Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2 - Page 23 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-17-2012, 07:21 PM   #441
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,715
Local Time: 03:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I'll ask again, what if the incest is homosexual in nature? No fear of inbreeding and their orientation can't be denied anymore than other homosexuals can it?
First off, as noted, I personally don't really care, so long as everyone's of legal age and consenting it's none of my business.

Second, you did read Sean's post, didn't you? If not, I suggest you do that.
__________________

Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:26 PM   #442
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
I am not at all saying I think it is a legitimate comparison. I AM saying that some here may think it is and to brush them aside seems hasty to me.

INDY wasn't trolling, is my point. He seems to feel like there is a comparison. Let's talk about it. If you think it's an ugly thing that is incomparable, then say so. But pushing it away seems, to me, to be counterproductive.
Thank you for saying I'm not trolling, frankly I have better use for my time than that.

My whole point is no one truly believes, as the applause line at the Democratic Convention went, that "we all have the right to marry no matter who we love." I don't believe that and I don't think anyone here truly believes that. It defies logic.

So, if we all believe in some restrictions (demarcation lines) on the practice on marriage because, even though unfair to certain individuals, society as a whole is the better for it. How is it only "hate" can lead someone to reason that line be drawn on the exclusionary-side for same-sex marriage instead of the inclusionary-side.

To put it another way, Tom and Steve agree that child brides, arranged marriages, no-fault divorce, polygamy and incest are wrong but Tom is also against same-sex marriage. Now Steve is "spinning the world forward" but Tom is a "hater." It defies logic.
__________________

INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:27 PM   #443
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 03:07 AM
History and present day has relatives married to each other here in the states, and guess what? They are ALL straight.
BVS is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:30 PM   #444
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 04:07 AM
I was fine with most of your post, except this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
To put it another way, Tom and Steve agree that child brides, arranged marriages, no-fault divorce, polygamy and incest are wrong but Tom is also against same-sex marriage. Now Steve is "spinning the world forward" but Tom is a "hater." It defies logic.
It only defies logic if you believe Tom has a legitimate reason to be against same-sex marriage.
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:33 PM   #445
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,715
Local Time: 03:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
To put it another way, Tom and Steve agree that child brides, arranged marriages, no-fault divorce, polygamy and incest are wrong but Tom is also against same-sex marriage. Now Steve is "spinning the world forward" but Tom is a "hater." It defies logic.
Ergh. *Deep breath*

Once. Again. Pay attention: Abuse. Lack of consent. Those are the reasons why people would oppose things like incest, polygamy, arranged marriages, and child brides.

And none of those have anything to do with one's actual orientation. You are not born a polygamist, child bride or arranged marriage isn't your orientation. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is tied to not supporting an actual part of who they are.

This is not difficult to understand. It really isn't.

The quote about "we all have the right to marry no matter who we love" was clearly referring to any relationships that involve consenting adults.
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:39 PM   #446
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
of all the retardation in this post, this point might be the most retarded. Apart from being wrong and completely uninformed (honestly Indy, spend at least 5 minutes to research before spewing your bullshit), how hilarious is it that part of his defense for incest is "well, it doesn't show up for several generations, so fuck it"?
I actually did some research. Now it's your turn. Reread my post and please direct me to a website that contradicts what I said. I certainly don't wish to disseminate any false information, especially when it comes to genetics or medical science.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:41 PM   #447
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 03:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500

Thank you for saying I'm not trolling, frankly I have better use for my time than that.

My whole point is no one truly believes, as the applause line at the Democratic Convention went, that "we all have the right to marry no matter who we love." I don't believe that and I don't think anyone here truly believes that. It defies logic.

So, if we all believe in some restrictions (demarcation lines) on the practice on marriage because, even though unfair to certain individuals, society as a whole is the better for it. How is it only "hate" can lead someone to reason that line be drawn on the exclusionary-side for same-sex marriage instead of the inclusionary-side.

To put it another way, Tom and Steve agree that child brides, arranged marriages, no-fault divorce, polygamy and incest are wrong but Tom is also against same-sex marriage. Now Steve is "spinning the world forward" but Tom is a "hater." It defies logic.
I have a hard time taking logic lessons from the author of such drivel.
BVS is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:44 PM   #448
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
I was fine with most of your post, except this:

It only defies logic if you believe Tom has a legitimate reason to be against same-sex marriage.
That's what a civil society should be able to discuss -- without the pejoratives. The merits of the arguments.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:46 PM   #449
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 03:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500

That's what a civil society should be able to discuss -- without the pejoratives. The merits of the arguments.
So when will you start?
BVS is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:54 PM   #450
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

So, if we all believe in some restrictions (demarcation lines) on the practice on marriage because, even though unfair to certain individuals, society as a whole is the better for it.
I really don't expect an answer to this, but how exactly would society be better if you kept gay people from marrying? And comments like this betray your deep seated bigotry
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:57 PM   #451
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 03:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I'll ask again, what if the incest is homosexual in nature? No fear of inbreeding and their orientation can't be denied anymore than other homosexuals can it?
I believe I answered. I'll try again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
To me there are couple of keys to differentiating other types of sexual relationships fro homosexuality.

The first is Consent. This should be the first rule of all sexual relationships--mutual consent between adults period. Anything that doesn't fall under that is out of bounds. Anything that does fall under that is all the government should really be concerned about when recognizing the legitimacy of relationships. Homosexual relationships involve consenting adults--incest and polygamous relationships, which are the favorite bugaboos of the slippery slope folk often do not.

Secondly is the issue of Orientation. Relationships between relatives and between more than one person are not issues of a person's identity, or their sexual orientation. The idea that one need not--and should not--act on every attraction they feel towards another person is something that both homosexuals and heterosexuals can understand. For example when a person is in a committed relationship whether gay or straight, and he or she feels an intense attraction to another person he or she can--and should--choose to remain faithful to their partner. This choice does not compromise that person's identity in any way, nor does it shut them off from the possibility of a meaningful relationship--after all they are IN one.

But sexual orientation is not a choice, and many opponents of SSM even concede this point. Of course, as soon as they concede the point, the fight is already over. There is no legitimate argument against SSM once you concede that homosexuality is an orientation and not a lifestyle choice. Indeed, all the comparisons to incest, polygamy etc inherently assume that homosexuality is a choice one can take or leave in much the way that one can take or leave a second or third wife, a sexual relationship with a sibling or whatever else.

In regards to incest and polygamy, Christians in particular don't have much of a leg to stand on in using those as proof of the slippery slope, as both practices were part of the lives of several key Biblical "role models" if you will including Abraham and Jacob (polygamy and incest) and Solomon and David (polygamy) and Ruth and Boaz (incest). I realize these practices are frowned upon in our culture today and with good reason, but this is not the strongest foundation for attacking homosexuality. Marrying close relatives or having more than one wife were cultural practices that were once acceptable and no longer are, that's all.

I think very strong arguments can be made about the damage that can be done as incestuous relationships get closer in relation. Cousins, maybe not so much a big deal--just culturally frowned upon, brother and sisters increasingly problematic, and parent and child downright dangerous. But as has been pointed out, that's probably for another thread.
maycocksean is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 08:21 PM   #452
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I actually did some research. Now it's your turn. Reread my post and please direct me to a website that contradicts what I said. I certainly don't wish to disseminate any false information, especially when it comes to genetics or medical science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I'll just throw out a blanket answer here. Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

1) Prohibitions on incestuous marriages are thousands of years old predating any possible understanding of genetics.
It doesn't take an understanding of genetics to be able to make the cause and effect connection to birth defects. You don't have to understand the mechanics of why something happens to know that it happens. Not to mention the fact that millions of years of evolution have ingrained an innate aversion to inbreeding much to the benefit of our genetic variation

Quote:

2) Effects of inbreeding take generations to appear in humans being statistically no more common than birth defects in children of older mothers. Do we prohibit them from marrying, having children? Chromosomal abnormalities such as trisomy would be up to twice as high in brother-sister marriages but don't explain restrictions on 2nd cousin/2nd cousin or uncle/niece marriages. Do we prohibit adults with Down Syndrome from marrying and having children although there is a 50% chance a child born to a mother with DS will have DS?
Where are you getting the information that effects of inbreeding take generations to appear? That is completely false and lacks even the most basic knowledge of genetics. Effects can be seen as early as the first generation offspring. Your comparisons to older women and people with Downs Syndrome is shameful, but not out of character. I assume eugenics is part of your forthcoming, obligatory slippery slope argument?

Quote:

3) It isn't 1600 anymore. Most trisomy affected fetuses miscarriage or, after an amniocentesis diagnosis, can and are aborted.
Ya, because the only effect of inbreeding is Down Syndrome (By the way, you seem to think that inbreeding creates Down Syndrome. Ridiculous). There are countless underlying, harmful genetic disorders exasperated by inbreeding. And like you mentioned yourself, sometimes* those effects are only expressed in later generations. So this argument is worthless.

*My very important distinction from your uninformed crap

Quote:
3) Birth defects are of no concern if two brothers wish to marry, why restrict them?

4) What happened to equal protection?

5) We know we can't use religious arguments from old books against incestuous marriages anymore. Debating from wisdom or tradition doesn't spin the world forward it only protects the status quo. So I guess, like same-sex marriage, the only argument is the yuck factor right?

6) The only way my comments can be misconstrued as hurtful to gays or supporters of SSM is if they're forced to acknowledge they don't believe in the right to marry "no matter who you love" any more than I do. That's my only point.
I'll lump all this diarrhea together. If you want to use homosexuality and equality as some sort of yard stick, then it makes complete sense that if the rest of the population aren't able to marry their close relatives, then the homosexual brothers should be treated as equal and denied that too. What a completely lazy and ill-conceived argument
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 08:34 PM   #453
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 04:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500
I'll ask again, what if the incest is homosexual in nature? No fear of inbreeding and their orientation can't be denied anymore than other homosexuals can it?

Could your propose an alternate, separate but equal set of rights that you think an incestuous couple should be able to have legal access to? And why do you think this should be distinct from non-incestuous relationships?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 08:42 PM   #454
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kony Island Baby
Posts: 10,244
Local Time: 06:07 PM
If there must be an incest thread, I hope a distinction is drawn between siblings and parents, and cousins. Cousins may be frowned on nowadays but if it were lethal, the human species would have died out long ago.
Kieran McConville is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 08:48 PM   #455
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 04:07 AM
I've given up.

When people speak of "marry who you love" it's an attempt to explain that gay people love their spouses and partners just like straight people love their spouses and partners.

Some people take this to mean that it's the same thing as incest. What can you do?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 08:51 PM   #456
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 03:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500
So, if we all believe in some restrictions (demarcation lines) on the practice on marriage because, even though unfair to certain individuals, society as a whole is the better for it.
This then begs the (huge, glaring) question: how is society better off by denying homosexuals access to marriage? Or to put it another way, how would society be worse off by allowing it? Some sort of specifics would seem to be called for here.
Diemen is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 08:56 PM   #457
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:07 AM
Quote:
We know we can't use religious arguments from old books against incestuous marriages anymore. Debating from wisdom or tradition doesn't spin the world forward it only protects the status quo.
Considering that your old book, by virtue of a simplistic origins story, at least indirectly supports incest, it's hardly a good idea to bring it up. Also, it's the lack of wisdom in that same book that tries to keep the world from spinning forward
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 08:58 PM   #458
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
I've given up.

When people speak of "marry who you love" it's an attempt to explain that gay people love their spouses and partners just like straight people love their spouses and partners.

Some people take this to mean that it's the same thing as incest. What can you do?
Well, depending on who was paying the monk to interpret the dead language "marry who you love" was originally written in, it could mean either... oh wait, that's not an issue most reasonable, free thinking adults have, is it?
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:05 PM   #459
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,741
Local Time: 04:07 AM
Personally, I am disturbed that there are some people who are OK with consensual incest. Forget about genetics, there are psychological and emotional reasons for incest to not be accepted by society at all.

I've been doing some research and from what I've found, siblings who "fall in love" come from dysfunctional families and desperate to feel safe with someone - hence why they turn to siblings close in age, if they exist. There is no way for siblings from healthy families to develop romantic feelings for each other.

Plus, what if they do want to have children together? They so firmly believe their love is like anyone else's and they would want kids together. They would have to be forced sterilized to prevent any inbreeding and that could stir up a whole human rights problem.

Now some would say, well no family is ever perfect, what's wrong with love, etc. I don't think its takes much thinking to realize that consensual incest would hurt society. If two siblings want to be with each other and only each other, they are not participating in society very well. They are not developing away from their family and they are being more diverse in their interaction with society. I would largely guess anyone who develops feelings for a family member has a fear of intimacy with a non-relative, or is unable to have such feelings, thus they end up committing incest. I'm no psychologist, but I'm sure many in the mental health field would agree a healthy individual is someone who is able to form strong relationships with non-relatives.

Also, keep in mind animals do not commit consensual incest. They may be forced to breed to keep a dying specie going, but that's it.

I just find it very disturbing that some are having a laissez faire attitude to love and sexuality. Its taking the gray area to whole new level that does no good for civilization as a whole. To say, "who am I to tell someone what to do with their lives?" says to me that someone has a big case of apathy, or is not seeing the big picture.

I may sound harsh here, but I am deeply bothered.
Pearl is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:11 PM   #460
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
There is no way for siblings from healthy families to develop romantic feelings for each other.
This sounds far too absolute to be true
__________________

Jive Turkey is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×