[DWYP-Safe]Gay Marriage

[Zero Beat]

Um. What's your point? So people raised by homosexuals view homosexuality as acceptable, and some of them thusly become gay themselves.

Is this a problem?

It is for those who oppose homosexuality. I personally don't care wether they screw each other or not. Doesn't affect my relationship with the opposite sex.

 

[Duke]

No, I'm arguing that the law shouldn't change. We shouldn't outlaw infertile couples and we shouldn't allow brother/sister or gay marriages.

 

[Digital Watches]

No, I'm arguing that the law shouldn't change. We shouldn't outlaw infertile couples and we shouldn't allow brother/sister or gay marriages.

So in essence, you're arguing that we should deny homosexuals the rights given by our current laws to heterosexuals, for no logical reason, merely to maintain the status quo. Am I missing something here?

Far be it from me to question the validity of a seemingly arbitrary law. After all, it's not like laws are supposed to change should it become apparent that the current law is unjust or outdated. Who thinks of such crazy nonsense?

 

[Duke]

So in essence, you're arguing that we should deny homosexuals the rights given by our current laws to heterosexuals, for no logical reason, merely to maintain the status quo. Am I missing something here?

Far be it from me to question the validity of a seemingly arbitrary law. After all, it's not like laws are supposed to change should it become apparent that the current law is unjust or inapplicable to the current state of the world. Who thinks of such crazy nonsense?

Have you not been reading my posts? If we "deny homosexuals the rights given by our current laws to heterosexuals" then we cannot deny the right of men that want to marry their sisters. I made that last post to clearify my stance, it wasn't an argument.

 

[sheepyman]

You're assuming far too much.

First off, how do you know these "men that want to marry their sisters" will try to get the right? And secondly, how does that justify denying other peoples' rights?

"Oh, I'm not going to go in there and save you, because then the guy on the tenth floor will want me to save him too, and we all know if I can't share my ability to save peoples' lives with both of you nobody gets it."

 

[Digital Watches]

Have you not been reading my posts? If we "deny homosexuals the rights given by our current laws to heterosexuals" then we cannot deny the right of men that want to marry their sisters. I made that last post to clearify my stance, it wasn't an argument.

And so once again you cleverly skirt the issue.

It's already been covered. Incest isn't illegal merely because a few groups of people think it's icky and/or morally wrong. There is a clear biological reason why consanguinous reproduction is societally unacceptable. It has been scientifically proven to dramatically increase the chances of rare and/or dangerous genetic disorders to manifest in the offspring of the incestuous couple. To assume that a married couple can be expected to not have sex is ludicrous. To assume that we could effectively enforce a policy that allows sexual relations but bans conception of offspring is naive. Ergo, the comparison between incest and homosexuality is fallacious and illogical.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

And so once again you cleverly skirt the issue.

It's already been covered. Incest isn't illegal merely because a few groups of people think it's icky and/or morally wrong. There is a clear biological reason why consanguinous reproduction is societally unacceptable. It has been scientifically proven to dramatically increase the chances of rare and/or dangerous genetic disorders to manifest in the offspring of the incestuous couple. To assume that a married couple can be expected to not have sex is ludicrous. To assume that we could effectively enforce a policy that allows sexual relations but bans conception of offspring is naive. Ergo, the comparison between incest and homosexuality is fallacious and illogical.

Perfectly stated! Not one flaw! That pretty much crushes all your logic Duke. Homosexual relationships have nothing to do with incestuous ones.

 

[Tera253]

Embarrassing you, Duke? What is she, your lover or something?

This is more of a formal discussion; a Socratic, rather, than a pure debate, so she can actually switch sides or concede points if she wishes.

That being said, I find Tera's arguments repetitive in nature, as she frequenly draws red herrings and straw men rather than actually stating anything coherent and/or competent. Thus, I usually ignore them. Do likewise.

There you go, Duke. I always was the village idiot then, eh? sweet!

Now though, it's off to the Pool Room for some REAL village idiocy.

the verdict: over and out.

~Tera253~

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Most boys raised by two homosexuals have a higher tendency to normally turn out gay due to (again) natural parental influence.

That is a different debate in its own. We are not arguing homosexual adoption.

Now if you wanna be redundant and go against it because you're just looking to be the opposing side without applying some common sense, go ahead. However, you know my point is somewhat factual as opposed to most of which I've read in the past pages; lewk at mai opinions guyzol

Redundant? Are you serious?
Your point maybe "somewhat factual" but there are many cases where your example does not hold. But this is way off subject.

Have you not been reading my posts?

That is your favorite defensive statement. People do read your posts, and that is why we have so much to say to you.

If we "deny homosexuals the rights given by our current laws to heterosexuals" then we cannot deny the right of men that want to marry their sisters. I made that last post to clearify my stance, it wasn't an argument.

Incest marriages are illegal for the reason of offspring issues.

Now though, it's off to the Pool Room for some REAL village idiocy.

Whats new?

 

[Duke]

And so once again you cleverly skirt the issue.

It's already been covered. Incest isn't illegal merely because a few groups of people think it's icky and/or morally wrong. There is a clear biological reason why consanguinous reproduction is societally unacceptable. It has been scientifically proven to dramatically increase the chances of rare and/or dangerous genetic disorders to manifest in the offspring of the incestuous couple. To assume that a married couple can be expected to not have sex is ludicrous. To assume that we could effectively enforce a policy that allows sexual relations but bans conception of offspring is naive. Ergo, the comparison between incest and homosexuality is fallacious and illogical.

That isn't good enough. Once again, you have managed to not to address the issue I have brought up. You are mixing up the definition of incest and marriage between close relatives. Sure they can have sex, there is oral and anal sex, just like what homosexuals have to resort to. You have no argument against a men marrying his sister if you are for gay marriage.

Incest isn't illegal merely because a few groups of people think it's icky and/or morally wrong. There is a clear biological reason why consanguinous reproduction is societally unacceptable.

I would expect better from you, DW. You should know that just because something isn't societally accepted doesn't make it illegal. This stance was already taken against the KKK and it failed miserably. If you allow gays the right to marry then you have to allow marriages between close relatives.

Oh and Sargent, that last post you made was completely pointless and didn't add to the debate at all and it doesn't make it enjoyable environment to debate. You should be lucky that I'm even wasting my time on this 3 on 1 debate.

 

[DoH]

I don't know enough on this topic to debate it either way. But I have always wondered, maybe you guys could help me answer this. If we do allow men to marry men and women to marry women, what is stopping a man from demanding his rights to marry his sister?

Again, I'm not asking this as an attack or giving my stance on the debate. I would just like the question answered.

Biological necessity. Some very large percentage of gays (possibly all) cannot pursue happiness under a heterosexual mandate. They must seek their relationships among their own gender. To deny gay people the right to seek this happiness, by barring them from the most basic of human institutions (one that predates agriculture) constitutes a discrimination that approaches that of Dred Scott. Even the laws against interracial marriage (voided 35 years ago in Loving vs Virginia) did not present this fundamental issue. One *could* find happiness with another, unjust as the laws were. But a gay person denied the legal right to marry the whole class of persons to whom they are attracted is utterly denied this basic human bond.

Andrew Sullivan likens interracial marriage to the present issue. He's wrong. No one needs, biologically, to marry a person of a different race -- there are alternatives. That restriction is wrong on other grounds, notably no-good-reason. Polygamy, incest, etc are also devoid of this biological need -- these are simply wants, and there are very good reasons to bar these unions. While a truly bisexual person may want to marry "one of each", they can marry one or the other, or remain single, as they choose. All married people struggle at times with monogamy -- this is simply a difference in degree, not in kind. Pedophilia and bestiality do not apply to marriage, for reasons of consent and permanence. If your "bright line" is biological need without alternative, there is no slippery slope with respect to gay marriage.

Secondly, the hidden assumption of the argument which brackets gay marriage with polygamous or incestuous marriage is that homosexuals want the right to marry anybody they love. But, of course, heterosexuals are currently denied that right. They can not marry their immediate family or all their sex partners. What homosexuals are asking for is the right to marry, not anybody they love, but somebody they love, which is not at all the same thing.

Heterosexuals can now marry any of millions of people; even if they can't marry their parents or siblings, they have plenty of choice. Homosexuals want the same freedom, subject to the same restrictions. Currently, however, they have zero marital choice (unless, of course, they try to fool heterosexuals into marrying them — a bad idea for a lot of reasons). To ask for a comparably, but not infinitely, broad choice of partners is not unreasonable.

Does homosexuality exist? I'm pretty sure it does, and today even the Vatican accepts that some people are constitutively attracted only to members of the same sex. By contrast, no serious person claims there are people constitutively attracted only to relatives, or only to groups rather than individuals. Anyone who can love two women can also love one of them. People who insist on marrying their mother or several lovers want an additional (and weird) marital option. Homosexuals currently have no marital option at all. A demand for polygamous or incestuous marriage is thus frivolous in a way that the demand for gay marriage is not.


Suppose, though, that someone insists that he can't be happy without several spouses, and that this is a basic constitutive need for him. Or suppose he says he can't be happy unless he marries a close relative. For argument's sake, let's say we believe him. Shouldn't at least this person be allowed to marry two people, or his father?


No. The reason is that, from society's point of view, the main purpose of marriage is not, and never has been, to sanctify love. If the point of marriage were to let everybody seek his ultimate amorous fulfillment, then adultery would be a standard part of the marital package. In fact, society doesn't much care whether spouses love each other, as long as they meet their marital obligations. The purpose of secular marriage, rather, is to bond as many people as possible into committed, stable relationships. Such little societies-within-society not only provide the best environment for raising children, they also domesticate men and ensure that most people have someone whose "job" is to look after them.

Polygamy radically undermines this goal, because if one man has two wives, it follows that some other man has no wife. As Robert Wright notes in his book The Moral Animal, the result is that many low-status males end up unable to wed and dangerously restless. Over time, a society can sanction polygamy only if it is prepared to use harsh measures to repress a menacing underclass of spouseless men. It is no coincidence that no liberal countries have been polygamous, and no polygamous countries have been liberal. In that respect, the one-partner-each rule stands at the very core of a liberal society, by making marriage a goal that everyone can aspire to. Gay marriage, note, is fully in keeping with liberalism's inclusive aspirations. Polygamy absolutely is not.


Incest, of course, may produce impaired children. But incestuous marriage is a horrible idea for a much bigger reason than that. Imagine a society where parents and children viewed each other as potential mates. Just for a start, every child would grow up wondering whether his parents had sexual designs on him, or were "grooming" him as a future spouse. Holding open the prospect of incestuous marriage would devastate family life by, effectively, legitimizing sexual predation within it.


The rather peculiar idea underlying the "If gay marriage, then polygamy" argument is that, at bottom, there really is no very good reason to be against polygamy other than tradition — you just have to be blindly against it, and ditto for gay marriage. But there are ample grounds to oppose polygamous and incestuous marriage, grounds that have nothing to do with whether gay people will be allowed to partake of society's most stabilizing, civilizing institution. I don't ask to break the rules that we all depend on. I just want to be allowed to follow them.

 

[Duke]

Thank you DoH. I didn't want some fluffed up mockery response, I just wanted my question answered. You guys have beat around the bush which made me have to continue posting to clearify. Gosh dangit, it wasn't that hard.

Let me do some research so I comfortably debate this topic.

 

[Tera253]

Whats new?

Yeah, I've totally rocked that place.
On topic: I don't care if gay marriage is legal... provided its after my life is done and gone.

~Tera253~

 

[McCloud]

Woah woah zero beat, I didn't mean it like that. Sure you will be either tolerant of it or completely reject your parents, but I'm leaning toward the former.

But I mean, ultimately there's nothing morally wrong with homosexuality other than what is stated in old books and held as social taboo, so there's nothing wrong with a kid thinking that being gay is acceptable.

 

[Deleted member]

Biological necessity. Some very large percentage of gays (possibly all) cannot pursue happiness under a heterosexual mandate. They must seek their relationships among their own gender. To deny gay people the right to seek this happiness, by barring them from the most basic of human institutions (one that predates agriculture) constitutes a discrimination that approaches that of Dred Scott. Even the laws against interracial marriage (voided 35 years ago in Loving vs Virginia) did not present this fundamental issue. One *could* find happiness with another, unjust as the laws were. But a gay person denied the legal right to marry the whole class of persons to whom they are attracted is utterly denied this basic human bond.

Andrew Sullivan likens interracial marriage to the present issue. He's wrong. No one needs, biologically, to marry a person of a different race -- there are alternatives. That restriction is wrong on other grounds, notably no-good-reason. Polygamy, incest, etc are also devoid of this biological need -- these are simply wants, and there are very good reasons to bar these unions. While a truly bisexual person may want to marry "one of each", they can marry one or the other, or remain single, as they choose. All married people struggle at times with monogamy -- this is simply a difference in degree, not in kind. Pedophilia and bestiality do not apply to marriage, for reasons of consent and permanence. If your "bright line" is biological need without alternative, there is no slippery slope with respect to gay marriage.

Secondly, the hidden assumption of the argument which brackets gay marriage with polygamous or incestuous marriage is that homosexuals want the right to marry anybody they love. But, of course, heterosexuals are currently denied that right. They can not marry their immediate family or all their sex partners. What homosexuals are asking for is the right to marry, not anybody they love, but somebody they love, which is not at all the same thing.

Heterosexuals can now marry any of millions of people; even if they can't marry their parents or siblings, they have plenty of choice. Homosexuals want the same freedom, subject to the same restrictions. Currently, however, they have zero marital choice (unless, of course, they try to fool heterosexuals into marrying them — a bad idea for a lot of reasons). To ask for a comparably, but not infinitely, broad choice of partners is not unreasonable.

Does homosexuality exist? I'm pretty sure it does, and today even the Vatican accepts that some people are constitutively attracted only to members of the same sex. By contrast, no serious person claims there are people constitutively attracted only to relatives, or only to groups rather than individuals. Anyone who can love two women can also love one of them. People who insist on marrying their mother or several lovers want an additional (and weird) marital option. Homosexuals currently have no marital option at all. A demand for polygamous or incestuous marriage is thus frivolous in a way that the demand for gay marriage is not.


Suppose, though, that someone insists that he can't be happy without several spouses, and that this is a basic constitutive need for him. Or suppose he says he can't be happy unless he marries a close relative. For argument's sake, let's say we believe him. Shouldn't at least this person be allowed to marry two people, or his father?


No. The reason is that, from society's point of view, the main purpose of marriage is not, and never has been, to sanctify love. If the point of marriage were to let everybody seek his ultimate amorous fulfillment, then adultery would be a standard part of the marital package. In fact, society doesn't much care whether spouses love each other, as long as they meet their marital obligations. The purpose of secular marriage, rather, is to bond as many people as possible into committed, stable relationships. Such little societies-within-society not only provide the best environment for raising children, they also domesticate men and ensure that most people have someone whose "job" is to look after them.

Polygamy radically undermines this goal, because if one man has two wives, it follows that some other man has no wife. As Robert Wright notes in his book The Moral Animal, the result is that many low-status males end up unable to wed and dangerously restless. Over time, a society can sanction polygamy only if it is prepared to use harsh measures to repress a menacing underclass of spouseless men. It is no coincidence that no liberal countries have been polygamous, and no polygamous countries have been liberal. In that respect, the one-partner-each rule stands at the very core of a liberal society, by making marriage a goal that everyone can aspire to. Gay marriage, note, is fully in keeping with liberalism's inclusive aspirations. Polygamy absolutely is not.


Incest, of course, may produce impaired children. But incestuous marriage is a horrible idea for a much bigger reason than that. Imagine a society where parents and children viewed each other as potential mates. Just for a start, every child would grow up wondering whether his parents had sexual designs on him, or were "grooming" him as a future spouse. Holding open the prospect of incestuous marriage would devastate family life by, effectively, legitimizing sexual predation within it.


The rather peculiar idea underlying the "If gay marriage, then polygamy" argument is that, at bottom, there really is no very good reason to be against polygamy other than tradition — you just have to be blindly against it, and ditto for gay marriage. But there are ample grounds to oppose polygamous and incestuous marriage, grounds that have nothing to do with whether gay people will be allowed to partake of society's most stabilizing, civilizing institution. I don't ask to break the rules that we all depend on. I just want to be allowed to follow them.

There is a huge flaw in your argument. It is not a biological necessity to marry someone.

For arguments' sake, say homosexuality is by nature. Your only necessity would be to mate with the same sex, not marry them! What is this garbage?

Why am I the only one who can see the problem with this? Who the hell cares if Joe wants to marry his sister? He's not only attracted to his sister, just like gay men aren't only attracted to that cute guy down the hall in their apartment, and just like how married couples still comment on ..say...celebrities, and their attractiveness. I don't think there's a term for people who are only innately attracted to members of their family. It sounds kinky, though. Give it maybe 10 years?

Anyway, my point is that you can't tell someone the person they want to marry is just a want, because if it's really love, then it's simply a stupid legal document preventing them to have a successful marriage.

If Joe and Jill truthfully love each other, it is still heterosexual - it is still, in black and white, a legit marriage.
You're basically telling them, DoH, that their love is simply a lustful want - nothing else, just immature and weird wants, and is probably ephemeral. You don't see people saying you and your future husband is simply a want. When you grow up, you're gonna find a guy like none other. You're going to want to marry that guy, and no one else. You want that specific guy. You love his personality. There's no one else in the world like him. This is not just lust, this is love we are talking about. You want to marry him and only him. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Marriage consummates love. So by telling the guy who wants to marry his sister that it's just a want is so insulting it makes baby Jesus cry. Love is sometimes the only thing people live for - and to patronize them like that is not cool.


Simply put, if for some reason Joe loves his sister and vice versa, why should that be viewed as anything different, like DoH's views? They can't marry because there are obvious alternatives and is not a biological attraction? They're heterosexual. That's biological, sorry. They don't want alternatives. I'll have you know that Joe thinks Jill's eyes are the dreamiest, and they want to grow old together.

And for the record, I don't exactly see homosexuality as being biological, or NATURE.

In fact, I've dwelled on this long enough - I'm going to make a firm statement on the NURTURE argument. You can show me differences in homosexual and heterosexual people, but I still think it's the experiences we have early in life that define us. That's not to say that you're gay because your mom put make up on you and your GI Joes when you were 4.
To force someone to look for alternatives with the reasons you're stating is simply wrong and is completely hypocritical, DoH.

And I don't understand this interracial point. Why is the gay guy telling people that their sexual orientation is just merely a fabrication of their imagination? What if I was disgusted by white girls (I'm white) by nature? That's biological. I RARELY find black girls attractive, that's biological too.

Not everybody is a city planner, and look at marriage in the whole like you are saying. Millions of people marry simply to sanctify their love, and couldn't give a **** about keeping the society in balance. Divorces happen all the time, we're still fine.



Sorry if this is kinda rambled, I'm watching the Oscars.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

Alright Delorted, I agree with the love thing. If Joe and Jill are sisters and they "love" each other, then it is not a choice. But, that does not mean that incestuous marriages should be legal. They still cause a harm to society. If Joe and Jill really love each other, they will stay together even though it goes agianst society and science. They will be looked down upon by pretty much everyone in society. Their baby (if they have one) has an increased chance in rare/dangerous diseases that could harm his/her life. They just won't have the right to get married. It doesn't matter if they want alternatives, because if they really care about their relationship, they won't have a baby. They have a serious chance of having a baby that is deformed and/or with dangerous genetic disorders.

With gay being nature vs. nurture. If being gay is a product of your environment, then how come my sister, who was raised in the same house, with the same parents, with some of the same friends, in the same schools; essentially the same "environment" turned out gay, while I on the otherhand turned out completely straight. This can be the same thing as with twins, when one of the two are gay, and the other straight. There must be something in the brain that makes them the way they are. It is definetly not by choice, you can ask any homosexual person if they chose to be gay and all of them (if they really are gay, not bi) will tell you they didn't choose to be. Is is possible that every person that is gay conspired together to come up with that lie. I don't think so. How come many homosexual men talk with a femimine tone, this doesn't come from being raised by women. I have many friends that were raised by their mom and sisters and none of them talk that way. Its not a choice they make, and it is not due to their environment. Many gay people know they are gay before or at puberty. They understand from a very early age that when Jonny shows Jimmy his dad's porno collection, it doesnt do what it is supposed to for JImmy. Is it possible that the environment has already changed Jimmy's sexual orientation at such a young age, I think not.

I really don't understand the interracial point either, but it is in no way biological. That is nurture. If you are raised by black people, in a black communinty (and you are white), you are much more likely to be attracted to black women. I'm not saying that you are definetly going to be attracted to black women, or that you aren't going to be attracted to white women, what I'm saying is that you are more likely going to be attracted to what your friends and relatvies(cousins) are attracted to.

I see DoH's flaw, but I don't understand your reasoning in respect to gays and incest. Maybe I am just misunderstanding you.

I also apologize if this is unclear, I too am also watching the Oscars.

 

[Deleted member]

Well, if we want to debate Nature vs Nurture, I'll do it.. not in this thread though.

I personally don't get offended by incestuous marriages really..if you guys really are worried about the babies being ******** they could always just sign something that prevents them from having children. (But even that is kind of whack - I guess if incestuous marriages were to become legal, they'd have to take their blessings)

I don't think they are a good idea, though. Not at all. I'm still looking at this entire thing in a utilitarian manner.

In regards to your confusion, I'm confused a little too. I'll try to clarify? Tell me where you don't understand my reasoning, like which particular element.

 

[Digital Watches]

That isn't good enough. Once again, you have managed to not to address the issue I have brought up. You are mixing up the definition of incest and marriage between close relatives. Sure they can have sex, there is oral and anal sex, just like what homosexuals have to resort to. You have no argument against a men marrying his sister if you are for gay marriage.

That's funny, because I seem to remember making numerous arguments, none of which you've really refuted yet. But I'll humor you for a moment.

I would expect better from you, DW. You should know that just because something isn't societally accepted doesn't make it illegal. This stance was already taken against the KKK and it failed miserably. If you allow gays the right to marry then you have to allow marriages between close relatives.

To reiterate: The reason that the two are incomparable is that there is a biological problem associated with consanguinous mating. And here's the part you seem all-too-eager to ignore: It is naive to assume that every single married heterosexual incestuous couple will, on pure good faith and with a duty to society in mind, abstain from v-ginal intercourse in order to prevent these proven problems from happening. There is also no viable method of enforcing this. If there were a viable method of enforcing this, then the biological problem is eliminated, and therefore, there is no real problem.

Not to mention you have YET to point out ANY similarity between the two, except that both are currently illegal and frowned upon by people such as yourself. That is why I brought "societally unacceptable" into this, because it's the only comparison I can see you drawing between the two.

So prove me wrong, Duke. Tell me: What exactly is the similarity you see that so inextricably links homosexuality with incest? How can we enforce infertility between incestuous couples? What is the problem with incestuous marriages if we CAN enforce it?

Enlighten us, please.

 

[Rici]

Why don't we just delete marriage from the system? Problem solved!

 

[McCloud]

Never. People must get their love (and tax breaks)

 

[Sargent_Peach]

I think a good topic for the next debate will be Nature vs. Nurture: Is being gay a choice. I hope my next opponet will debate that one with me

Delorted- I would love to debate with you, but I have no thread I can post in. Im not a member of the DH and I can only post in "DWYP safe" threads.

Riciardos- If the only reason to delete marriage from the system is to make gays, polygamists, and Inbreeders happy then that would make all the heterosexuals very UNhappy. You need more of a reason than that. There is actually nothing wrong with current marriage system. It doesn't hurt anyone as it stands. It may deny some people rights, but that is not a reason to get rid of it, maybe amend, but not delete. And as McCloud mentioned above ^ we need the tax breaks. Plus it would put many people out of a job, wedding planners, singers, servers, and all the people that make things for weddings: dresses, cakes, food etc...

 

[Duke]

That's funny, because I seem to remember making numerous arguments, none of which you've really refuted yet. But I'll humor you for a moment.


To reiterate: The reason that the two are incomparable is that there is a biological problem associated with consanguinous mating. And here's the part you seem all-too-eager to ignore: It is naive to assume that every single married heterosexual incestuous couple will, on pure good faith and with a duty to society in mind, abstain from v-ginal intercourse in order to prevent these proven problems from happening. There is also no viable method of enforcing this. If there were a viable method of enforcing this, then the biological problem is eliminated, and therefore, there is no real problem.

Not to mention you have YET to point out ANY similarity between the two, except that both are currently illegal and frowned upon by people such as yourself. That is why I brought "societally unacceptable" into this, because it's the only comparison I can see you drawing between the two.

So prove me wrong, Duke. Tell me: What exactly is the similarity you see that so inextricably links homosexuality with incest? How can we enforce infertility between incestuous couples? What is the problem with incestuous marriages if we CAN enforce it?

Enlighten us, please.

Again, I've already said it. If we allow gay marriages then people who want to marry their silbings will beg for their "right" to get married and even you said that it would be a harm to society.

 

[Eor]

I didn't fully read his post, making me look dumb.

 

[Digital Watches]

Again, I've already said it. If we allow gay marriages then people who want to marry their silbings will beg for their "right" to get married and even you said that it would be a harm to society.

That is nothing but a conclusion. This conclusion is, as far as I can tell, a completely unfounded one. You have not yet explained any logical means by which you have come to this conclusion. It cannot be taken seriously in an academic debate until you can answer the following three questions:

What is the similarity between the two?
In what viable way can we enforce any law nullifying the obvious biological reason (which doesn't apply to homosexuality) that incest is currently illegal?
If we could find a way to enforce such a law, what problem would incestuous marriage pose?

 

[sheepyman]

Consider this: incestuous relationships are illegal, but homosexual ones are not.

Anyways, for all the bible people here, I've been thinking about it and came to the following idea.

So, most modern christians are under the belief that depravation of rights to women and slavery should not be legal, yet are described as fine in the bible.

What I'm thinking is this: God knows we are human, and that as time goes on, societies change. The Bible was written not as a definitive and absolute guide to life, but rather as one that changes over time. He knows we interpret, and as we change our interpretations will too. He wrote the book not as one whose whole should be taken into account for all time, but rather whose parts should be taken, and then dismissed if inapplicable.

2,000 years ago, slavery and other horrible things were acceptable. God knew this. This was a different time, and as times changes, what things are sins and what things aren't change too. Basically, it's alright with Him for us to "forget" parts of the Book, and leave them out.

Humanity will be at its peak when we have cast aside the Bible, the "training wheels" on humanity, and then we will truly be closest to God. I think this is what the Bible was meant to be for God and what it is meant to do for humanity.

That's just my view, though.

So under this interpretation of the Bible we can legitimately let Gay Marriage be completely legal, as God knows it is time for us to let go of our hatred and love one another fully and completely, no matter what gender. As for incest, it is not time for us to let it go. Right now society is not in the position to legalize it, and humanity sees it as detrimental, something that has been scientifically proven.

 

[Duke]

Any proof?

 

[sheepyman]

Any proof for ANYTHING that happened in the Bible to be true? Not really.

I'm saying that IF God exists, that's how I think he meant us to use the Bible.

 

[Digital Watches]

Any proof?

So wait. You not only refuse to even STATE, let alone prove, any correlation between gay marriage and incestuous relationships despite insisting that one exists, and then you demand proof for a religious theory, something which, like most things in religion, can't be proven empirically by its very nature?

EDIT: I'll humor you for a second. It's been a LONG time, so my knowledge of the bible is a bit fuzzy, but didn't Christ himself repeatedly take the position that many of the laws of the old testament were not to be adhered to so rigidly, and in some cases were not necessary? Can someone religious confirm this?

 

[DoH]

I'm Jewish, but I'm pretty sure Jesus says, "I am not here to change the laws," which means that technically Christians should still follow the laws of the Torah.

Christians have this really weird argument that says when Jesus died this curtain in the Temple was torn and that represents the breaking of the covenant with G-d and the beginning of the new one with Jesus. I think that's their justification.

 

[Digital Watches]

I'm Jewish, but I'm pretty sure Jesus says, "I am not here to change the laws," which means that technically Christians should still follow the laws of the Torah.

Christians have this really weird argument that says when Jesus died this curtain in the Temple was torn and that represents the breaking of the covenant with G-d and the beginning of the new one with Jesus. I think that's their justification.

Ah. I must be mistaken then. I thought there was some sort of issue regarding pharisees and the circumcision/meat on fridays thing being called off, but again, not my area of expertise.

 

[Zero Beat]

Woah woah zero beat, I didn't mean it like that. Sure you will be either tolerant of it or completely reject your parents, but I'm leaning toward the former.

But I mean, ultimately there's nothing morally wrong with homosexuality other than what is stated in old books and held as social taboo, so there's nothing wrong with a kid thinking that being gay is acceptable.

I'm saying that it leads to the increase number of homosexuals.

My opinion is : They must have some sort of mental problem OR have had bad experiences with a previous date, ect. I've never really looked into homosexuality in depth, simply because I don't care about them.

 

[Tera253]

"they must have some sort of mental problem."
that's worth agreeing with.

~Tera253~

 

[Zephyr]

I don't think that straight people can presume to be able to comprehend the thought processes of gay people. If you don't understand their motive, why assert that they have some sort of mental problem? Personally, I think it's those who do that that have the real mental problem.

On the issue of Christians following Old Testament Laws: I don't know where in the New Testament it says it, but Jesus came down to make a new covenant with humanity. The Law in the Old Testament and the law in the New (and now) are very different because Christ had not died for the sake of mankind before the events of the Old Testament occurred. We are saved by our own faith in Christ's resurrection by the grace of God, or such is what I believe. Things were totally different when he wasn't around.

Have you ever wondered why they crucified Him? He was spreading radical beliefs that went against what the Pharisees taught and accumulated their power through. They gained prestige through following rules and creating more rules to follow. When he first arrived in Jerusalem, he went to the Temple and saw merchants selling their wares. He grew into an angry rage and threw over the tables, driving the merchants out of the Temple. Right afterward he started teaching, right in the Temple. He came to Earth to change the law and the way man was meant to follow it.

I'm pretty sure that Christ refutes homosexuality, but I'd have to check. I support gay rights only because God gave us freedom of choice. Who are we to take that God-given freedom away?

 

[DoH]

There is a huge flaw in your argument. It is not a biological necessity to marry someone.

For arguments' sake, say homosexuality is by nature. Your only necessity would be to mate with the same sex, not marry them! What is this garbage?

Too bad that's not my argument, silly. It's biological necessity for homosexuals to be with other homosexuals, just as it is heterosexuals to be with other heterosexuals. It is really only a legal and societal necessity to marry, as rights and priveledges are granted through marriage - as well as our societal conceptualization of what a family is.

Why am I the only one who can see the problem with this? Who the hell cares if Joe wants to marry his sister? He's not only attracted to his sister, just like gay men aren't only attracted to that cute guy down the hall in their apartment, and just like how married couples still comment on ..say...celebrities, and their attractiveness. I don't think there's a term for people who are only innately attracted to members of their family. It sounds kinky, though. Give it maybe 10 years?

Seriously? You're never going to be able to prove without a doubt that people are inherently attracted to solely members of their own familly. Even people who are attracted to their family can be attracted to other people. Gay people are only mutually attracted to each other and thus have no legal options for a happy marriage in the status quo.

And if we shouldn't care if Joe is attracted to his sister, why do you care if Ellen and Portia go get hitched?

Anyway, my point is that you can't tell someone the person they want to marry is just a want, because if it's really love, then it's simply a stupid legal document preventing them to have a successful marriage.

If Joe and Jill truthfully love each other, it is still heterosexual - it is still, in black and white, a legit marriage.
You're basically telling them, DoH, that their love is simply a lustful want - nothing else, just immature and weird wants, and is probably ephemeral. You don't see people saying you and your future husband is simply a want. When you grow up, you're gonna find a guy like none other. You're going to want to marry that guy, and no one else. You want that specific guy. You love his personality. There's no one else in the world like him. This is not just lust, this is love we are talking about. You want to marry him and only him. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Marriage consummates love. So by telling the guy who wants to marry his sister that it's just a want is so insulting it makes baby Jesus cry. Love is sometimes the only thing people live for - and to patronize them like that is not cool.

What? Marriage is NOT inherently about love. It is the creation of a contract between two people to ascertain benefits, such as the legitimation of sexual activity, children, etc. People can love outside of a marriage and marriages can exist without love. Let me reiderate: If the point of marriage were to let everybody seek his ultimate amorous fulfillment, then adultery would be a standard part of the marital package. In fact, society doesn't much care whether spouses love each other, as long as they meet their marital obligations. The purpose of secular marriage, rather, is to bond as many people as possible into committed, stable relationships. Such little societies-within-society not only provide the best environment for raising children, they also domesticate men and ensure that most people have someone whose "job" is to look after them.

Simply put, if for some reason Joe loves his sister and vice versa, why should that be viewed as anything different, like DoH's views? They can't marry because there are obvious alternatives and is not a biological attraction? They're heterosexual. That's biological, sorry. They don't want alternatives. I'll have you know that Joe thinks Jill's eyes are the dreamiest, and they want to grow old together.

Are you seriously arguing for incest? Seriously?

Incest, of course, may produce impaired children. But incestuous marriage is a horrible idea for a much bigger reason than that. Imagine a society where parents and children viewed each other as potential mates. Just for a start, every child would grow up wondering whether his parents had sexual designs on him, or were "grooming" him as a future spouse. Holding open the prospect of incestuous marriage would devastate family life by, effectively, legitimizing sexual predation within it.

In addition to the negative psychological effects that incest would bring, humanity already has psychological barriers to prevent incest;

In what is now a key study of the Westermarck's hypothesis, the anthropologist Melford E. Spiro demonstrated that inbreeding aversion between siblings is predicatably linked to co-residency. In a cohort study of children raised as communal, that is to say, fictive, siblings in the Kiryat Yedidim kibbutz in the 1950s, Spiro found practically no intermarriage between his subjects as adults, despite positive pressure from parents and community. The social experience of having grown up as brothers and sisters created an incest aversion, even though genetically speaking the children were not related.

Further studies have backed up the hypothesis that some psychological mechanisms are in play that "turn off" children who grow up together. Spiro's study is corroborated by Fox (1962), who found similar results in Israeli kibbutzum. Likewise, Wolf and Huang (1980) report similar aversions in Taiwanese "child" marriages, where the future wife was brought into the family and raised together with her fiancee. Such marriages were notoriously difficult to consummate, and for unknown reasons actually led to decreased fertility in the women. Lieberman et. al (2003) found that childhood co-residency with an opposite-sex individual strongly predicts moral sentiments regarding third-party sibling incest, further supporting the Westermark hypothesis.


While the exact nature of kin-recognition psychology is still waiting to be defined, and to what degree it can be overcome by cultural forces is as yet poorly understood, an overwhelming body of research now shows that evolutionary biology and evolved human psychology plays a central role in human aversion to incest.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that any siblings that are mutually attracted to each other may have a psychological problem.

Also, let's be reasonable delorted - when was the last time you heard something about mutually consenting incest actually occuring? It's incredibly rare and there aren't large coalitions of inbreeders (what do you call practitioners of incest? I have no idea, but incesters didn't seem right) that would fight for their right to marry.

Like sargent peach said, if Joe and Jill really do love each other, then they will probably live excluded from society. But there is never enough evidence to determine if incest is more than a dark and twisty want because unlike homosexuality, it has rapidly fallen out of practice; therefore incest is never going to become such an issue that people will make it a political issue.

Also, can you find me an incestuous couple that isn't hypothetical?

Even if your argument is true, and I'm the most hypocritical person ever, what reason is there to deny gay marriage? There are still reasons to deny things such as polygamy and incest because they produce detrimental effects; however their individual justifications would have to outweigh their negative consequences.

And for the record, I don't exactly see homosexuality as being biological, or NATURE.

In fact, I've dwelled on this long enough - I'm going to make a firm statement on the NURTURE argument. You can show me differences in homosexual and heterosexual people, but I still think it's the experiences we have early in life that define us. That's not to say that you're gay because your mom put make up on you and your GI Joes when you were 4.
To force someone to look for alternatives with the reasons you're stating is simply wrong and is completely hypocritical, DoH.

This argument doesn't make ANY sense. You're basically choosing to ignore the biological differences that are empirically proven becuase you say so? What warrant is there to believe that? I had pretty much the same childhood as my elementary school friends, from Disney movies to power rangers, yet they turned out straight while I turned out gay. How do you explain that?

I think there's a need for a permutation here; our sexuality is rooted in biological differences, but our personality (which shapes our preferences) is greatly influenced by our environment. This is the flaw in the term 'sexual preference' - to presuppose that our sexuality is something as arbitrary is our favorite color is just ridiculous. Sexuality doesn't have to be just a natured trait or solely a nurtured one - it can be affected by both. I would say that your innate sexuality is locked deep somewhere in your self; however your personality and social identity play roles in determining to whether or to what extent your sexuality is divulged.

And I don't understand this interracial point.
Why is the gay guy telling people that their sexual orientation is just merely a fabrication of their imagination? What if I was disgusted by white girls (I'm white) by nature? That's biological. I RARELY find black girls attractive, that's biological too.

I'm not saying that sexual orientation is merely a fabric of imagination - you are. By positing sexual orientation as just a preference (as you try to do by attempting to pin gay marriage with incest/polygamy/etc, and your nurture arguemnt) you write it off as something that has biological groundings. If you argue that your preference towards white girls is biological, how can you argue that mine towards white boys isn't? My argument would be that while our sexuality is fluid, there are deep roots to it within our biological make up. However, our personal expressions of our sexuality (such as preferences in looks, religion, culture, economic status, etc) are a nurtured effect; we were both (assumedly) raised in white culture and thus we both find our ethnicity to be the most preferable one.

Not everybody is a city planner, and look at marriage in the whole like you are saying. Millions of people marry simply to sanctify their love, and couldn't give a **** about keeping the society in balance. Divorces happen all the time, we're still fine.

So your argument against gay marriage here is what? If people marry to sanctify love all the time, and gay people love each other and their marriage won't produce negative side effects, why shouldn't we be able to?

 

[Tera253]

Even if your argument is true, and I'm the most hypocritical person ever, what reason is there to deny gay marriage? There are still reasons to deny things such as polygamy and incest because they produce detrimental effects; however their individual justifications would have to outweigh their negative consequences.

Drinking alcohol and smoking (and eating unhealthy) also have detrimental effects on children. are they illegal? Not where I live.

the one, the only:
~Tera253~

 

[DoH]

Drinking alcohol and smoking (and eating unhealthy) also have detrimental effects on children. are they illegal? Not where I live.

the one, the only:
~Tera253~

One that's substance abuse, which is completely different from incestuous polygamous marriages. Smoking and drinking are inherently self-detrimental, but they don't inherently cause harm to others; we do however outlaw dangerous drugs that cause harm to others and society. Two, children are prohibited from smoking and drinking, and unhealthy eating to the point where it causes physical problems (or psychological ones) are classified as eating disorders.

 

[Digital Watches]

Drinking alcohol and smoking (and eating unhealthy) also have detrimental effects on children. are they illegal? Not where I live.

the one, the only:
~Tera253~

Wow.

Duke argues that Homosexuality and Incest are comparable, DoH points out why incest is detrimental, you argue that this is comparable to use of legal drugs.

In other words: Gay Marriage should be illegal if Incestuous Marriage is illegal. Incestuous marriage is comparable to legal drugs, which are, by definition, legal. The only thing I can possibly extrapolate from your comparison with smoking/drinking is that you have no problem with Incest being legal. And yet, contrary to your own logic, you have a problem with gay marriage?

Words fail to describe that level of irrationality.

 

[Tera253]

no, no,. you're missing my point. I said taking drugs has an effect on children, just like interfamilial sexual activity does. that's all.

(as my hardcore evolutionist biology teacher (which means she's not doing this off some Christian basis) once said: "homosexuality is not a gene, it's a perversion." had I not been in school and embarrased for life, I would have stood up and applauded her.)

~Tera253~

 

[Digital Watches]

no, no,. you're missing my point. I said taking drugs has an effect on children, just like interfamilial sexual activity does. that's all.

Right, but you are quick to point out that the drug use mentioned is legal, which in turn leads me to believe that you consider Incest to be worthy of legality under the current legal system, on the basis that the harm is comparable to currently legal drugs. This in turn calls into question your position against the legality of homosexual marriage, as yourself and Duke are quite quick to debate this issue using a percieved similarity between Homosexual Marriage and Consanguinous Unions. Surely you can grasp the basic logic here.

If A = B in its detriment to society, and B is only as detrimental as C, which is legal (a fact that you emphasize, and MUST be emphasizing for a reason), then C's legality = B's legality in terms of detriment, and, by transitive relation, A's legality = B's legality, even assuming the as-of-yet unfounded presumption that A = B.

Granted, math is hardly a suitable medium for ethical quandaries, but the structure of your argument clearly can be expressed as such.

(as my hardcore evolutionist biology teacher (which means she's not doing this off some Christian basis) once said: "homosexuality is not a gene, it's a perversion." had I not been in school and embarrased for life, I would have stood up and applauded her.)

~Tera253~

Certainly this "hardcore" biology teacher has given a factual basis for this groundbreaking claim, which she has most likely only made because she is ahead of the scientists researching this and can prove her assertion with empirical studies whose results are replicable and precise, controlling for all concievable variables and testing a wide variety of subjects, with a hypothesis that, while completely pertinent to the question at hand, is also unbiasable and relies solely on data. Either that, or it's about as applicable as anyone else's uninformed opinion, despite the speaker being a high-(middle?)-school teacher and therefore ostensibly an expert of the utmost recognition in her field. Regardless, it belongs in the nature vs. nurture debate, wherein I'd be glad to debate it.

 

[Tera253]

nah, actually I'm for banning drugs too.

~Tera253~