearly as simplistic as you make it out to be.

[gdw]

In the context of what constitutes a family, though, it does matter. It still puts a strain on the family and how the relate to one another, no matter how someone may say "The rest of the family be damned, I'm sleeping with my aunt!". You can't exclude the rest of the family and just take them out of the equation. I already answered this. Seriously.

jag

Thank you. This was a much better, concise wordingand answer.

Granted, what exactly does constitute a family?

Also, what about if they are the only two alive in their family? This allows us to exclude the family and focus only on the actual act? Again, rare, but who cares, my question is what is wrong with this ACT?

[Spider-Fett]

Well the purpose of eating is to sustain energy, that doesn't mean that eating for a different reason is wrong, now does it?

We are not talking about whether or not homosexuality is wrong or right. At least I'm not. I'm just bringing up the fact that scientifically the act of having sex with someone you cannot procreate with is deviant.

Eating whether you do it to sustain energy or just because you like the food is still sustaining energy. So your comparison is a bit off.

The only way I can see it as having any relavance to the conversation jag, some others and I are having is if you asked if eating something that is not edible (like say a t-shirt) for the purposes of sustaining energy is wrong.

Which the answer would then be. Yes. It is a deviant form of eating.

[jaguarr]

Thank you. This was a much better, concise wordingand answer.

Granted, what exactly does constitute a family?

Also, what about if they are the only two alive in their family? This allows us to exclude the family and focus only on the actual act? Again, rare, but who cares, my question is what is wrong with this ACT?

Seriously, man. I've already answered every single one of those questions before. I'm not going to just sit here and reword them over and over until you can understand them anymore. I'm not trying to be snarky, but it's already been answered.

jag

[gdw]

We are not talking about whether or not homosexuality is wrong or right. At least I'm not. I'm just bringing up the fact that scientifically the act of having sex with someone you cannot procreate with is deviant.

Eating whether you do it to sustain energy or just because you like the food is still sustaining energy. So your comparison is a bit off.

The only way I can see it as having any relavance to the conversation jag, some others and I are having is if you asked if eating something that is not edible (like say a t-shirt) for the purposes of sustaining energy is wrong.

Which the answer would then be. Yes. It is a deviant form of eating.


Ah, and here I thought i was in a Gay marriage, yay or nay thread. My bad.

[jaguarr]

For the people who say - marriage is only for procreation - do you advocate doing medical tests on all perspective heterosexual couples to determine if they are able to have children, and in so doing, if any are found that can't have them, not letting them marry? Do you advocate not letting women who have had a hysterectomy or have went through menopause to get married?

I haven't seen C. Lee's question answered. :)

jag

[gdw]

Seriously, man. I've already answered every single one of those questions before. I'm not going to just sit here and reword them over and over until you can understand them anymore. I'm not trying to be snarky, but it's already been answered.

jag

Then can you please show me were? I have read every one of your posts responding to me, and i did not see it. Thank you.

[Spider-Fett]

WRONG again, Fett. i'm not distorting the issue- and the distortion wasn't using (incomplete) science, but the toothbursh, chainsaw example.

i never once mentioned love, so i'm not going to bother entertaining that avenue.

Also if you look back the comparison has been brought up many times before even this thread, but in those cases it was being used to illustrate a different (sublty different, but still different) point.

Procreation is ONE purpose of sex. it maybe be the major purpose, but you cannot justifiably say it is the only purpose. that shows an utter lack of knowledge when it comes to the complexities of biology.
biology is not nearly as simplistic as you make it out to be.

I refuse to reply intelligently to your posts anymore since you seem bound and determined to not reply intelligently to mine. I am not attacking anyones beliefs nor am I saying anyone is wrong in what they are thinking nor am I insulting anyones intelligence. You however don't seem to be able to handle that concept. So you can kindly go play in traffic.

[maxwell's demon]

We are not talking about whether or not homosexuality is wrong or right.


Ah, and here I thought i was in a Gay marriage, yay or nay thread. My bad.

:dry:

and there you go.
gdw. please leave the thread in shame.

[Spider-Fett]

I haven't seen C. Lee's question answered. :)

jag

Marriage isn't for procreation.

Marriage is for security, financial benefit and social acceptance.

Nothing to do with procreation at all.

[AllThingsComic]

To each his/her own, the constitution of marrage is so polluted and corroded from divorces and reality tv, it's to the point where who cares?

[Spider-Fett]

Ah, and here I thought i was in a Gay marriage, yay or nay thread. My bad.

Gay marriage. Not homosexuality.

[jaguarr]

Then can you please show me were? I have read every one of your posts responding to me, and i did not see it. Thank you.

You know what? No. You can go back and reread it just like I can. It's there in black and white and I've tried to be very clear in my writing and I don't really have the energy or desire to explore every single little corner case you can dream up about the subject and decide how that fits into the grand scheme of things. I've enjoyed the discussion with you, but I'm done.

jag

[gdw]

I refuse to reply intelligently to your posts anymore since you seem bound and determined to not reply intelligently to mine. I am not attacking anyones beliefs nor am I saying anyone is wrong in what they are thinking nor am I insulting anyones intelligence. You however don't seem to be able to handle that concept. So you can kindly go play in traffic.


But you are saying that sex serves only one purpose.

My analogy still stands as eating serves more than just one purpose. As does sex. Otherwise, as mentioned, every human should ONLY have sex when they intend to have a child, and no other time, and take no pleasure in it, because sexdoes not serve the purpose of gratification. Also we should only eat when we need to, and never any other time, and it should only be bare minimum recuired, no flavour, just protien pills.