Jesus_lol Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 [quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1338697875' post='2440158'] I'm not going to ask why you know which states you can have sex with a horse legally. [/quote] blame facebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338699788' post='2440171'] The difference between gay marriage and the various insidious acts that have been referenced: 2 non-related adult human beings Free will (see also: consent) You wanna talk about polygamy? That's for another thread. There's no reason that we can't decide, as a society, that willing adults who are not related can get married. The line is arbitrary now, and we can move it back any arbitrary length we want. And with that I end my participation in this thread. [/quote]The arbitrary arguement. Ther is no arguement against that because it has already been predetermined any proposed justification will be dismissed. A sure way to close your mind with confidence in your conviction. I haz cheez, therefore you argument is invalidz and r- bitarry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338699788' post='2440171'] 2 non-related adult human beings Free will (see also: consent) [/quote] [size=6]BUT WHY?![/size] [size=4]why non-related[/size]? Don't you understand the question? We know incest is different than gay marriage, and we know how it's different, what we don't know is WHY you so arbitrarily impose "non-related" onto what is an acceptable marriage, and then get your panties up in a bunch when people can't give you a non-religious reason to disallow gay marriage. Stop acting like it's an unfair question. It is not. AFAIK the only reason you've given as to why incest shouldn't be allowed is because it is illegal. You say that there shouldn't be arbitrary moral impositions onto the legality of marriage, but you balk at incest. Why is it OK for you to do so? NO ONE is equating gay-marriage to incest (other than perhaps saying both are immoral, but you see this immorality stems from the same principle: all sexual acts must be marital, open to life, and and act of mutual love). They can explain this premise via theology (which is not allowed to define law says you). So then you come in with a premise that includes "un-related" adults. But WHERE is that coming from? An inner sense that incest is wrong and a threat to society? Religious influence? WHAT?! Please tell us. Can you really not see this glaring inconsistency? Edited June 4, 2012 by Ice_nine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 [quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1338786868' post='2440457'] [size=6]BUT WHY?![/size] why non-related? Don't you understand the question? We know incest is different than gay marriage, and we know how it's different, what we don't know is WHY you so arbitrarily impose "non-related" onto what is an acceptable marriage, and then get your panties up in a bunch when people can't give you a non-religious reason to disallow gay marriage. Stop acting like it's an unfair question. It is not. AFAIK the only reason you've given as to why incest shouldn't be allowed is because it is illegal. You say that there shouldn't be arbitrary moral impositions onto the legality of marriage, but you balk at incest. Why is it OK for you to do so? NO ONE is equating gay-marriage to incest (other than perhaps saying both are immoral, but you see this immorality stems from the same principle: all sexual acts must be marital, open to life, and and act of mutual love). They can explain this premise via theology (which is not allowed to define law says you). So then you come in with a premise that includes "un-related" adults. But WHERE is that coming from? An inner sense that incest is wrong and a threat to society? Religious influence? WHAT?! Please tell us. Can you really not see this glaring inconsistency? [/quote] Incest is different because there is an arguable legal basis for prohibiting it that goes beyond unfounded religious assertions. The Hapsburg chin is something best avoided. Will permitting marriage between relatives lead to severely inbred families? Probably not. From what I understand it must be a multi-generational pattern. But it's different because there may well be a compelling state interest. And yes, this same logic applies to families (like part of mine) that carry genetic conditions that can lead to sever problems for the children. I'm not coming down for or against prohibiting incest. Don't know enough about it. But it's not arbitrary to hesitate about incest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 so now yer in favor of eugenics...selective breeding, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amory Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 [quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1338696558' post='2440144'] obviously the law in the USA favours people who marry their cousins or get it on with their barnyard animals, as it is legal to marry first cousins or to have sex with horses in more states than it is legal to have a gay marriage. [/quote] Of course, there is a possibility of procreation (apparently with little risk of genetic problems) between first cousins of the opposite sex. Furthermore, no state, at least since [i]Lawrence v. Texas[/i], criminalizes same-sex intercourse, so I can understand why many don't criminalize bestiality, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amory Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1338794132' post='2440466'] Incest is different because there is an arguable legal basis for prohibiting it that goes beyond unfounded religious assertions. The Hapsburg chin is something best avoided. Will permitting marriage between relatives lead to severely inbred families? Probably not. From what I understand it must be a multi-generational pattern. But it's different because there may well be a compelling state interest. And yes, this same logic applies to families (like part of mine) that carry genetic conditions that can lead to sever problems for the children. I'm not coming down for or against prohibiting incest. Don't know enough about it. But it's not arbitrary to hesitate about incest. [/quote] And there is no state interest in encouraging families in which children are raised by their two biological parents, or at least by two parents of opposite sexes? Considering that half of humanity is male and the other half female, you'd think that it would be beneficial for children to be exposed to both sexes during daily life as youngsters. It would certainly help them to relate with both sexes, which probably has some strong psychological benefits. That's not even to consider the immense benefits of being raised by the man who begat you and the woman who bore you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Let's discuss the actual policy. [color=#0000ff]10 USC § 654 - POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES[/color] [color=#000000][background=transparent] [url="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title10/pdf/USCODE-2010-title10-subtitleA-partII-chap37-sec654.pdf"][color=#0000ff]http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title10/pdf/USCODE-2010-title10-subtitleA-partII-chap37-sec654.pdf[/color][/url][/background][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1338794132' post='2440466'] Incest is different because there is an arguable legal basis for prohibiting it that goes beyond unfounded religious assertions. The Hapsburg chin is something best avoided. Will permitting marriage between relatives lead to severely inbred families? Probably not. From what I understand it must be a multi-generational pattern. But it's different because there may well be a compelling state interest. And yes, this same logic applies to families (like part of mine) that carry genetic conditions that can lead to sever problems for the children. I'm not coming down for or against prohibiting incest. Don't know enough about it. But it's not arbitrary to hesitate about incest. [/quote] Fair point. But it's indeed arbitrary until he gives us a reason. For now, he just wants us to accept that incest is clearly wrong (as is rape and pedophilia) but he doesn't illustrate why incest is not compatible with his mantra of "mind your own beaver dam business so long as no one else is getting hurt." I don't think you can empirically demonstrate how incest causes harm anymore than you can prove gay marriage does. For those things you'd have to venture into the wishy-washy social sciences. Unless of course we're talking about the economic burden of having a bunch more in-bred handicaps and retardeds running around, but that falls into utilitarianism no? So I'm still confused as to how Kujo would use this to justify the illegality of incest. But sad, seems as he has dropped out of the thread. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 [quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1338853604' post='2440888'] Fair point. But it's indeed arbitrary until he gives us a reason. For now, he just wants us to accept that incest is clearly wrong (as is rape and pedophilia) but he doesn't illustrate why incest is not compatible with his mantra of "mind your own beaver dam business so long as no one else is getting hurt." I don't think you can empirically demonstrate how incest causes harm anymore than you can prove gay marriage does. For those things you'd have to venture into the wishy-washy social sciences. Unless of course we're talking about the economic burden of having a bunch more in-bred handicaps and retardeds running around, but that falls into utilitarianism no? So I'm still confused as to how Kujo would use this to justify the illegality of incest. But sad, seems as he has dropped out of the thread. . [/quote] I agree and I think a lot of advocates are cowardly in not addressing the issues you are raising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted June 5, 2012 Author Share Posted June 5, 2012 [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miSjHuTpElk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miSjHuTpElk[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 [quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1338786868' post='2440457'] [size=6]BUT WHY?![/size] why non-related? Don't you understand the question? We know incest is different than gay marriage, and we know how it's different, what we don't know is WHY you so arbitrarily impose "non-related" onto what is an acceptable marriage, and then get your panties up in a bunch when people can't give you a non-religious reason to disallow gay marriage. Stop acting like it's an unfair question. It is not. AFAIK the only reason you've given as to why incest shouldn't be allowed is because it is illegal. You say that there shouldn't be arbitrary moral impositions onto the legality of marriage, but you balk at incest. Why is it OK for you to do so? NO ONE is equating gay-marriage to incest (other than perhaps saying both are immoral, but you see this immorality stems from the same principle: all sexual acts must be marital, open to life, and and act of mutual love). They can explain this premise via theology (which is not allowed to define law says you). So then you come in with a premise that includes "un-related" adults. But WHERE is that coming from? An inner sense that incest is wrong and a threat to society? Religious influence? WHAT?! Please tell us. Can you really not see this glaring inconsistency? [/quote] Also, after Kujo pontificated about 2 consenting adults, I posted an article about a lady who married herself. Why is marriage between 2 people? You give me croutons about it having to be between a man and a woman, and you claim consent. So, if consent is all that is needed, I assume you are razzle dazzle with this woman marrying herself. I am almost positive it was consensual. If you are razzle dazzle with this, ok...you're consistent... If you are not razzle dazzle with this, why not? If it has to do with a marriage being between 2 people, I will simply ignore that as a definition of marriage as you ignore the 'male and female' definition of marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 [quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1339216290' post='2442826'] Also, after Kujo pontificated about 2 consenting adults, I posted an article about a lady who married herself. Why is marriage between 2 people? You give me croutons about it having to be between a man and a woman, and you claim consent. So, if consent is all that is needed, I assume you are razzle dazzle with this woman marrying herself. I am almost positive it was consensual. If you are razzle dazzle with this, ok...you're consistent... If you are not razzle dazzle with this, why not? If it has to do with a marriage being between 2 people, I will simply ignore that as a definition of marriage as you ignore the 'male and female' definition of marriage. [/quote] u gay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 i accept your unconditional surrender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 (edited) Out of all the pages on this thread I land on the 23rd one? Really? I'm scarred for life now! Edited June 9, 2012 by FuturePriest387 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now