British Lawmakers Approve Gay Marriage
#61
(03-19-2014, 04:30 AM)newsclippings Wrote:  I don't know how you can possibly equate same sex marriage with incest and bestiality. It's insulting.

Agreed, those are not analogous relationships. They are forms of exploitation and abuse.
My new watercolor: 'Nightmare After Christmas'/Chris
Reply
#62
(03-19-2014, 04:30 AM)newsclippings Wrote:  I don't know how you can possibly equate same sex marriage with incest and bestiality. It's insulting.

I am not equating them I am displaying your intolerant approach to "equality", you brought them up.

Not even 100 years ago some would have said the same about homosexuality, who knows where we will be 100 years from now. Who are you to deny a man and a goat that are in love equal familial rights.

Honesty, you don't seem to have researched the topic at all so it is easy to say it is all about equality when it really isnt.
Reply
#63
Actually none of those things are about the origin marriage. Marriage was to establish a stable union, in terms of support, and to see that the inheritance was passed down to the true offspring, thus the extremes that were gone to to show the girl was still a virgin, so the man would know the child was his offspring. However I think the sticking point is that heterosexual married couples don't want to have this discussion with their 7 year old daughter. Generally when people feel this strongly about a subject it has a strong personal component, and has little to do with philosophy or religion. The idea of gay marriage makes people uncomfortable, and making an argument about civil rights will have little effect. However a generation from now all of this will be a moot point.

Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?

The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
Reply
#64
(03-19-2014, 05:00 AM)milo Wrote:  
(03-19-2014, 04:30 AM)newsclippings Wrote:  I don't know how you can possibly equate same sex marriage with incest and bestiality. It's insulting.

I am not equating them I am displaying your intolerant approach to "equality", you brought them up.

Not even 100 years ago some would have said the same about homosexuality, who knows where we will be 100 years from now. Who are you to deny a man and a goat that are in love equal familial rights.

Honesty, you don't seem to have researched the topic at all so it is easy to say it is all about equality when it really isnt.

Thank goodness you don't.
My new watercolor: 'Nightmare After Christmas'/Chris
Reply
#65
(03-19-2014, 05:12 AM)ChristopherSea Wrote:  
(03-19-2014, 05:00 AM)milo Wrote:  
(03-19-2014, 04:30 AM)newsclippings Wrote:  I don't know how you can possibly equate same sex marriage with incest and bestiality. It's insulting.

I am not equating them I am displaying your intolerant approach to "equality", you brought them up.

Not even 100 years ago some would have said the same about homosexuality, who knows where we will be 100 years from now. Who are you to deny a man and a goat that are in love equal familial rights.

Honesty, you don't seem to have researched the topic at all so it is easy to say it is all about equality when it really isnt.

Thank goodness you don't.

At this point I would just like to have it established that we have agreed it is "all about equality" as long as it is a familial relationship that we all approve of. After we agree that is what we are actually saying, maybe we can continue to discuss why it really isn't about quality at all.
Reply
#66
(03-19-2014, 05:15 AM)milo Wrote:  
(03-19-2014, 05:12 AM)ChristopherSea Wrote:  
(03-19-2014, 05:00 AM)milo Wrote:  I am not equating them I am displaying your intolerant approach to "equality", you brought them up.

Not even 100 years ago some would have said the same about homosexuality, who knows where we will be 100 years from now. Who are you to deny a man and a goat that are in love equal familial rights.

Honesty, you don't seem to have researched the topic at all so it is easy to say it is all about equality when it really isnt.

Thank goodness you don't.

At this point I would just like to have it established that we have agreed it is "all about equality" as long as it is a familial relationship that we all approve of. After we agree that is what we are actually saying, maybe we can continue to discuss why it really isn't about quality at all.

Yes, I was beginning to think that 'I Love Ewe' had a special meaning for you.
My new watercolor: 'Nightmare After Christmas'/Chris
Reply
#67
(03-19-2014, 05:19 AM)ChristopherSea Wrote:  
(03-19-2014, 05:15 AM)milo Wrote:  
(03-19-2014, 05:12 AM)ChristopherSea Wrote:  Thank goodness you don't.

At this point I would just like to have it established that we have agreed it is "all about equality" as long as it is a familial relationship that we all approve of. After we agree that is what we are actually saying, maybe we can continue to discuss why it really isn't about quality at all.

Yes, I was beginning to think that 'I Love Ewe' had a special meaning for you.

So, carrying the argument further, we agree that if we don't approve of the relationship than they are not entitled to equality?
Reply
#68
(03-19-2014, 05:30 AM)milo Wrote:  
(03-19-2014, 05:19 AM)ChristopherSea Wrote:  
(03-19-2014, 05:15 AM)milo Wrote:  At this point I would just like to have it established that we have agreed it is "all about equality" as long as it is a familial relationship that we all approve of. After we agree that is what we are actually saying, maybe we can continue to discuss why it really isn't about quality at all.

Yes, I was beginning to think that 'I Love Ewe' had a special meaning for you.

So, carrying the argument further, we agree that if we don't approve of the relationship than they are not entitled to equality?

I don't think I have the right to disapprove of any relationship between two consenting adults. Montegue or Capulet, we are all equal in that sense, to choose our own mate. Gotogo...

(03-19-2014, 05:39 AM)ChristopherSea Wrote:  
(03-19-2014, 05:30 AM)milo Wrote:  
(03-19-2014, 05:19 AM)ChristopherSea Wrote:  Yes, I was beginning to think that 'I Love Ewe' had a special meaning for you.

So, carrying the argument further, we agree that if we don't approve of the relationship than they are not entitled to equality?

I don't think I have the right to disapprove of any relationship between two consenting adults. Montegue or Capulet, we are all equal in that sense, to choose our own mate. Gotogo...


I see your exercise in logic and basis for argument, but it does not wash. Abuse of animals is not a relationship. There are laws against it. Those laws apply equally to the animal protector and the abuser. Just as their are laws preventing the serial killer from legally slaying humans, they apply to the rest of us. He suffers no inequality. You may as well argue that criminals suffer from inequality because the laws are against their way of life.
My new watercolor: 'Nightmare After Christmas'/Chris
Reply
#69
(03-19-2014, 05:39 AM)ChristopherSea Wrote:  
(03-19-2014, 05:30 AM)milo Wrote:  
(03-19-2014, 05:19 AM)ChristopherSea Wrote:  Yes, I was beginning to think that 'I Love Ewe' had a special meaning for you.

So, carrying the argument further, we agree that if we don't approve of the relationship than they are not entitled to equality?

I don't think I have the right to disapprove of any relationship between two consenting adults. Montegue or Capulet, we are all equal in that sense, to choose our own mate. Gotogo...

(03-19-2014, 05:39 AM)ChristopherSea Wrote:  
(03-19-2014, 05:30 AM)milo Wrote:  So, carrying the argument further, we agree that if we don't approve of the relationship than they are not entitled to equality?

I don't think I have the right to disapprove of any relationship between two consenting adults. Montegue or Capulet, we are all equal in that sense, to choose our own mate. Gotogo...


...back. I see your exercise in logic and basis for argument, but it does not wash. Abuse of animals is not a relationship. There are laws against it. Those laws apply equally to the animal protector and the abuser. Just as their are laws preventing the serial killer from legally slaying humans, they apply to the rest of us. He suffers no inequality. You may as well argue that criminals suffer from inequality because the laws are against their way of life.

Somehow we got off topic, which I believe justcloudy may have initiated: Why do we need the goverment to tell us who will be recognized as legally married? Nonetheless, there are laws applicable to married couples, as Dale mentioned to establish support and inheritence. Well, spousal death benefits, transfer of property and inheritence are legal rights. Employee death benefits are not recognized for domestic partners, even when one is a dependent of the other in every sense. This is a clear inequality same sex folks face.
My new watercolor: 'Nightmare After Christmas'/Chris
Reply
#70
(03-19-2014, 08:53 AM)ChristopherSea Wrote:  ...back. I see your exercise in logic and basis for argument, but it does not wash. Abuse of animals is not a relationship. There are laws against it. Those laws apply equally to the animal protector and the abuser. Just as their are laws preventing the serial killer from legally slaying humans, they apply to the rest of us. He suffers no inequality. You may as well argue that criminals suffer from inequality because the laws are against their way of life.

There being laws against it has nothing to do with the argument. There were laws against homosexuality no that long ago and now we have decided we approve of it.

The point wasn't that bestiality was good or that we did approve of it it was that it is not and we do not. Therefore we will not grant equal rights, correct?

Also, what about incest, that method of preserving the royal blood lines for thousands of years. We had decided we don't approve of that and that they will not receive equal rights as well, correct?

I assume by your previous statement that we are excluding killers from our "approved" group? What is your feeling on dissidents, approve or no?

Quote:Somehow we got off topic, which I believe justcloudy may have initiated: Why do we need the goverment to tell us who will be recognized as legally married? Nonetheless, there are laws applicable to married couples, as Dale mentioned to establish support and inheritence. Well, spousal death benefits, transfer of property and inheritence are legal rights. Employee death benefits are not recognized for domestic partners, even when one is a dependent of the other in every sense. This is a clear inequality same sex folks face.


This isn't really the topic, but it is a simplistic. The reason the government decides what it recognizes as legal marriage is because it has to make a decision.


As for inequality, you are incorrect. Currently same sex couples receive the exact same rights as single people. If you wanted true equality you would want to ban marriage laws entirely which are mostly based on the economic burden of raising a family. That is not what is sought after here, you are trying to make an additional privileged group without the economic burdens of raising a family(??!!)
Reply
#71
milo I honestly can't tell if you're playing devil's advocate for fun or if you're legitimately irritated by the lack of precise logic in a commonly held viewpoint.
In any case this is entertaining. ;p
_______________________________________
The howling beast is back.
Reply
#72
(03-19-2014, 09:12 AM)justcloudy Wrote:  milo I honestly can't tell if you're playing devil's advocate for fun or if you're legitimately irritated by the lack of precise logic in a commonly held viewpoint.
In any case this is entertaining. ;p

Wink

I have no actual position but I do believe poets should challenge everything. Especially commonly held viewpoints.
Reply
#73
(03-19-2014, 09:21 AM)milo Wrote:  
(03-19-2014, 09:12 AM)justcloudy Wrote:  milo I honestly can't tell if you're playing devil's advocate for fun or if you're legitimately irritated by the lack of precise logic in a commonly held viewpoint.
In any case this is entertaining. ;p

Wink

I have no actual position but I do believe poets should challenge everything. Especially commonly held viewpoints.

milo, of course gays have the same rights as single folks. What they want are the same rights as married folks. My wife will get my pension and social security when I die. She is also a dependent as a homemaker, as well as being legally blind (except for all of those things that she seems to 'see' better than me). If we were not married legally, she would not get either benefit. They are reserved for the married alone. See the problem? Fortunately, heterosexual couples have the choice to marry or not. However, in many states and countries gays don't have the marriage option. We really need someone to be a spoke's person for the gay community or a lawyer, one who is more impassioned to debate with you.

()
||
WHO WANTS THIS TORCH?
My new watercolor: 'Nightmare After Christmas'/Chris
Reply
#74
(03-19-2014, 11:01 AM)ChristopherSea Wrote:  
(03-19-2014, 09:21 AM)milo Wrote:  
(03-19-2014, 09:12 AM)justcloudy Wrote:  milo I honestly can't tell if you're playing devil's advocate for fun or if you're legitimately irritated by the lack of precise logic in a commonly held viewpoint.
In any case this is entertaining. ;p

Wink

I have no actual position but I do believe poets should challenge everything. Especially commonly held viewpoints.

milo, of course gays have the same rights as single folks. What they want are the same rights as married folks. My wife will get my pension and social security when I die. She is also a dependent as a homemaker, as well as being legally blind (except for all of those things that she seems to 'see' better than me). If we were not married legally, she would not get either benefit. They are reserved for the married alone. See the problem? Fortunately, heterosexual couples have the choice to marry or not. However, in many states and countries gays don't have the marriage option. We really need someone to be a spoke's person for the gay community or a lawyer, one who is more impassioned to debate with you.

()
||
WHO WANTS THIS TORCH?

That's great that they want the same rights as married people but that is not really /equal/ is it as now the single people don't get equal rights. If it were really all about equal rights they would be fighting to ban all familial rights and the married be damned or to add those same rights to ALL people, not just same sex couples. If you look back a couple pages you will see where I briefly explain the reasoning behind governmental incentives for families - none of which apply to same sex couples so there is no reason to provide governmental incentive to same sex couples.

If same sex couples want to be "married" - be married, you don't need a government for that. If people want equal rights, fight to eliminate ALL marital incentives, not just add another priveleged group.
Reply
#75
It may be worth considering that to some marriage is not about legal rights, but about conjugal family union; filial bonds and responsibilities, heritage, legacy, and family tradition. To some reproduction is sacred, to others heritage, bloodlines, and natural traits—as well as traditions regarding the way the child is nurtured—are all important parts of their legacy.

There are still people who carefully select their mates for more than their personal happiness and sexual interests, preferences, or even orientations, for purposes that extend beyond their own generation. Some who engage in the marital act of reproduction do so to leave their mark upon this earth, and they seek to impart and preserve their values through the union, and on into future generations. They pay taxes to their government to provide the institutions necessary to preserve their families' historical and legal record for posterity. The right and ability to reproduce is important to them; it is special. It is their immortality. Like those who are religious, it is how they seek to serve and believe in something greater than themselves. It is what makes them tick. Some of them may even want to, or even prefer to, have homosexual sex, but deny themselves that pleasure, to serve what they believe is more important than themselves - their gene pool. Some may engage in homosexual acts in their private lives, and act upon other sexual fantasies. Some may be downright homosexual, but are engaged in a marital union with a member of the opposite sex because they see reproduction and family as more important than sexuality. Others may simply want to preserve their legacy, and don't feel that couples who are unable to produce their own children together should be allowed to manipulate their gene pools in a petri dish. They may want the mothers or fathers of their descendants to be people who are to be involved in the children's upbringing. They may want the fathers or mothers or in laws of their descendants to be selected not only for their genetic contribution, but their contribution to the family unit itself - they may want their descendants to select a parent for their own children that they can live with, honor, and cherish, and who will do the same for them. They may want that person to be the one to provide the egg, or the sperm. The foundations that they lay for their families' futures, and the values they wish to impart, may be the very reason behind every single act that they commit during their brief and fragile adult lives.

Not that I give a shit.

Quote:I don't think I have the right to disapprove of any relationship between two consenting adults. Montegue or Capulet, we are all equal in that sense, to choose our own mate. Gotogo...

Relationships and "mating" are not the same thing in this sense.
Reply
#76
(03-19-2014, 12:12 PM)trueenigma Wrote:  It may be worth considering that to some marriage is not about legal rights, but about conjugal family union; filial bonds and responsibilities, heritage, legacy, and family tradition. To some reproduction is sacred, to others heritage, bloodlines, and natural traits—as well as traditions regarding the way the child is nurtured—are all important parts of their legacy.

There are still people who carefully select their mates for more than their personal happiness and sexual interests, preferences, or even orientations, for purposes that extend beyond their own generation. Some who engage in the marital act of reproduction do so to leave their mark upon this earth, and they seek to impart and preserve their values through the union, and on into future generations. They pay taxes to their government to provide the institutions necessary to preserve their families' historical and legal record for posterity. The right and ability to reproduce is important to them; it is special. It is their immortality. Like those who are religious, it is how they seek to serve and believe in something greater than themselves. It is what makes them tick. Some of them may even want to, or even prefer to, have homosexual sex, but deny themselves that pleasure, to serve what they believe is more important than themselves - their gene pool. Some may engage in homosexual acts in their private lives, and act upon other sexual fantasies. Some may be downright homosexual, but are engaged in a marital union with a member of the opposite sex because they see reproduction and family as more important than sexuality. Others may simply want to preserve their legacy, and don't feel that couples who are unable to produce their own children together should be allowed to manipulate their gene pools in a petri dish. They may want the mothers or fathers of their descendants to be people who are to be involved in the children's upbringing. They may want the fathers or mothers or in laws of their descendants to be selected not only for their genetic contribution, but their contribution to the family unit itself - they may want their descendants to select a parent for their own children that they can live with, honor, and cherish, and who will do the same for them. They may want that person to be the one to provide the egg, or the sperm. The foundations that they lay for their families' futures, and the values they wish to impart, may be the very reason behind every single act that they commit during their brief and fragile adult lives.

Cool story, brah.
What does this have to do with governments recognizing same sex marriages?
Reply
#77

I can't believe I just read this whole damn thread.
Most of the pro-gay stuff I would have said has
already been said quite well, but seein' as how
I'm here I thought I'd post these thoughts:

Laws regulating the marriage of Gay Animals:
For mutual interactions to be ethical, the informed
consent of both parties is required. This limits
ethical bestiality to a handful (pun intended)
of species. (Humans, of course, aren't one of them.)

Civil rights laws:
Enforceable laws require realistically measurable
(cheap etc.) criteria. This inevitably requires
generalization which guarantees inequality.
The most important criterion of any civil rights
law is that the equality it creates must be greater
than the inequality it creates. This criterion, by
the way, is NOT realistically measurable.

Incest laws:
Laws that prohibit incest (when viewed rationally Smile),
are public health laws that are based on the increased
likelihood of genetic faults. When the precise testing
of DNA for these faults becomes available, these laws
will become unnecessary on scientific grounds. A law
similar to the current laws in a few U.S. states that
require a blood test for venereal disease before a
marriage license is granted would be sufficient.
In the future, these laws will certainly be considered
a violation of civil rights and will be opposed by
incest rights groups.




I friended a creature from Venus,
Who resembled a hundred-foot penis;
To spread fear and awe
I'd eject from its maw
Ninety million on YouTube have seen us.

almost terse
Reply
#78
(03-19-2014, 02:19 PM)rayheinrich Wrote:  
I can't believe I just read this whole damn thread.
Most of the pro-gay stuff I would have said has
already been said quite well, but seein' as how
I'm here I thought I'd post these thoughts:

Laws regulating the marriage of Gay Animals:
For mutual interactions to be ethical, the informed
consent of both parties is required. This limits
ethical bestiality to a handful (pun intended)
of species. (Humans, of course, aren't one of them.)

Civil rights laws:
Enforceable laws require realistically measurable
(cheap etc.) criteria. This inevitably requires
generalization which guarantees inequality.
The most important criterion of any civil rights
law is that the equality it creates must be greater
than the inequality it creates. This criterion, by
the way, is NOT realistically measurable.

Incest laws:
Laws that prohibit incest (when viewed rationally Smile),
are public health laws that are based on the increased
likelihood of genetic faults. When the precise testing
of DNA for these faults becomes available, these laws
will become unnecessary on scientific grounds. A law
similar to the current laws in a few U.S. states that
require a blood test for venereal disease before a
marriage license is granted would be sufficient.
In the future, these laws will certainly be considered
a violation of civil rights and will be opposed by
incest rights groups.




I once met a fine creature from Venus,
Who resembled a hundred-foot penis;
To spread fear and awe
I'd eject from its maw
Ninety million on YouTube have seen us.


It would have been nice if you had addressed the ugly, the socially awkward and the surprisingly large group of individuals that shows no sexual proclivity at all as none of them are protectected classes in our new equal rights and marriage for all scenario.

Ah, hell with it, lump them together with the bestials, incestuals, killers and dissidents on the unapproved list.

(How do we feel about polygamy, btw?)

I thought I had read somewhere that smoking increases birth defects more than incest, BTW which is why it is illegal for smokers to marry. Oh, wait. It's not? Any chance of adding smokers to the unapproved list, I don't like them much anyway?
Reply
#79
(03-19-2014, 02:32 PM)milo Wrote:  It would have been nice if you had addressed the ugly, the socially awkward and the surprisingly large group of individuals that show no sexual proclivity at all as none of them are protected classes in our new equal rights and marriage for all scenario.

Ah, hell with it, lump them together with the bestials, incestuals, killers and dissidents on the unapproved list.

(How do we feel about polygamy, btw?)

I thought I had read somewhere that smoking increases birth defects more than incest, BTW which is why it is illegal for smokers to marry. Oh, wait. It's not? Any chance of adding smokers to the unapproved list, I don't like them much anyway?

ugly: already represented equally across all spectra

socially awkward: just a phase

individuals that show no sexual proclivity at all:
evolution will weed these out eventually (i.e. we
still have a little time left).

Polygamy:
The easy answer is: "Polygamy is fine by me as long as it's
consensual." But what constitutes consent and how in the world
do you determine it? I know 15-year-olds who are perfectly
capable of informed consent and 30-years-olds that will
probably never be capable of it. Determining coercion's
even worse. But that holds true for standard marriage
(whatever that is) and a zillion other types of contracts
(college loans come to mind). So, what the hell, make it
legal and let polygamists take their chances like everybody
else (except the wealthy).

Smokers are protected by at least 31 multinational conglomerates
and vast numbers of governmental bodies who depend on their $$.
Legislating meteor strikes would produce better results.

almost terse
Reply
#80
(03-19-2014, 01:41 PM)milo Wrote:  
(03-19-2014, 12:12 PM)trueenigma Wrote:  It may be worth considering that to some marriage is not about legal rights, but about conjugal family union; filial bonds and responsibilities, heritage, legacy, and family tradition. To some reproduction is sacred, to others heritage, bloodlines, and natural traits—as well as traditions regarding the way the child is nurtured—are all important parts of their legacy.

There are still people who carefully select their mates for more than their personal happiness and sexual interests, preferences, or even orientations, for purposes that extend beyond their own generation. Some who engage in the marital act of reproduction do so to leave their mark upon this earth, and they seek to impart and preserve their values through the union, and on into future generations. They pay taxes to their government to provide the institutions necessary to preserve their families' historical and legal record for posterity. The right and ability to reproduce is important to them; it is special. It is their immortality. Like those who are religious, it is how they seek to serve and believe in something greater than themselves. It is what makes them tick. Some of them may even want to, or even prefer to, have homosexual sex, but deny themselves that pleasure, to serve what they believe is more important than themselves - their gene pool. Some may engage in homosexual acts in their private lives, and act upon other sexual fantasies. Some may be downright homosexual, but are engaged in a marital union with a member of the opposite sex because they see reproduction and family as more important than sexuality. Others may simply want to preserve their legacy, and don't feel that couples who are unable to produce their own children together should be allowed to manipulate their gene pools in a petri dish. They may want the mothers or fathers of their descendants to be people who are to be involved in the children's upbringing. They may want the fathers or mothers or in laws of their descendants to be selected not only for their genetic contribution, but their contribution to the family unit itself - they may want their descendants to select a parent for their own children that they can live with, honor, and cherish, and who will do the same for them. They may want that person to be the one to provide the egg, or the sperm. The foundations that they lay for their families' futures, and the values they wish to impart, may be the very reason behind every single act that they commit during their brief and fragile adult lives.

Cool story, brah.
What does this have to do with governments recognizing same sex marriages?

Idk, and I don't care. I Thought we were discussing the cost of tea in China.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!