Wafflecopter
Banned
Link648099 said:
Do you have a sister?
Bush urges gay marriage ban enshrined in Constitution
- Thread starter bob_arctor
- Start date
- Status
Do you have a sister?
Link648099
Banned
Let me add some more fuel to the fire:
Three people all love each other and all want to get married. One is an unrelated man, and the other two are sisters who are sexually active with each other.
Polygamy, incest, and homosexuality.
Since there can be no genitically screwed up children from this union, and love being the prime reason for their union, why should these people be denied the right to get married?
And no, your repressive morals aren't allowed in this discussion.
Three people all love each other and all want to get married. One is an unrelated man, and the other two are sisters who are sexually active with each other.
Polygamy, incest, and homosexuality.
Since there can be no genitically screwed up children from this union, and love being the prime reason for their union, why should these people be denied the right to get married?
And no, your repressive morals aren't allowed in this discussion.
Link648099
Banned
Wafflecopter said:
:lol
Translation: I can't answer your argument, so I'll just attack you instead!
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Thinking about it lately, I'm coming to see that what's probably the biggest problem with any issue relating to homosexuality, is that people are up against one of the oldest and most enshrined prejudices in not just American society, but Judeo-Christian societies before America.
Take a look at the reaction right here, to the mention of incest - the knee-jerk reaction is that it's "obvious" that it's wrong, immoral, disgusting, and so forth. People don't have to think about it - they "know it already". I'm not arguing about incest here - one can rationally work out many objective problems with it, at least as far as actual mating, due to it making for bad genetics - but rather merely pointing out a parallel.
For most people in these societies, homosexuality of any kind has categorized pretty much the same as incest. The apparent hypocrisy of people who talk about "respect and equality" on one hand, while restricting the rights of people on the other, is in their eyes more like talking about "respect and equality" while supporting say, bans on murder and other "clearly bad and wrong behavior". Rational arguments about two people living together like any other couple, and suffering because they're denied the same rights, just fall into a deep, black chasm - they don't register. I know, because I've tried to explain these things in the most simple, clear language possible to people with this bigotry before.
And they return a blank stare, and essentially flip back onto thinking "but.. but... IT'S WRONG!"
Of course, another truth is probably that everyone has their own share of bigotries on which any rational, informed appeal goes right in one ear and out the other; you, me, the wall. Human nature.
Take a look at the reaction right here, to the mention of incest - the knee-jerk reaction is that it's "obvious" that it's wrong, immoral, disgusting, and so forth. People don't have to think about it - they "know it already". I'm not arguing about incest here - one can rationally work out many objective problems with it, at least as far as actual mating, due to it making for bad genetics - but rather merely pointing out a parallel.
For most people in these societies, homosexuality of any kind has categorized pretty much the same as incest. The apparent hypocrisy of people who talk about "respect and equality" on one hand, while restricting the rights of people on the other, is in their eyes more like talking about "respect and equality" while supporting say, bans on murder and other "clearly bad and wrong behavior". Rational arguments about two people living together like any other couple, and suffering because they're denied the same rights, just fall into a deep, black chasm - they don't register. I know, because I've tried to explain these things in the most simple, clear language possible to people with this bigotry before.
And they return a blank stare, and essentially flip back onto thinking "but.. but... IT'S WRONG!"
Of course, another truth is probably that everyone has their own share of bigotries on which any rational, informed appeal goes right in one ear and out the other; you, me, the wall. Human nature.
Link648099
Banned
psyadam said:
Exactly. Though it was considered taboo (and was between male and females, but who cares about details, right? Lets use it for the advancement of homosexual rights anyway!) that taboo has since been gotten over by the majority of society.
Couldn't the taboo over homosexual incest also be gotten over, given enough time?
Damn you people are intolerant!
Link648099 said:
Your scenarios are irrelevant.
We don't know what causes homosexuality or bisexuality. But certain people are just that way. They are attracted to a certain sex, and denying them the right to have a legal relationship is discrimination.
No one is predisposed, whether it be genetic or early development, to be in polygamy or be attracted to their siblings.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Link648099 said:
Translation: human nature, core assumptions challeged, divide by zero error. Load ad hominem.exe, defeat threat to core assumptions by attempting to render it unworthy of discussion.
Link648099
Banned
Triumph said:
Slippery Slope argument once again!
I love how GAF gets in a frenzy when someone uses a slippery slope argument against homosexual marriage, but in any other context it's just "the next logical step."
But hey, why isn't that right? Why is it wrong?
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Implying he wants legalized incest is just as silly as assuming that I'm for gay rights because I want Bush's body. Or that I'm for freedom of religion because I want to worship, ever.Wafflecopter said:
Moved to the left of GAF. :lolronito said:
Since polygamy's come up, I wouldn't be against that either. It would require some significant legal wrangling, though. As-is legal marriage is full of specific rights... but what happens if, say, Spouse 1 is in a coma, and Spouses 2 & 3 disagree on which path of medical treatment should be taken?
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Noone who gets married has been genetically predisposed to picking that particular mate.teh_pwn said:
Link648099
Banned
teh_pwn said:
So wait, men aren't predisposed to want to have numerous women for sex anytime in order to spread their genes to as many offspring as possible? Excuse me while I go burn my biology textbook and the local bar.
You must tell me about this biological cause that inhibits sexual attraction between two people within the same family because I am simply drawing a blank!
Remember, non of your repressive morals allowed in this discussion!
Link648099 said:
Again, the issue of polygomy is completely irrelevant to the topic. The issue isn't about people being predisposed to be as promiscious as possible. It's about the attraction of a certain sex, and allowing two consenting adults marry.
Polygomy is a completely different issue, and not related at all. If you're going to attempt to relate them, then give a clear argument about why they are related.
As for your "respressive morals" rule, I could care less. How about making a relevant argument to the topic?
Link648099
Banned
Triumph said:
I noticed it, but you did bring in the furries...thats too far even for me! /joke
Although, I can make some great arguments against my position, most of GAF can't because their logic, reason, and morality are out of wack.
GAF readily accepts homosexuality. Yet they deny the validity of homosexual incest and polygamy. Why? GAF cannot be logical and reasonable by advocating homosexual rigths on one hand, and denying those same exact rights to the other two.
The only way for anyone to be logically consistent is to accept all three.
But no one wants to do this.
Why?
Why are all these progressive, enlightened intellectual liberals so quick to deny rights to these people?
The answer is simple. You are all a bunch of hypocrites right down to the core.
You rabidly attack others for using their "repressive morals" to withhold rights to homosexuals, but you turn around and use your own "repressive morals" against homosexual incest and polygamy, and all you can do to justify your stance is say "That just ain't right."
At least all those advocates for the marriage amendment are consistent with their views, which is a lot more then anyone on GAF can say.
Now who are the stupid ones? Perhaps instead of blasting all the conservatives from your high and lofty positions of inconsistency, maybe you should all band together to produce a logical, reasonable, and equal philosophy that allows for homosexual rights but denies the other two without hypocrisy.
That should keep you guys busy for awhile.
Link648099
Banned
teh_pwn said:
Seems like you cant make a relevant arguement, nor can you follow one. I don't care how they are related or not. You still havn't shown me why those two brothers or the man and two sisters should not be able to get married.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Link648099 said:
siamesedreamer
Banned
This is really stupid.
First of all, an ammendment like this will never, ever happen.
As for the whole debate, people are gonna do what they want to do in the privacy of their own homes. Trying to regulate this kind of behavior is silly. That doesn't mean that I'm not totally disgusted by it - the whole thing is completely beyond my comprehension.
That said, leaving it up to the states is gonna cause some pretty big issues. States like GA are not gonna recognize gay mariages from MA. They need to just call every form of marriage a "civil union" and completely ditch the use of the word "marriage" from a federally recognized standpoint.
I really could care less what happens though. I guess you could say I'm neutral toward the whole issue - meaning I'm not gonna be upset if gay marriage is suddenly legal throughout the whole country, but I'm not gonna go out of my way to try to make it happen. I still maintain the viewpoint that legalizing gay marriages would definately help create more tax revenues for the government.
First of all, an ammendment like this will never, ever happen.
As for the whole debate, people are gonna do what they want to do in the privacy of their own homes. Trying to regulate this kind of behavior is silly. That doesn't mean that I'm not totally disgusted by it - the whole thing is completely beyond my comprehension.
That said, leaving it up to the states is gonna cause some pretty big issues. States like GA are not gonna recognize gay mariages from MA. They need to just call every form of marriage a "civil union" and completely ditch the use of the word "marriage" from a federally recognized standpoint.
I really could care less what happens though. I guess you could say I'm neutral toward the whole issue - meaning I'm not gonna be upset if gay marriage is suddenly legal throughout the whole country, but I'm not gonna go out of my way to try to make it happen. I still maintain the viewpoint that legalizing gay marriages would definately help create more tax revenues for the government.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Yes, please.teh_pwn said:
Link648099
Banned
teh_pwn said:
And you still can't follow an arguement!
I thought it was obvious, but I also thought you were logical. My bad. All of the scenarios are related because by using the same rhetoric and arguments in favor of homosexuality, one can easily justify incestual and polygamous relationships.
Your problem is figuring out a way to deny the right to marry or whatever to those people in the two groups that go against your own personal taboos and morals, while at the same time perserving your arguments for regular homosexual marriage.
Which you cannot do, and your empty replies prove this.
Wafflecopter
Banned
Link648099 said:
You're not very smart are you. I reckon you're just looking to start shit. I wasn't doing that at all. If you answered yes, I'd ask if you are attracted to her. Chances are that you aren't, and the most likely reason is because she's your sister.
Link648099
Banned
Wafflecopter said:
Who cares if I'm not? No, I'm not attracted to her because she is my sister.
Therefore incest = wrong.
Right?
Oh, but I'm also not attracted to men!
Therefore homosexuality = wrong too.
Right?
You agree with both of these conclusions, right?
(It's not wise to use an argument such as this because I am sure you will reject my second conclusion even though I use your same line of reasoning.)
Wafflecopter
Banned
Do I think homosexuality is wrong? I don't really care. I am not gay, and as long as a gay dude doesn't try to suck me off, I couldn't care less. But incest? Come on now.Link648099 said:
Link648099
Banned
Wafflecopter said:
Why?
Just answer that one question. That is all I ask.
Link648099
Banned
So far GAF has not been able to tell me why homosexual marriage is right and should be accepted, and my two scenarios are wrong and should be rejected.
Here is the best reply I have so far gotten:
"But incest? Come on now."
The cream of the crop of intellectual liberals post here, and this is the best you can do? Come on GAF, you can do better then this!
Here is the best reply I have so far gotten:
"But incest? Come on now."
The cream of the crop of intellectual liberals post here, and this is the best you can do? Come on GAF, you can do better then this!
Wafflecopter
Banned
psyadam said:
...........Thanks for telling me.....
Link648099 said:
And what rhetoric/argument would that be?
We allow heterosexual marriages. That's fine for most people, but there's people that are attracted to the same sex only. Because of existing laws, gay couples cannot enter the same relationship. To their nature, it's the exact same relationship that straight people have. The issue here is that people with a certain innate characteristic are restricted from a legal right. Ie discrimination.
Now with regard to incest, you're trying to equate the attraction of an entire sex to a single person, a sibling. People acting in incest still have a certain sexuality. If it's a guy and he's straight, he still has millions of other women to have relationships with. Unless you can show me some studies that people acting in incest are only attracted to relatives and no one else, they still have the same legal rights to relationships that other people have. Thus, there is no issue here.
As to why we don't allow incest, that's an entirely different topic. Unless you can relate the two topics, to bring it up in this topic is a slippery slope.
Link648099 said:
What if the argument is simply that marriage as a state endorsed practice should be abolished and the various benefits that come with marriage should be definable in terms of contract law as needed by any set of individuals?
I would see no reason for such rights to be denied to siblings, as many of those benefits could be very useful for them. However, the issue of actual incestuous reproduction (which, like most other illegal things, has a demonstrable negative impact on society) would be decoupled from that of marriage.
Is that a hypocritical position?
Kobun Heat
Member
I'm waiting for polygamy to become legal, so me and like... ten thousand other people can all get married, then file one tax return.
Link648099
Banned
teh_pwn said:
Wait, so the person who wants to marry his brother cant because there are other men in the world? So we should just tell all those incestual people to suck it up and look outside the family, right? Is that the best reason you can come up with?
Either way, you seem to have completly forgotten my scenario I gave: Two brothers (obviously homosexual) want to get married. Why should they not be allowed to wed?
What is this, strike three for you now, or what?
Wow, another non answer...I'm shocked!
You, or anyone else for that matter, still havn't shown me how my conclusion is wrong, that those who support homosexual marriage are inconsistent and hypocritical when it comes to other loving-yet-considered-taboo relationships.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Bolding text strengthens your argument.Link648099 said:
OK Link, Ill play your game.Link648099 said:
First of all, your whole slippery slope argument doesnt really fit for one reason. Youre saying that if we allow gay marriage, it would open up the floodgates to incest and polygamy. Well, if we are removing all morals from the conversation wouldnt creating marriage as an institution in and of itself also open the same floodgates? I mean, if all things are equal, as you have said, allowing any marriage would have lead to the allotment of ALL marriages long ago. But no, you are presenting the idea that gay marriage is wrong, and therefore relatable to these other wrong things. You are violating your own rule.
But, ignoring that, the very simple and most important difference between gay marriage and incest and polygamy is that no one is hurt because of gay marriage. I ask you to name one person that was forced or coerced into being in a homosexual relationship with somebody (I dont mean raped, I mean in a real relationship). Ill answer for you. No one (or, at least, no large enough % to be considered a factor for this discussion, unless we were to start disallowing heterosexual marriage for the same reason). But look at polygamy. Look at the communities in this country that practice it. Look at the terrible conditions that women are made to live in, the young men being run out of town so that the old men can have all the girls. That is a hurtful institution. The same can be said for incest. Incestual relationships are far and away ones that involve the subjection of one of the persons involved, in a situation that is, if not actually, then seemingly inescapable for said person.
These are BAD institutions, they hurt people. The same cannot be said for gay marriage.
And that is my reply. I look forward to reading yours.
Link648099
Banned
maharg said:
I don't think so. Good job on getting passed the hypocrisy part.
The only problem I find with that idea (detached from my own personal views, of course) is that I doubt anyone would go for it...at least not in the next hundred years or so.
The current problem, the one I am helping GAF realize, is creating a consistent argument that allows for homosexual marriage but does not allow for any other "taboo" relationships, such as the ones I've described.
Another easy way to get past my problem is to simply allow for any form of marriage imaginable.
But again, nobody even here on this very liberal forum want to allow that. I kept asking why, pushing the issue down to it's core, and all those who try to answer the "why" have to resort to some form of morality, which therein lies their hypocrisy, which some on this board seem not to realize.
Which gets me to my next question: If one set of morals (that homosexual incest and polygamy are wrong) is acceptable, why then is another set of morals (that homosexual marriage is wrong) not acceptable?
Why does one set of morality trump the other? (according to GAF, at least)
What gives your set of morals weight against my set of morals?
HyperZone<3
Member
It doesn't.Link648099 said:
Morality at large is defined by what the majority of the people in any given society will approve of. The average American won't apply bribes to get out of compulsory government service, and would be appalled by others who do. But in many other countries that's the way it is and the citizenry accepts it as being common as the sun rising everyday.
Last time I checked though, there were a heck of a lot more people dissapproving of incest then there are go homosexuality. Until the day that individual freedoms are so paramount as to make that notion quaint, it will continue to be disallowed socialy and legally.
So while one CAN argue that incectious, non-procreational couplings do nothing to harm society, and should be given the same respect as any normal gay couple that wants to get together, you're not going to find much in the way of support.
And that is the true judge. People who have any sort of interest that caters only to the few can and do use that argument. Doesn't NAMBLA use that same line of reasoning? There could be a day where your supposition could indeed come true, and morality at large would be flexible to accomidate that. But so far, that's still a pretty big chasm to cross.
I think the real problem with your argument is that you see the opposing argument as hypocritical while seeing your own as not. Of course there is hypocrisy involved in just about any moral or political stance. People will always act to protect their ideals, even when logic fails them.
And that's as true of you as well, most likely. I assume you do not see the expansion of marriage rights to mixed racial couples as a bad thing despite it being considered taboo and immoral by the very same political pedigree as see gay marriage as being immoral now. Correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I can tell, this is a hypocritical position to take. You would be arguing for one slippery slope and against another, which is exactly what you're accusing others of doing.
I see expansion of marriage rights as a step in the right direction. Before some or all of the non-reproductive rights (which, lets be honest, are the vast majority of those involved in marriage -- since it is certainly not illegal to reproduce out of wedlock) can be disinfranchised from religious institutions, there have to be steps taken, and they haven't been taken. In the meantime, however, I do think homosexual marriage is legitimate in the same sense as heterosexual marriage, and so I very much support it.
Beyond that, I know for a fact that no changes to marriages I'm not in will affect the sanctity of MY marriage.
And that's as true of you as well, most likely. I assume you do not see the expansion of marriage rights to mixed racial couples as a bad thing despite it being considered taboo and immoral by the very same political pedigree as see gay marriage as being immoral now. Correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I can tell, this is a hypocritical position to take. You would be arguing for one slippery slope and against another, which is exactly what you're accusing others of doing.
I see expansion of marriage rights as a step in the right direction. Before some or all of the non-reproductive rights (which, lets be honest, are the vast majority of those involved in marriage -- since it is certainly not illegal to reproduce out of wedlock) can be disinfranchised from religious institutions, there have to be steps taken, and they haven't been taken. In the meantime, however, I do think homosexual marriage is legitimate in the same sense as heterosexual marriage, and so I very much support it.
Beyond that, I know for a fact that no changes to marriages I'm not in will affect the sanctity of MY marriage.
Link648099
Banned
Matt said:
Wow, I said that? Where, exactly? If I seem to recall, my own argument had nothing to do with slippery slopes. Your average homosexual marriage argument, on the other hand, does. My whole conclusion has been that no one can deny two brothers the right to marry while at the same time allowing homosexuals to marry. All I've done is call out the slippery slope in that line of reasoning, and ask for a consistent (that is the key word here) argument that effectively bars those two brothers from marrying, while still allowing for homosexuals.
Strawman strike one.
Huh? Once again, I do not recall saying within my arguments that homosexuality (or anything else) is wrong, as you say I did. I'm not saying anything is wrong. Other posters here on GAF are saying my scenario of two homosexual and incestual brothers is morally wrong. My whole question throughout the night has been "why?" and no one seems to be able to answer it. Why is my scenario wrong, and homosexuality not?
Strawman strike two.
Gee, if I seem to remember correctly, my scenarios all included consenting adults who all loved each other and all wanted to get married.
Strawman strike three.
Sorry, you struck out. Please reread my arguments.
Maybe it's just me but I don't understand what link is arguing for? Is this tangent into incest a supporting argument or a opposing argument to gay marriage? Incest (and when I use the word I am referring to sex between a man and a woman) is dangerous because of the potential for birth defects. With homosexuality, there is no such danger. In that way there is a clear distinction between homosexuality and incest and are very seperate topics.
Xdrive05
Member
Guys and gals, we need to define our terms here. Marriage is NOT a right. It's not. It's a religious institution and being such means that it is religion that dictates whether people can marry. It's not a right.
Just because the state has commandered it with bureaucracy and threatens to limit who is allowed to use it, doesn't change that fact at all. The injustice of allowing certain members to have marriage rights also doesn't change that fact. We need to get our priorities straight, okay? We need to change this upsidedown system of awarding breaks to only certain groups of the society - using the private sector and religion doesn't make it right at all. It's that backwards mentality that's causing all the problems and we have everybody (both sides) getting bent out of shape with the WRONG perspective on the issue. This is a really simple solution and the only honest one.
All the same, if dubya wants to "ban" any form of it, he is overstepping his bounds and responsibilities. It's not his job to force the private sector or the churches to ban certain types of marriage.
Just because the state has commandered it with bureaucracy and threatens to limit who is allowed to use it, doesn't change that fact at all. The injustice of allowing certain members to have marriage rights also doesn't change that fact. We need to get our priorities straight, okay? We need to change this upsidedown system of awarding breaks to only certain groups of the society - using the private sector and religion doesn't make it right at all. It's that backwards mentality that's causing all the problems and we have everybody (both sides) getting bent out of shape with the WRONG perspective on the issue. This is a really simple solution and the only honest one.
All the same, if dubya wants to "ban" any form of it, he is overstepping his bounds and responsibilities. It's not his job to force the private sector or the churches to ban certain types of marriage.
Wow, well, now youre being incredibly condescending, where as I think I have been as polite as possible.Link648099 said:
Anyway, I have addressed your arguments. You are asking what makes gay marriage different from polygamy and incest, and I have explained that. The fact that you are using an incredibly specific example (that of two gay brothers wanting to marry) does not change that. As a society under the rule of law, we must generally work in generalizations (ha), not specifics. I have said WHY incest and polygamy are illegal, and why they should stay that way. That same standard does NOT apply to gay marriage.
Look, if two gay brothers are truly in love and want to marry, I suppose its a shame that they cant. But we cant very well write a law that says Incest is illegal as long as the two people are not in true love, for that would not work. First of all, how would the system be able to tell who is truly in love? And besides, that would still be discrimination, because two individuals that ARENT truly in love would still be able to marry, as long as they werent related. Incest is illegal because of the dangerous situation that would create for so many children. The same for polygamy. That is what makes them different then gay marriage, and I dont see why you insist on saying they are the same thing.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked