So who is hurt when a parent sleeps with a grown child? How about a brother with a sister? Is anyone hurt with prostitution?How about polygamy anyone hurt there?hupfinsgack said:
later,
epic
Massachusetts court: Ban on gay marriage unconstitutional
- Thread starter Silent_One
- Start date
later,
epic
Lol...this is coming from you?
going in circles...
You fail to see many points, Joe, it seems, although u expect people to fully comprehend yours..
No, Mr Patronismo, and this time i for one fail to see where this thing came from. killed/wiped out/exiled??? how did u get into this?
no, it has to do with what we're discussing here, which is your view on Law following what was written in the Bible 2000 years ago.
it would be more coherent if u were to follow every single law the Bible tells u to follow, which includes the right/duty to kill people if they steal from u, the right of having slaves etc. Of course these things have been proven "bullshit" over the years, however the gay issue is still there up and running after 2000 years. See the incoherence?
yeah, i'm insane, what's your excuse for talking buillshit....
funny thing, u're actually rational about what u say...personally i don't care, but if i did, no it would be nice if people did whatever they want as long as they don't harm anyone and they're consentual adults. Personally, just to clarify, i would never be able to do it myself, i'm of the "exclusive" kind. But that's just me.
epicstruggle said:So who is hurt when a parent sleeps with a grown child? How about a brother with a sister? Is anyone hurt with prostitution?How about polygamy anyone hurt there?hupfinsgack said:
later,
epic
Stop being pathetic; you seem to be at issue with it, so I'd like to hear from you what is so bothering about it...
So you cant even answer that question. My problem with gay marriage is that if you allow that, why cant you allow other more discusting things like a brother marrying a sister, a father/mother marrying their children. So for me the problem is that its a slippery slope if you allow one you must allow the other.hupfinsgack said:Stop being pathetic; you seem to be at issue with it, so I'd like to hear from you what is so bothering about it...epicstruggle said:So who is hurt when a parent sleeps with a grown child? How about a brother with a sister? Is anyone hurt with prostitution?How about polygamy anyone hurt there?hupfinsgack said:
later,
epic
Now please answer the question, if you think gay marriages should be allowed why deny the polygamist, or the incestious(sp?) from marrying too. Ill bet you that you wont answer, or youll just try to insult me. lets see.
later,
epic
epicstruggle said:
What does incest have to do with gay marriage? For the sake of argument, the brother-sister thing does make me a bit sick, but if you have 2 people who r genuinly in love with each other, then who r u to stop them being together?
I do see the point of "not using the word Marriage" though. The Marriage, Christian kind of marriage, should of course follow what is in the Bible. And the Bible says marriage is holy and other useless stuff between a nam and a woman. Fair enough. But it's a name. Call it Union, call it... what do they call it... Formal ceremony..?? Whatever, that doesn't change anything.
Marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Gay couples should be able and allowed to enjoy the beneifts that a Marriage gives to straight couples, even if they cannot get Married.
The issue of polygamists, incest and all that has little to do with this thread, unless u regard homosexuals as polygamists and incestuals and pedophiles... Which would open a whole new pathetic discussion...
In most cases the child. Why incest should not be accepted, is that there is a high potentiality that the relationship is harmful to the child. Even though there'd possibly be relationships where both are on their free will, there is likely more wher the other is forced against own will.epicstruggle said:
In addition, if the couple were to have children, there's a very high chance that the offspring would be hurt.
Propably neither, but if they were to have children, the same as above.epicstruggle said:
Not if the prostitute is 'self employed' and enjoys her/his job.epicstruggle said:
Noepicstruggle said:How about polygamy anyone hurt there?
How about having a lover even if you are married? Is anybody hurt there?
-Yes, but that's just human nature
Ill be honest since you were honest. Gay marriage makes me sick. People who cheat on their spouse are even more disgusting. I have no problem with gays, polygamists or those who would sleep with their kin. Now does that mean that we should let them get married. Ill fight to prevent that.london-boy said:
Read my earlier post on page 6. I essentially said the same thing.
I wish one of you who support gay marriage/union to please answer the following question:If you support gay marriage/union why shouldnt polygamists, pedophiles, and incestuals to also get married/unionized?
Thank you. Hope someone has the courage to answer that simple question. again thank you.
later,
epic
epicstruggle said:
Been answered above by rabidrabbit...
Now let's go back to arguments presented against it:
A) It's a sin:
Sorry, but that doesn't matter for a secular civil marriage
B) It's against nature:
Just plain wrong
Which leads us back again to:
Where are the arguments of our fellow posters against it?
Quite an amusing thread when read from a back seat. Sometimes I still cant believe some peoples views in this modern tollerant world. But you are trying to argue from points of view created by firmly held beliefs that will not be swayed by arguments from the other side logical or not.
2 guys i work with, one a member of a branch of the church of later day saints who believes being gay is not a natural occurance (no biological reason, although there is proof for this as im sure u could find the opposite ), and the other, a british muslim who truly believes that there are no gay muslim men because it doesnt "affect" them.
As for the marriage problem, for a church wedding, thats up to the church. It can keep whatever rules it wants, it doesnt have to "keep up with the times" or change its beliefs or whatever, the catholic church still bans the use of condoms. But civil weddings are different and should be allowed as it is a persons right to be married to whomever they wish as long as it does not harm another person / infinge on their rights etc.
Now for the privisos. Incestuous unions should not be allowed due to the genetic problems involved. Im not sure how accurately I have been informed on this but the reason you are not allowed to marry your brother sister aunt uncle etc up to your cousin, is that the genetic code is too similar and can greatly increase the risk of malformed children. Polygamist relationships are actually allowed in some religions. So just because you believe in one religion and have been brought up another way, does that give you the right to enforce your views on others?
On a side note, marrige is not an exclusively christian word. You can marry too parts together when making something as in they are "married together":
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/m/m0121200.html
So you should not have a problem with a gay couple being allowed to marry.
EDIT: Ooops missed paedophiles. But i am sure that any sane person is not going to try and argue that the physical and emotional scars left on children through paedophilia is not harming them or infringing on their rights?
2 guys i work with, one a member of a branch of the church of later day saints who believes being gay is not a natural occurance (no biological reason, although there is proof for this as im sure u could find the opposite
), and the other, a british muslim who truly believes that there are no gay muslim men because it doesnt "affect" them.As for the marriage problem, for a church wedding, thats up to the church. It can keep whatever rules it wants, it doesnt have to "keep up with the times" or change its beliefs or whatever, the catholic church still bans the use of condoms. But civil weddings are different and should be allowed as it is a persons right to be married to whomever they wish as long as it does not harm another person / infinge on their rights etc.
Now for the privisos. Incestuous unions should not be allowed due to the genetic problems involved. Im not sure how accurately I have been informed on this but the reason you are not allowed to marry your brother sister aunt uncle etc up to your cousin, is that the genetic code is too similar and can greatly increase the risk of malformed children. Polygamist relationships are actually allowed in some religions. So just because you believe in one religion and have been brought up another way, does that give you the right to enforce your views on others?
On a side note, marrige is not an exclusively christian word. You can marry too parts together when making something as in they are "married together":
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/m/m0121200.html
So you should not have a problem with a gay couple being allowed to marry.
EDIT: Ooops missed paedophiles. But i am sure that any sane person is not going to try and argue that the physical and emotional scars left on children through paedophilia is not harming them or infringing on their rights?
If im not mistaken then there are 2 votes for opening up marriage/union to allow any one/two/group to get married/unionized. That will sure make this society alot better.
later,
epic
later,
epic
epicstruggle said:
I thought i just did.
Right, now we're talking about Union since Marrage is a Christian word that should not be used out of contest (man-woman). SO,
Polygamists DO get married in some parts of the world because it is accepted by their religion. I don't see anything wrong with it, i mean it makes me sick-ish but thats just me. It is very different from "cheating on the wife".
Pedophilia IS harmful (therefore follows my reasoning on my pawst posts which said u should be able to do anything as long as u dont harm anyone). It is harmful because at a tender age, children are not capable of making competent decision and are very very influencable from what adults tell them. Therefore it is harmful since an adult can lure a child into doing things that are just not right.
Incest is a tricky question. If it doesn't get into the pedophilia issue, therefore if it involves 2 adults, then it makes me sick, but hey that's just me. If they love each other, who am i to keep them separated!! It also has implications with possible children too so it's a bit of a thread-derailing if we get into this properly.
Answered enough?
I still don't see the point of putting Homosexuality on the same line as Pedophilia, Incest and whatever else...
there are couples who have been told that any child they conceive will have some great/high chance of a genetic disease. Does that mean that they should not get married. Just because you get married does not mean you have to have children. Why deny incestious couple the rightful benefits they are entitled too.Jabbah said:
later,
epic
Jabbah said:
The danger of genetic issues in off-spring is not the reason that incestuous marriages are not legal (not in this country at least). The law was made before genetics even dreamt of.
The reason for the law is, like most of the other prohibitions on who can and who can't get married, religious bigotry.
Oh! So this is just all about sexual behaviour. Now I understand so it's basically just about who gets to fu*ck who and why is it that I don't get any
I agree, marriage as such is for a man and a woman, if not for any other reason but to keep some traditions intact.
But a 'recognised relationship' where a gay couple that lives (and have planned to live) together for the rest of their lives (even if in reality they possibly won't), should be legal and enjoy some of the benefits that marriaged couples do. There's no need for any romantic ceremonies (gays kissing.. yuck! ) for such an union.
I'd say a 'union' between couples should basically be allowed if it fulfills two simple cases:
1. Are the couple likely to have planned to live together 'for the rest of their lives' (I know, this condition is not often fulfilled, but then again is it on man-woman marriage)
2. Is the relationship based on both individuals free will (for example, in bestiality the animal can be argued to have free will).
Now, for any of the 'unified' couple to be allowed to have mutual (not adopted etc.) children, that would need a law of it's own.
so it's basically just about who gets to fu*ck who and why is it that I don't get any I agree, marriage as such is for a man and a woman, if not for any other reason but to keep some traditions intact.
But a 'recognised relationship' where a gay couple that lives (and have planned to live) together for the rest of their lives (even if in reality they possibly won't), should be legal and enjoy some of the benefits that marriaged couples do. There's no need for any romantic ceremonies (gays kissing.. yuck!
) for such an union.I'd say a 'union' between couples should basically be allowed if it fulfills two simple cases:
1. Are the couple likely to have planned to live together 'for the rest of their lives' (I know, this condition is not often fulfilled, but then again is it on man-woman marriage)
2. Is the relationship based on both individuals free will (for example, in bestiality the animal can be argued to have free will).
Now, for any of the 'unified' couple to be allowed to have mutual (not adopted etc.) children, that would need a law of it's own.
look at my earlier posts i think ive been pretty clear that marriage of gays is a big no-no for me. But union is acceptable. Its just that its getting confusing, so i just did a quick marriage/union if youd rather i use one or the other please let me know.london-boy said:
not here, so lets also give them the same rights as the ones your trying to fight for.
why is it harmful, for hundreds/thousands of years there have been instances of children getting married when they were very young. Its just in last few decades that it has fallen out of style. My grandparents were marryed when they were i believe 13 and 16/17. They had a loving relationship for almost 60 years. So why cant a young person(under 15) get married to a grown up if they are competent. Have some test. if they are then let them, its not hurting you, right?
For me they are one and the same. To many people they are too. My point is if you allow one, lets allow all the others.
later,
epic
eh :? what's with your sig and you???K.I.L.E.R said:In the end this discussion/argument is worthless. People will do whatever the hell they want, whenever they want and however they want.
IE: Take a look at me and my sig.
Interesting to watch an argument like this from afar.
Indeed, you are right epic. Me now wishes not to have got involved after all
AFAIK its a blanket law made on the assessment of risk (and currently held moral views) as most hetrosexual couples will have children at some point. But I suppose you could also say that the number of people wanting to indulge in such a sick act* (I have a sister ) is also very small, so the relative risk is quite low.
Gay marriage is a fact now, its going to happen. Some people will not like it but its here to stay.
* the incestuous bit not the marriage
AFAIK its a blanket law made on the assessment of risk (and currently held moral views) as most hetrosexual couples will have children at some point. But I suppose you could also say that the number of people wanting to indulge in such a sick act* (I have a sister
) is also very small, so the relative risk is quite low.Gay marriage is a fact now, its going to happen. Some people will not like it but its here to stay.
* the incestuous bit not the marriage
Actually thats not the point of all this bickering. No matter how much hot air comes out of my mouth. I wont keep 2(or more) persons from being together whatever their sexual orientation.K.I.L.E.R said:In the end this discussion/argument is worthless. People will do whatever the hell they want, whenever they want and however they want.
IE: Take a look at me and my sig.
Interesting to watch an argument like this from afar.
What all the hoopla is about is the benefits/burdens society provides them. This is something that I, natoma,joe,... can influence/change. Thats why the discussion has been so heated.
later,
epic
lets just say his last 2 sigs contained spoilers for 2 highly anticipated movies. rotk, and xmen3. I took issue with that, and thankfully kiler decided to take them down.rabidrabbit said:eh :? what's with your sig and you???K.I.L.E.R said:In the end this discussion/argument is worthless. People will do whatever the hell they want, whenever they want and however they want.
IE: Take a look at me and my sig.
Interesting to watch an argument like this from afar.
later,
epic