Some things to chew on, and get off my chest
- Thread starter Natoma
- Start date
Nahhhh, they can't be.
What parents would name one kid Malik and the other Edgar?
Some things just don't happen.
I'm gonna keep to the they're just two guys who love each other that would be a whole lot better off if certain busybodies just kept their noses out of other people's business theory.
What parents would name one kid Malik and the other Edgar?
Some things just don't happen.
I'm gonna keep to the they're just two guys who love each other that would be a whole lot better off if certain busybodies just kept their noses out of other people's business theory.
Rugor said:
Dude its so crazy it has to be true .
I believe the parents were crazy hippies . That smoked to much pot and were most likely inbreed to begin with . They then named the kids on really bad acid flash backs and what not and then the kids grew up being bashed all the time for being named edgar and malik and thus only had each other to talk to and fell in love.
It works
Im sure lying on official forms is illegal, since the marriage is a lie. But if that makes gay marriages more acceptable im all for it.Natoma said:
So because the legal system and the tax code makes it hard, then polygamists shouldnt marry? I guess that makes it all right, I was under the impression that it was a constitutional right to marry.
later,
epic
epicstruggle said:
Of course it's illegal. I'm just saying that if an incestual couple wanted to get married today, 10 years ago, 50 years ago, or whatever, they could do so pretty easily.
The government wouldn't necessarily know, so to the government and everyone else, they've got a legit marriage. But of course, this has nothing to do with allowing gays to marry.
epicstruggle said:
Epic I said that I think people should be able to marry multiple partners. That's personal opinion. What is preventing that outside of moralizing is the structure of our legal system. That's not personal opinion. See the difference?
So if a couple cant have a baby(or a normal one) should they be able to get married?Rugor said:
later,
epic
Why should the ability or inability of a couple to have children have anything to do with whether they should be allowed to marry? Even in traditional marriages fertility tests aren't required.
In our current society marriage isn't solely for procreation, so why should the ability be a determining factor?
In our current society marriage isn't solely for procreation, so why should the ability be a determining factor?
Read the previous pages post's. I never mentioned the ability to have a baby as a prerequisite for marriage.Rugor said:
quick summary for the lazy:
I only questioned why incestious couples and polygamists shouldnt marry. It was brought up that incestious couples can have genetic defects in their children, so they shouldnt marry. Then I asked why should 2 people who are predestined to only have genetically defective kids be able to marry.
later,
epic
I wasn't the one who said that incestuous marriages should be banned. My own point is more that why should people be prohibited from marrying simply because of a predisposition towards defects in potential offspring.
If you want to look at it one way-- the only couples that can be assured of never producing offspring with genetic defects are gay ones. So if one takes it far enough it can be argued that only gays should be allowed to marry to ensure that there are no offspring born to them with defects.
I just believe that marriage and procreation should be treated separately.
If you want to look at it one way-- the only couples that can be assured of never producing offspring with genetic defects are gay ones. So if one takes it far enough it can be argued that only gays should be allowed to marry to ensure that there are no offspring born to them with defects.
I just believe that marriage and procreation should be treated separately.
If you "take it far enough", wouldnt you have nobody left?Rugor said:
later,
epic
epicstruggle said:If you "take it far enough", wouldnt you have nobody left?
later,
epic
And that's a silly assertion meant to pander to people's fears because it'd obviously never happen. The percentage of gays in Western society has remained fairly constant, so the fear that if they're allowed to marry it'll wipe out society is ridiculous. This leader of the Concerned Women for America was on Bill Maher's show Friday night talking about how homosexuality was what brought down the Roman Empire. I'm amazed at the number of people who assume that because the Romans had certain Hellenistic influences they condoned homosexuality. They didn't. It was anathema in their culture. Julius Caesar's poitical enemies tried destroying his career by spreading the rumor that he was gay, which he refuted by sleeping with as many of their wives as he could.
Anyways, Ian Mckellan (sp?. . .Gandalf), an openly gay British actor, called her words barbaric and rebutted them by quoting Thomas Jefferson's words on social progression.
Even if everyone in the entire world for some reason turned out to be gay, it wouldn't stop reproduction. I mean either you could do it with sperm donators or what not, or you could do it like Jonas Gardell did it in sweden. He and his boyfriend wanted a child, so Jonas had sex with a lesbian friend of his, and then they'll raise the child together. Problem solved. To think that gay couples somehow will ruin society is pretty narrow thinking, to say the least.
JR, did you _ONLY_ read the last post before commenting. If you would have at the VERY LEAST read the comment before mine, I was commenting on Rugor's assertions that a gay couple's offspring would be free of genetic defects. I was trying to make a light hearted comment. Hence the "" wink at the end of that line.
God we need to start having some commen sense. You actually started a thread on political poliarization going to far. Guess what? Your taking that comment too far.
later,
epic
" wink at the end of that line. God we need to start having some commen sense. You actually started a thread on political poliarization going to far. Guess what? Your taking that comment too far.
later,
epic
epicstruggle said:
Sorry if I misunderstood you, but I don't see how my comments are too politically polarized? Most of my post was dealing with the ignorance displayed by a woman's shrill, and poorly educated, Judeo-Christian, knee-jerk phobias. Yeah, we need common sense. I'd like a common sensical reason why gays shouldn't have the same freedoms of others, a reason that isn't derived from Judeo-Christian phobias. I repeatedly asked Joe for a reason and all I got was "it's the law". So was miscegenation and depriving women and minorities the right to vote, all of which were clearly unconstitutional and clearly wrong. If a local church wants to marry gays what right does the government have to tell them they can't?
I gave this example to my work fundies. We have a gay couple who live down the street from us. They're law-abiding citizens who pay their taxes, take nice care of their home, and are always friendly. Both are educated, one is a lawyer. How does it hurt their neighbors or society in general whether they just live together or are in a marriage recognized by the state of OH? I just don't see it, other than the Judeo-Christian rhetoric "marriage is for men and women". As Bill Maher just said Friday night, all marriages are same sex relationships because once you're married it's the same sex for the rest of your life.
For those who didn't get it the first time through--
the comment on gays and no offspring with defects was meant to point to the whole absurdity of the situation. The reductio ad absurdum is a time-honored part of discussion.
It may be the idea of anal sex that's putting people off-- or at least male-male anal sex-- more than anything else. But if you really spend all your time thinking about the different sexual practices of other couples then I suggest the problem is with one's own life and has nothing to do with anyone else.
As far as secular (as opposed to religous) marriage is concerned, I think any of the objections yet raised are a pile of crap not worth wasting the taxpayer's money on. As to religous objections, they can be avoided by letting people marry in a different church.
Using religous dogma to combat a parallel secular institution sounds awfully close to violating separation of church and state.
the comment on gays and no offspring with defects was meant to point to the whole absurdity of the situation. The reductio ad absurdum is a time-honored part of discussion.
It may be the idea of anal sex that's putting people off-- or at least male-male anal sex-- more than anything else. But if you really spend all your time thinking about the different sexual practices of other couples then I suggest the problem is with one's own life and has nothing to do with anyone else.
As far as secular (as opposed to religous) marriage is concerned, I think any of the objections yet raised are a pile of crap not worth wasting the taxpayer's money on. As to religous objections, they can be avoided by letting people marry in a different church.
Using religous dogma to combat a parallel secular institution sounds awfully close to violating separation of church and state.
Ive asked this in another thread but didnt get any good responses:Rugor said:
Where in the last 3 thousand years have marriage not been associated with a god, gods, spirits, dieties, et al. To the best of my knowledge it has all ways been that way.
later,
epic
Since you've been able to get a marriage license from the government without being married by a church?
(In other words, your argument doesn't matter. You couldn't get a heart transplant 3000 years ago, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing and unnatural.)
(In other words, your argument doesn't matter. You couldn't get a heart transplant 3000 years ago, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing and unnatural.)
The point was the marriage and religion have always been related (inseparable). However, govermnents should have moved to call their thing a "union" instead. What has happened is the blurring of the lines separating the 2 different institutions. A union and a marriage should be separate.Natoma said:
later,
epic
