Engaging in

[Balthazor]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 22 2004, 05:19 PM'] Wrong. Incestuous marriages (and sex in some states) are prohibited on the basis of genetics and the possibility of malformed offspring.


[/quote]
However with today's technology we could pass a law that would prohitbit any couple that had an exacerbated chance of producing malformed ofspring from marrying and procreating. Actually the chances of genetic abnormality are quite low compared to what you might expect.

Example: I have three cousins that have kidney problems, two have had kidney trandplants and one is waiting....it is a genetic problem in that immediate family.
If my aunt and uncle would have been known to have these "bad genes" before they were married should they have been prevented from getting married?


Better example MY SISTER>

In my brother-in-law's family muscular dystrophy runs in the family two of his sisters have it. On of them has a child....we won;t know until later if the child has it.
But my sister and brother-in-law have been tested to determine if they have kids will the kids have muscular dystrophy. In short they have had gene testing.
I will not tell you the outcome of the results.
But if they were to be negative should we keep them from being married or having kids....under what you believe to be the reasoning behind incest laws then yes.

The truth is, that incest laws are based on morality. Otherwise we would prohibit anyone with a genetic defect from getting married and having children.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 20 2004, 06:26 PM'] question: does the government recognizing homosexual unions promote the public welfare?
does it secure the Blessings of Liberty?
does it establish justice?

I want a yes/no answer for each of those. [/quote]
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Balthazor' date='Nov 22 2004, 05:32 PM'] However with today's technology we could pass a law that would prohitbit any couple that had an exacerbated chance of producing malformed ofspring from marrying and procreating. Actually the chances of genetic abnormality are quite low compared to what you might expect.
[/quote]
Yes, and that would be called eugenics. People don't like it when you point that out, but it's true. Incest laws are most likely on their way out. There are many states that now allow first cousins to marry...and with improved technology we're finding that the instances of malformed offspring are lower than we thought.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 9 2004, 12:04 AM'] May be vulgar but it gets straight (no pun intended) to the point of the argument, unlike all this nonsense the pro-gay people say to prance around the issue.

Sodomy is un-natural and unhealthy. [/quote]
Mmm...I likes me some sodomy. No, seriously, you do know that sodomy doesn't always involve the anus, right?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]you wanna know why it'd happen? because of PRECEDENCE. There are already polygamists preparing their legal fights, pedophiles preparing for their legal fights (ever heard of a little organization from hell called NAMBLA?)[/quote]

You're arguing slippery slope. Most poeople here think that's a valid arguemnt. But if you look in logic books it's not. It's attacking what could be instead of what is.I know you're all probably appalled by the implications of this, but that's what the books say. You have to attack the argument.

I have faith that it won't come to what you said. If I thought that it would, I'd think twice, butI wouldn't change my position to do something wrong. It'd be like me saying, well, we better not free let women vote because you never know they might let animals vote next. I think this was really an issue. (I'm not looking it up because it's the point that I'm making, not the actual thing)

Al, I really dont understand why you are pressing that const stuff. I'm not saying that those are irrelevant points, for they are relavent. All I'm saying is that to rely on your interpretation of something that's so open to interpretation is not even worth going back and forth on. The only reason I'm addressing it now is because you think you have something and won't consider otherwise given all the other arguements unless I shoul you how that one does not work. Allowing homosexual marriage is just because it treats different people with reasonable stances equally. It helps people consolidate and live more efficiently. It creates an atomoshpere of union instead of dissention (within the context of being reasonable). Therefore all these thigns given it promotes the welfare. You can say nuhuh and I can say yesuh.

also I don't know if it's unhealthy or not. When I conceded.. which I think all I said was an "even if" kinda thing.. that it was unhealthy I was giving you the benefit of
the doubt in order to continue my arguement to show you how I'm right. If it was unhealthy for them, then I'd probably still be for it. I'm just mentioning this because I trusted that you did some decent reseach instead of what you told burns. But if what you said that bursspivey responded to is your health thing, then I don't concede that it's unhealthy. burn said what I was going to say regarding that.

burnsspivey, thanx! You're the only person who isn't just saying the same old thing. I do admit that I am saying the same old thing, but that's because nobody responds to my points.

soc left when I showed him how he's not doing anything different than I am. I think I got him with the slavery and the woman's suffrage thing or else I bet he'd be here arguing that if the father's thought it was constitutional, then it must be.

cmother and everyone else don't respond when I show them that just because I believe in allowing gay marriage as reasonable doesn't mean I think that all that nasty stuff you guys.. always.. yes always.. say that I must be thinking. Please show me how I'm wrong or have to think all that stuff is reasonable. I don't understand how your arguments stand so please inform me how.

and one last thing. As you guys are not saying anything new, as a former catholic I'd be saying in your posistiont hat well.. who are they to have the authority? And to this I'd ask you to second guess your authority and open up a new thread to addess that issue if that's all your wresting on.

If you think I'm wrong about any of that stuff then please let me know how. thanx!

:ph34r:

Edited November 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

I thought I'd throw this out there. thanx.


Also if you're intimidated to reply to this.. as I'm being a hound.. then please don't be.

Or if you're thinking she's going to think what she's going to think.. then don't do that.. please let me know that you're thinking that.

Let's finish this discussion. I've found that you'll never learn the truth until you persevere.

Finally don't let this post sidetrack you or hijack the thread.. please stick to the thread. I just wanted to say this for those who are avoiding. I'll repaste it later when need be.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 22 2004, 03:42 PM'] you wanna know why it'd happen? because of PRECEDENCE. There are already polygamists preparing their legal fights, pedophiles preparing for their legal fights (ever heard of a little organization from hell called NAMBLA?)

don't dismiss the constitution, it tells the government what it is supposed to do! [/quote]
And you can come up with one reason why polyamorous marriages shouldn't be legal?

Pedophilia is a different issue altogether and you know it.

Indeed it does. For example, it's supposed to give everyone equal protection.

[qfnol31]

By your argument, all murderers should have equal protection.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 22 2004, 08:02 PM'] By your argument, all murderers should have equal protection. [/quote]
And, in fact, they do. What is your point, exactly?

[dairygirl4u2c]

Protection in the law for trials and such. They don't have equal protection to do just because homosexuals marry. Please read my last post and respond to how you think we're saying this.

[qfnol31]

Oh, I was just responding to burnsspivey's post. The wording implied that argument I mentioned.

[Guest Aluigi]

WE don't respond to YOUR points??? excuse me? you just made a big looong post addressing none of my points, except to tell me my argument technique is wrong (FYI, if you know anything about argument you know that if your opponent doesn't make logically sound arguments you don't just tell him he's breaking the logic rules, you point out where the logic is flawed). The way our legal system works means that to do this would set a precedent. There are currently people, namely NAMBLA, that have lawyers and do want to make pedophilia legal, that alone gives credibility to the slippery slope fear. if that was ALL I was basing it the argument off of, that'd be logically flawed and you'd say "what? should we just not do something out of the fear of some future possibility?" and you'd be correct to point out my error. but if it's just ONE of many points and it's backed by facts (the fact that at least NAMBLA and i'm pretty sure some ppl in Utah are prepared to fight these cases and make pedophilia and polygamy legal)

You claim they are relevant points, yet you still fail to take up the argument. Just because they're somewhat abstract terms doesn't mean they can't be argued. Ever heard of Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas? Ever heard of the Lincoln-Douglas debate format? It's about arguing a value premise, because it can and is done. I argue that it is contrary to the general welfare, which is what the government should promote. You say stop your faulty argument over the constitution. You know what, you think it's faulty and is just my interpretation? Then argue it! Give your interpretation! You say it doesn't matter whether it is good/healthy or not, the government should recognize/promote it anyway. Well, I say that's contrary to the point of the United States government as layed out in the constitution, it has the obligation to promote the general welfare. You may argue that homosexuality is good for the general welfare. if so, ARGUE IT FOR GOODNESS SAKE.

okay, now i really looked through all your rhetoric which was really just a bunch of stuff criticizing everyone else for the way they argued instead of making points, and i found somewhere in that mess a slight argument that it is good for the general welfare. let me adress your points then.

[quote]. Allowing homosexual marriage is just because it treats different people with reasonable stances equally. [/quote] how do you define reasonable. To me and many other people homosexuality is as reasonable as pedophilia. Both are just as healthy, both are just different ways people are arroused. Regardless, you're saying it treats different people equally? I submit to you that everyone is currently treated equally, in that any man and any woman can be recognized in legal union, so long as they are man and woman. (it could quite possibly be a gay man and a lesbian woman). They have the "liberty" to do whatever on earth they desire. The government will recognize them if they unite with a member of the opposite sex. I propose that everyone is currently treated equally, no person will be granted recognition for marrying a member of the same sex (gay or strait doesn't matter). The government treats everyone the same. If you disagree, show me the government treating people differently and show me how that better fits this value premise of justice. If not, i suggest you move on to the value premise of general welfare, which is where i always thought this argument was going to crystalize anyway (because this proposed policy does not relate well to justice/liberty seeing as the justice and liberty are already secure for all these people)

[quote]It helps people consolidate and live more efficiently. [/quote]Roomates consolidate and live more efficiently without getting married. Everyone has the liberty to live with whoever they want.

[quote]It creates an atomoshpere of union instead of dissention (within the context of being reasonable). [/quote] what on earth do you mean by the phrase "within the context of being reasonable"??! Regardless of that rather confusing phrase, can you provide evidence that gay marriage creates an atmosphere of union instead of dissention? I want to get this posted first but I will get right back to you with statistics from countries in which the government has recognized same sex unions to show it clearly has not created or even promoted an atmosphere of union.

[Guest Aluigi]

[url="http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030711-121254-3711r.htm"]HERE- Dutch Study shows what really goes on with government recognized same-sex-unions[/url]

Scroll down to the bottom statistics to see how government promotion of heterosexual marriage promotes the general welfare under your premise of an environment of union, scroll back up to see how government promotion of same sex unions does no such thing.

[SirMyztiq]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 22 2004, 03:42 PM'] you wanna know why it'd happen?  because of PRECEDENCE.  There are already polygamists preparing their legal fights, pedophiles preparing for their legal fights (ever heard of a little organization from hell called NAMBLA?)

don't dismiss the constitution, it tells the government what it is supposed to do!  it's about the government's role, the government is to promote the general welfare.  listing off a list of vices that plague the country and saying society isn't healthy doesn't change the fact that the government's role is to promote the general welfare.  the constitution is the foundation for the government, the guideline for what it should do when any new issue comes up.  the government should know it's purpose, and its purpose is laid out in the pramble to the Constitution of the United States.
why do we have a government in the united states?[list]

[*]to form a more perfect Union

[*]establish Justice

[*]insure domestic Tranquillity

[*]provide for the common defence

[*]promote the general Welfare

[*]secure the Blessings of Liberty

[/list]if any of these purposes for the government are outdated, let me know.  all you've said is that racism and prejudice are outdated and apparently Christianity is as well according to you.  but the general reason for the government to exist is the same

homosexuality is unhealthy physically and psychologically



Some say the suicide thing is just because they are exposed to so much intolerance and prejudice.  talk to those same people about suicide while not bringing up homosexuals and you'll hear that people who commit suicide have chemical imbalances.  homosexual tendencies are the result of developemental problems, the search for love and acceptance amoung peers of the same gender (natural at a young age, you see it all the time they think the other gender has cooties, it's called polarization) is lacking during their upbringing, this natural desire lingers and is still with them at puberty, the desire shifts to a sexual nature.  this is a problem in their developement that has led to a chemical imbalance.

for the United States Government to recognize and promote with benefits same sex unions would be promoting something that is not good for the general welfare, thereby doing the opposite of what it is supposed to do. yes, the government is still bound by the constitution, the high offices all swear to uphold and defend it, cheif justices interpret it, and congress makes new laws to current event issues by its power. [/quote]
"List of vices"
So being in love with somebody of the same sex is a vice?
According to who?

"plague the country"
You consider this an epidemic?
How is homosexualism and epidemic and why is it so bad?
Can you catch it?

Nope. None of those are outdated actually. They just aren't used.

Racism and prejudice is outdated. But is it gone? Is it still around? Yeah I believe so. Why don't we ask those Mexicans down south go were brutally beaten by a bunch of low life racist?

Christianity isn't outdated. But their lame attempts at fixing the world around their beliefs are.

[url="http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/aids1.html"]http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/aids1.html[/url]

Men who have sex with men are at extremely high risk because of:

1) the variety of their sexual practices, including receptive and insertive anal/genital, oral/genital, anal/oral, and anal/manual sex activity,

2) the large number of sexual partners with whom they engage in these sexual practices,

3) the high percentage of homosexual men who are already HIV- positive.


Those aren't gender oriented specific diseases. And further more those are caused because they aren't using adequate protection. Just like teenage pregnancy has dropped because more teenagers are becoming aware that condoms help in not having babies. They will begin to use more protection to stop those diseases. But how does it affect you? How does it affect the "general welfare" of America? Those are mostly men to men causes so it wouldn't affect a straight couple right?

[url="http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/table3.htm"]http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/table3.htm[/url]

Notice how male to male fluctuates and heterosexual is increasing. And plus homosexuals make less than 5% of the population. So unless all of us suddenly had a rush of gayness then we really wouldn't be that much at risk.

n the 1950's, Dr. Evelyn Hooker tested thirty homosexual men and thirty heterosexual men of similar ages, education levels, and IQ's. Both groups of men completed several projective tests, which measure people's patterns of thoughts, attitudes, and emotions. Projective tests that these men completed included the Rorschach test, during which people describe what they see in abstract ink blots, and the Thematic Apperception Test, or TAT, during which people tell stories about different pictures. Expert clinicians analyzed the men's responses to these projective tests, then judged the personality and overall psychological adjustment of the men. No significant differences were found between heterosexual and homosexual men, indicating that neither group was more (or less) psychologically healthy. In addition, when asked to make a guess as to which men were homosexual and which were heterosexual, the judges were unable to distinguish between the two. Based on these findings, Dr. Hooker tentatively suggested that homosexuals were as psychologically normal as heterosexuals.

[url="http://www.psychologymatters.org/hooker.html"]http://www.psychologymatters.org/hooker.html[/url]



[url="http://www.med.uio.no/ipsy/ssff/engelsk/menuprevention/Friis.htm"]http://www.med.uio.no/ipsy/ssff/engelsk/me...ntion/Friis.htm[/url]


Attitudes to lesbians and gays are continuously changing in a positive direction, but the picture is not consistent, and many people still have negative attitudes. Offerdal (1995) means that young gays and lesbians are a high-suicide-risk group because of the prevalent negative attitudes, particularly among young people, and the lack of social support that many young homosexuals experience in our society.


Hmm so many teenage homosexuals are suicidal BECAUSE of lack of social support. Well Luigi you should rank up a point there for you.


Constitution huh? All Government officials still uphold it huh?

LOL. LOL. Welcome to the dream world!

Those days are GONE. Lobbyist make laws. And Presidents who get to choose justices interpret the laws. Then those justices who have their own opinions and feelings leaning toward the right approve those laws.

You go on and on about the general welfare. How does it NOT promote general welfare. And is homosexuality the main cause for the general welfare being not so good?

General welfare is long gone.

Edit: And for the "pedophile movement" burns already addressed that issue.

Edited November 23, 2004 by SirMyztiq

[Guest Aluigi]

pedophilia can have mutual consent, since when has consent become the ultimate deciding factor??

the constitution outlines what the government should be there for. it SHOULD promote the general welfare. just because it doesn't always do so, doesn't mean it shouldn't. it definitely should.

you know, there is no recorded high suicide rate for other groups when they were highly discriminated against having high suicide rates. chemical imbalances caused by bad developemental factors make them psychologically unstable.

you know, i stayed away from medical studies done so far in the past, such as the 1950's, cause I figured you'd chalk it up to lack of scientific developement and prejudices etc etc. Now I'll reverse that, there are new studies that show psychological problems with homosexuality. i have met psychologists who went into psychology specializing in anger issues, they got into homosexuality because of the vast number of people who came to them with anger issues, developed usually from young experiences either bad with members of their gender or experiences of lacking of good role models of their same gender, sometimes a mix of both. they did not fail any of the personality disorder tests, i wouldn't expect them to. their psychological disorder is more closely related to emotional/chemical imbalances.

anal sex is inherently dangerous without the addition of those things, those statistics hold either way homosexuality is a dangerous practice.

[quote]Hmm so many teenage homosexuals are suicidal BECAUSE of lack of social support. Well Luigi you should rank up a point there for you. [/quote]

what was that? i get a point because i'm a teenage homosexual? i donno, i didn't understand that comment.