Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yea, it ain't romantic. I know. But that's basically it I guess. Don't get me wrong, if two people truly love each other, I'm not the person to tell them they can't. But in order for humans to stay strong, it's better they don't have babies.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Galeongirl, but are you saying you support consensual incestuous relationships?
 
I'm not supporting them, but I don't necessarily speak out against them. I'm against them having sex, though. For reasons already stated.

It's a slippery slope when love is involved, but in this case, I think it's better not to love your brother or sister. There's a choice you can make, you can choose not to act on feelings.

But there's no choice whether you're gay or not. And that is the vital difference here. You can't just say to a gay man "Oh, just ignore that you love this man. You'll fall for a woman soon enough". That doesn't happen. Whereas with incest you can say "Just don't act upon this, and you'll find another person sooner enough". It's not genetically decided that you can ONLY love your brother or sister. But it is decided that you ONLY love the same sex, or the other, or both.
 
I'm not supporting them, but I don't necessarily speak out against them. I'm against them having sex, though. For reasons already stated.

It's a slippery slope when love is involved, but in this case, I think it's better not to love your brother or sister. There's a choice you can make, you can choose not to act on feelings.

But there's no choice whether you're gay or not. And that is the vital difference here. You can't just say to a gay man "Oh, just ignore that you love this man. You'll fall for a woman soon enough". That doesn't happen. Whereas with incest you can say "Just don't act upon this, and you'll find another person sooner enough". It's not genetically decided that you can ONLY love your brother or sister. But it is decided that you ONLY love the same sex, or the other, or both.

The last part makes sense.

But I would think anyone who falls in love with their sibling has some major emotional/psychological issues. I highly doubt the love between siblings can be put under the same category as the love between non-related people.
 
I don't know about that, I've never experienced it or read much about it. I know there are stories where siblings have fallen in love and have a 'sane' relationship without kids. But if they have issues? No idea.
 
should we break off and start a new thread about incest relationships? doesn't seem appropriate for a same-sex marriage thread.

thanks.
 
INDY500 said:
.

2) Effects of inbreeding take generations to appear in humans

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"?
 
Agreed. If someone wants to start a thread on incestuous relationships, go ahead, but let's keep this on topic, please.
It's not on topic? Opinions aside, INDY was making a point of comparing same sex marriage and incest. It was most certainly on topic.
 
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.
 
PhilsFan said:
It's not on topic? Opinions aside, INDY was making a point of comparing same sex marriage and incest. It was most certainly on topic.

Maybe I should have rephrased that to say that we should get back to legitimate discussion of same sex marriage, and not let the misguided (at best) comparisons take over the discourse. I can think of quite a few things that could be brought up in comparison to gay marriage that really don't have a legitimate place in the discussion, unless we're just trying to get a rise out of people.
 
Huffington Post

Gay British actor Rupert Everett is raising eyebrows with recent comments he made about gay parenting.

The star of films like "Shakespeare In Love" and "My Best Friend's Wedding" told the Sunday Times Magazine that he "can't think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads... Some people might not agree with that. Fine! That's just my opinion."

Everett, who is currently playing Oscar Wilde in "The Judas Kiss" in London, revealed his unexpected viewpoint while discussing his current boyfriend meeting his mother, Sara. She told the magazine:

"In the past, I have said that I wish Rupert was straight and, I probably still feel that... I’d like him to have a pretty wife. I’d like him to have children. He’s so good with children. He’d make a wonderful father... But I also think a child needs a mummy and a daddy. I’ve told him that and he takes it very well. He doesn’t get angry with me. He just smiles.”

Everett added, "I’m not speaking on behalf of the gay community. In fact, I don’t feel like I’m part of any ‘community.' The only community I belong to is humanity and we’ve got too many children on the planet, so it’s good not to have more.”

The Telegraph notes that Ben Summerskill, Chief Executive of LGBT Rights Advocacy group Stonewall, responded to the actor, saying, "Rupert should get out a little bit more to see the facts for himself. There is absolutely no evidence that the kids of gay parents suffer in the way they are being brought up or in how they develop."
 
Diemen said:
Maybe I should have rephrased that to say that we should get back to legitimate discussion of same sex marriage, and not let the misguided (at best) comparisons take over the discourse. I can think of quite a few things that could be brought up in comparison to gay marriage that really don't have a legitimate place in the discussion, unless we're just trying to get a rise out of people.

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.
 
several posts had begun to discuss incest, the merits of a potential brother/sister coupling. that's quite distinct from homosexuality, and as such belongs in another thread.

posts like Sean's or others where the comparisons INDY was drawing between an illegal activity and a sexual orientation were legitimate because they kept the subject at hand in mind in the posts.
 
I think it would be tricky to discuss incest separately from homosexuality. While I agree that incest deserves its own thread, because it may derail this one, I can see homosexuality being brought up now and then. I say that because someone may argue two homosexual siblings could be allowed to have sex because no pregnancies would happen.

You know what? Maybe we should discuss not just incest, but where exactly do we draw the line in what should be acceptable these days in terms of sexuality and marriage. Before, there was a brief discussion on polygamy because of what happened in Brazil and that could've derailed this thread. So perhaps a general sexuality thread?
 
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?
 
INDY500 said:
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?

There are hundreds if not thousands of brothers out there lining up to marry their brothers.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I was fine with most of your post, except this:
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.
 
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.
 
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. :nerd:
 
INDY500 said:
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.
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom