Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2 - Page 24 - 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, 09:14 PM   #461
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,741
Local Time: 04:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
This sounds far too absolute to be true
I really don't see how siblings who've had a good and healthy upbringing would end up falling in love with each other. If you know of a good example, please post it here.
__________________

Pearl is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:14 PM   #462
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: 03:42 AM
The birth defects thing doesn't stick with me necessarily simply because there are non-incestuous relationships where birth defects occur, too. It may be more likely in incestuous relationships, and I fully understand the argument people are making, and certainly it's great and preferable for all involved if a child can be born healthy, but at the same time, I hesitate to decide to start automatically determining relationships based on the potential for their children to have birth defects. I just think that could lead to some potentially iffy situations in general. If that makes sense.

You are correct that most of those kinds of relationships have some sort of psychological abuse involved and there's some other deep-seeded problems there. Which is why generally it's frowned upon, because of the potential for abuse and whatnot that's been alluded to here. And that's why I would not personally be a supporter of such relationships.

But ultimately, at the same time, if there is actual legit consent involved, I can't stop consenting adults from doing what they please, and that's ultimately why I come down on the issue as I do. It's their problem to work out, I guess. If there is evidence of abuse, then yes, one must put a stop to the relationship-but I would say that no matter what the relationship was.

And in no way, shape, or form is it even remotely comparable to homosexuality. That much is absolutely certain. It really is insane that we are even having such a discussion in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
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
Yeah, I'll be surprised if we get a legitimate answer to anything being discussed here. There's been plenty of eloquent, well-argued posts and questions posed here and yet they seem to be just totally skipped over and barely, if at all, acknowledged.

Which makes me wonder, why even bother anymore, but eh.
__________________

Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:21 PM   #463
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,741
Local Time: 04:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post


But ultimately, at the same time, if there is actual legit consent involved, I can't stop consenting adults from doing what they please. It's their problem to work out, I guess. If there is evidence of abuse, then yes, we must put a stop to the relationship-but I would say that no matter what the relationship was.

But what if they don't realize its a problem? What if both are so whacked in the head, they fail to realize how unhealthy their relationship is? If I knew someone was committing incest and saw nothing wrong with it, I would do what I can to get that person help.

Its kind of like being a hermit. You and your family member stay together and never experience a connection with a non-relative. How would you function in society?
Pearl is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:22 PM   #464
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post

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.
Then we would also have to legislate against shy people, shut ins, and hermits. Not a very strong argument

Quote:

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.
Restricting them from the relationship would not alleviate any social disorders.

Quote:

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.
This just simply isn't true. Lions will occasionally breed incestuously. I'm sure there are other instances

I'm not disagreeing with your general sentiment, I just think these arguments are weak
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:23 PM   #465
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
I really don't see how siblings who've had a good and healthy upbringing would end up falling in love with each other. If you know of a good example, please post it here.
Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it will never happen. Would it be unusual? I would assume so. But it's far more complicated than to be able to say "it will never happen"
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:27 PM   #466
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: 03:42 AM
In short, what JT said.

Like I said, ultimately I think you have a valid stance here on that issue. Again, if a relationship is clearly unhealthy and poses a problem, people should step in and do what they can to deal with it and/or stop it. But that's an issue that can apply to many kinds of relationships, no one type of relationship has a monopoly on being unhealthy and full of problems.
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:27 PM   #467
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,741
Local Time: 04:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
Then we would also have to legislate against shy people, shut ins, and hermits. Not a very strong argument


Restricting them from the relationship would not alleviate any social disorders.
OK maybe not. But incest should remain a taboo, and not be seen as another form of healthy love.


Quote:
I'm not disagreeing with your general sentiment, I just think these arguments are weak
I admit that I'm only being a lay psychologist here, but I am just deeply bothered by the mere notion that incest can be OK.
Pearl is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:29 PM   #468
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: 03:42 AM
Never said it was. Just noting that you can't stop consenting adults from doing what they want. That's all. That's the big thing for me.
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:32 PM   #469
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 04:42 AM
i think the discussion these past few posts have demonstrated that incest has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:34 PM   #470
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,741
Local Time: 04:42 AM
Sorry about that, Irvine. I just read some of the posts that seem to support incest and maybe I misinterpreted them, but I got so bothered that I had to post quickly.

I know, not a good excuse, but that is why I did it.
Pearl is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:35 PM   #471
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
I admit that I'm only being a lay psychologist here, but I am just deeply bothered by the mere notion that incest can be OK.
I'm with you there
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:36 PM   #472
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i think the discussion these past few posts have demonstrated that incest has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality.
^ And that
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:40 PM   #473
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
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.
I'm guessing he's embarrassed to reply with "fire and brimstone". Ironic that some good ol' fashion incest is what 'historically' follows. Maybe that's why he can't seem to uncouple the two?
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:43 PM   #474
ONE
love, blood, life
 
iron yuppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,552
Local Time: 03:42 AM
How would people feel about this, even if it has next to no possibility of ever happening: civil unions that carry all of the current legal and financial benefits of marriage are available to any two consenting adults. "Marriage" becomes a strictly religious institution that carries no legal force or benefits whatsoever - that is, the state only recognizes civil unions. This way, legal union equality is achieved, and the religious folks get to keep whatever traditional definition of marriage they feel so strongly about preserving.
iron yuppie is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:48 PM   #475
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 04:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron yuppie View Post
How would people feel about this, even if it has next to no possibility of ever happening: civil unions that carry all of the current legal and financial benefits of marriage are available to any two consenting adults. "Marriage" becomes a strictly religious institution that carries no legal force or benefits whatsoever - that is, the state only recognizes civil unions. This way, legal union equality is achieved, and the religious folks get to keep whatever traditional definition of marriage they feel so strongly about preserving.


sounds like the UK.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:49 PM   #476
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 58,208
Local Time: 07:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron yuppie
How would people feel about this, even if it has next to no possibility of ever happening: civil unions that carry all of the current legal and financial benefits of marriage are available to any two consenting adults. "Marriage" becomes a strictly religious institution that carries no legal force or benefits whatsoever - that is, the state only recognizes civil unions. This way, legal union equality is achieved, and the religious folks get to keep whatever traditional definition of marriage they feel so strongly about preserving.
"Will you civil union me?" doesn't really carry the same weight...
cobl04 is online now  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:55 PM   #477
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:42 AM
I've often thought about that and it's not a bad idea. Of course, it gives the religious folks the undeserved dibs on a word and concept they didn't invent (though they seem to think otherwise), but whatever
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:59 PM   #478
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: 03:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron yuppie View Post
How would people feel about this, even if it has next to no possibility of ever happening: civil unions that carry all of the current legal and financial benefits of marriage are available to any two consenting adults. "Marriage" becomes a strictly religious institution that carries no legal force or benefits whatsoever - that is, the state only recognizes civil unions. This way, legal union equality is achieved, and the religious folks get to keep whatever traditional definition of marriage they feel so strongly about preserving.
This is what I've been stating for quite some time. If one side gets to call a relationship something, so does the other. It's just plain stupid and immature to expect gay couples to call their relationships something totally different from straight people's when they're going through the exact same things straight couples go through. This idea that we "own" a word and can't stand the thought of another couple using that same word because they're not straight is so ridiculous and childish.

Though I agree with cobl, the proposal would sound very awkward all of a sudden.
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 10:07 PM   #479
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 04:42 AM
we could just call it marriage, like we always have, and let churches play the "no fags allowed" game if they so wish, because there's no law against being assholes no matter how you try to wrap it up in the ecstasy of sanctimony.

seems easier to me.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 10:07 PM   #480
ONE
love, blood, life
 
iron yuppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,552
Local Time: 03:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
Of course, it gives the religious folks the undeserved dibs on a word and concept they didn't invent (though they seem to think otherwise), but whatever
I suppose that is an important question in some regards - that is, whether non-religious people really care what the union is called. I can only speak for myself, but if I were to get "married," frankly I would not give a damn what it was called. If semantics can placate the religious right in exchange for real legal strides for gay people, I would call it a victory.
__________________

iron yuppie 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 03:42 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
×