ofiba Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Then why are you speaking out about your beliefs on a public message board? Also, ofiba, it's very anal(pun intended) of you to pick apart every last bit of the argument against homosexuality. Being gay is a sin. In the fundamental Christian eyes, all sins are equal. Why aren't you crusading against liars, or going for a Constitutional ban on impure thoughts? What makes homosexuality such a hot button issue? 115297[/snapback] As soon as the law changes to make lying under oath ok, I will challenge that. Regarding the "impure thoughts", this argument would hold water if I was lobbying to get all homosexual acts to be made illegal. I am not. I simply do not want them to be allowed to get married. People are free to what they want to do, but allowing them to become married would give them the idea that homosexuality is morally right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 But there is no great call for incest or poligamy legislation and there never will be. Don't even go there because you'll embarrass yourself. 115301[/snapback] Once again, people's values change as the times change. Just watch TV. The majority of things on TV today would definately not be allowed on in say the 50's. As the country is more and more exposed to something (Will and Grace, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy), the more accepting they are of the behavior. I'm not saying it will or will not happen, but to say the country will never become more accepting of incestual behavior is ignoring the trends of history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Once again, people's values change as the times change. Just watch TV. The majority of things on TV today would definately not be allowed on in say the 50's. As the country is more and more exposed to something (Will and Grace, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy), the more accepting they are of the behavior. I'm not saying it will or will not happen, but to say the country will never become more accepting of incestual behavior is ignoring the trends of history. 115324[/snapback] Something to note about these programs is that they conform to the general stereotype of gays in this country and don't really show any real issues pertaining to being gay i.e. persecution. They only deal with flippant men interested in fashion who have lots of girl friends. It wouldn't sell on TV if it wasn't outrageous and it didn't re-confirm everything viewers already believe about gay people. To show gay people as leading normal lives not driven by sex or fashion would be simply out of the question. As far as incest, polygamy vs. a stable same-sex, two-person relationship being recognized, I don't see what they have to do with one another. Incest, even among consenting family members of age, has proven to be genetically dangerous. Polygamy has proven to be unstable on most counts as it always rests on an imbalance of power -- it isn't outlawed, just not sanctioned by marriage, though I am sure some ridiculous 'religious' organizations are up for it. On the other hand, people have had stable, monogamous same-sex relationships for years. These are all arguments made outside of the concrete "right-wrong" religious argument that will never be resolved. That recognizing same-sex relationships would lead to sanctioning of pedophilia is ludicrous. In our society, we've determined that there is an age of consent, and if one is taking advantage of someone who is not old enough to have a proper understanding of consent, or does not grant it, it's against the law. Period -- whether it's pedophilia or rape or otherwise. Personally, I am a married heterosexual who would just assume see the government disavow itself of the entire marriage process and grant all COUPLES civil unions. Then people can be married in the eyes of God, their church, a justice of the peace or whatever they deem necessary to their relationship. A true separation of church and state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Something to note about these programs is that they conform to the general stereotype of gays in this country and don't really show any real issues pertaining to being gay i.e. persecution. They only deal with flippant men interested in fashion who have lots of girl friends. It wouldn't sell on TV if it wasn't outrageous and it didn't re-confirm everything viewers already believe about gay people. To show gay people as leading normal lives not driven by sex or fashion would be simply out of the question. As far as incest, polygamy vs. a stable same-sex, two-person relationship being recognized, I don't see what they have to do with one another. Incest, even among consenting family members of age, has proven to be genetically dangerous. Polygamy has proven to be unstable on most counts as it always rests on an imbalance of power -- it isn't outlawed, just not sanctioned by marriage, though I am sure some ridiculous 'religious' organizations are up for it. On the other hand, people have had stable, monogamous same-sex relationships for years. These are all arguments made outside of the concrete "right-wrong" religious argument that will never be resolved. That recognizing same-sex relationships would lead to sanctioning of pedophilia is ludicrous. In our society, we've determined that there is an age of consent, and if one is taking advantage of someone who is not old enough to have a proper understanding of consent, or does not grant it, it's against the law. Period -- whether it's pedophilia or rape or otherwise. Personally, I am a married heterosexual who would just assume see the government disavow itself of the entire marriage process and grant all COUPLES civil unions. Then people can be married in the eyes of God, their church, a justice of the peace or whatever they deem necessary to their relationship. A true separation of church and state. 115418[/snapback] Bravo on idea of separation of church and state with regards to homosexuality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Something to note about these programs is that they conform to the general stereotype of gays in this country and don't really show any real issues pertaining to being gay i.e. persecution. They only deal with flippant men interested in fashion who have lots of girl friends. It wouldn't sell on TV if it wasn't outrageous and it didn't re-confirm everything viewers already believe about gay people. To show gay people as leading normal lives not driven by sex or fashion would be simply out of the question. As far as incest, polygamy vs. a stable same-sex, two-person relationship being recognized, I don't see what they have to do with one another. Incest, even among consenting family members of age, has proven to be genetically dangerous. Polygamy has proven to be unstable on most counts as it always rests on an imbalance of power -- it isn't outlawed, just not sanctioned by marriage, though I am sure some ridiculous 'religious' organizations are up for it. On the other hand, people have had stable, monogamous same-sex relationships for years. These are all arguments made outside of the concrete "right-wrong" religious argument that will never be resolved. That recognizing same-sex relationships would lead to sanctioning of pedophilia is ludicrous. In our society, we've determined that there is an age of consent, and if one is taking advantage of someone who is not old enough to have a proper understanding of consent, or does not grant it, it's against the law. Period -- whether it's pedophilia or rape or otherwise. Personally, I am a married heterosexual who would just assume see the government disavow itself of the entire marriage process and grant all COUPLES civil unions. Then people can be married in the eyes of God, their church, a justice of the peace or whatever they deem necessary to their relationship. A true separation of church and state. 115418[/snapback] What about if the incestual couple decided not to have kids. Is the only thing wrong with incest the problem of genetic difficulties? If so, an adult incestual couple that did not have kids should be allowed to get married too? I see homosexuality as no different morally than incest. Both can not give birth to healthy children (incest, not healthy, homosexual, not at all). In Kentucky, I believe you are allowed to marry your first cousin. That right there should prove that different cultures have different opinions on the subject. Since there is no clear cut answer, what leads you to believe that people's opinions on incest won't change in the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Since there is no clear cut answer, what leads you to believe that people's opinions on incest won't change in the future? 115492[/snapback] People are gentically predisposed to being homosexual. That is not the case with incest, it's deviancy. If, in some mixed-up Bizarro world of the future, incest is no longer considered deviancy, it sure won't have a thing to do with gay marriage. But by that time, you and I will have long since met our Maker... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 People are gentically predisposed to being homosexual. That is not the case with incest, it's deviancy. If, in some mixed-up Bizarro world of the future, incest is no longer considered deviancy, it sure won't have a thing to do with gay marriage. But by that time, you and I will have long since met our Maker... 115519[/snapback] Plus it helps if your sister is hot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 People are gentically predisposed to being homosexual. That is not the case with incest, it's deviancy. If, in some mixed-up Bizarro world of the future, incest is no longer considered deviancy, it sure won't have a thing to do with gay marriage. But by that time, you and I will have long since met our Maker... 115519[/snapback] It is not proven that that is the case, but if it is, people are also genetically predisposed to have a greater chance of being an alchoholic. Should alchoholism be encouraged?? Some people even think that people are genetically predisposed to be violent and more likely to commit murders. Should murders be allowed as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 It is not proven that that is the case, but if it is, people are also genetically predisposed to have a greater chance of being an alchoholic. Should alchoholism be encouraged??Some people even think that people are genetically predisposed to be violent and more likely to commit murders. Should murders be allowed as well? 115539[/snapback] Why is it that when this debate comes up the people who are opposed to gay "marriage" always bring up poligamy and incest? You never answer the question as to how it even affects your life. How the hell will allowing two gay men or women to call their union a "marriage" impact your life at all? There is no slippery slope. We've had gay marriage here in Mass for over 6 months and it's just not that big of a deal. No swarms of locusts, no rivers of blood. No big deal. You don't like it, that's fine. They're not concerned with your opinion BECAUSE THEY LOVE EACH OTHER. Gay marriage will not impact you or anyone else you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Why is it that when this debate comes up the people who are opposed to gay "marriage" always bring up poligamy and incest? You never answer the question as to how it even affects your life. How the hell will allowing two gay men or women to call their union a "marriage" impact your life at all? There is no slippery slope. We've had gay marriage here in Mass for over 6 months and it's just not that big of a deal. No swarms of locusts, no rivers of blood. No big deal. You don't like it, that's fine. They're not concerned with your opinion BECAUSE THEY LOVE EACH OTHER. Gay marriage will not impact you or anyone else you know. 115546[/snapback] It is not about directly affecting me, it is about the principle of the thing and keeping marriage sacred. If you are going to use that argument though, how would an incestual couple who got married and didn't have kids affect you?? If it doesn't then supposedly you would be fine with it right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 It is not about directly affecting me, it is about the principle of the thing and keeping marriage sacred. If you are going to use that argument though, how would an incestual couple who got married and didn't have kids affect you?? If it doesn't then supposedly you would be fine with it right? 115550[/snapback] First of all, almost every case of incest is rape, not consensual, so to put forth some 1 in a million scenario is deviating from the debate, but the Right is very good at getting off issue in these debates. Would I find a brother and a sister getting married offensive, yes I would, as would most people you'd ask. But as for relevance of incest for the topic of gay marriage, it has absolutely no bearing other than to cloud the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 It is not about directly affecting me, it is about the principle of the thing and keeping marriage sacred. If you are going to use that argument though, how would an incestual couple who got married and didn't have kids affect you?? If it doesn't then supposedly you would be fine with it right? 115550[/snapback] Keeping marriage sacred, that's a good one. How about if we make adultery illegal and lock up everyone that has an affair. I mean, really, you want to keep marriage sacred don't you? How about banning divorce? That would keep marriage sacred. This is really going to hurt the sacred institution of marriage? Give me a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 It is not about directly affecting me, it is about the principle of the thing and keeping marriage sacred. 115550[/snapback] Roughly 50% of new marriages end in divorce. People are able to get married 3,4,5, 10 times in their life. People can (and do) get married, and have it anulled within 48 hours. Marriage is sacred? Tell that to the guys who are cheating on their wives. Tell that to the wives cheating on their husbands. Tell that to the husbands cheating on their wives with the pool boy!!! What, exactly, is sacred about marriage? That the only qualifying factor is that it includes a man and a woman? who aren't related? who aren't married to someone else? I think you're really missing the boat on the people to whom you should be targeting with your 'keep marriage sacred' point of view. Marriage is only sacred when the two individuals who are involved MAKE it sacred. 100 years from now, our great grand-children are going to look back on this and think we were idiots because we refuse to let two guys get insurance together, all in the name of protecting the sacred ability of Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez to marry whomever they want, as many times as they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Would I find a brother and a sister getting married offensive, yes I would, as would most people you'd ask. 115558[/snapback] Since it would have no affect on you for them to get married, why should we be able to stop them for being married, but let homosexuals? You guys are missing my point, every reason you guys use to say homosexuals should be allowed to get married can be said about incestual couple as well. Should we allow any single couple in the world to wed, regardless of any circumstances as long as it doesn't directly affect us? We might as well since marriage is already tainted, we might as well give up and flush it down the drain right? Someone please lay out an argument for me that shows how wrong incest is and how right homosexuality is. You have yet to do it. All I have gotten so far is "More people are gay than incest." More people are right handed than left handed. A lot of people cheat on their spouses. You're gonna need to come up with a better argument... For someone to say that homosexuals should be allowed to get married because it doesn't directly affect anyone, and then say that a brother and sister getting married would be offensive is completely hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 People are gentically predisposed to being homosexual. That is not the case with incest, it's deviancy. If, in some mixed-up Bizarro world of the future, incest is no longer considered deviancy, it sure won't have a thing to do with gay marriage. But by that time, you and I will have long since met our Maker... 115519[/snapback] Laurie Lisowski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Since it would have no affect on you for them to get married, why should we be able to stop them for being married, but let homosexuals? You guys are missing my point, every reason you guys use to say homosexuals should be allowed to get married can be said about incestual couple as well. Should we allow any single couple in the world to wed, regardless of any circumstances as long as it doesn't directly affect us? We might as well since marriage is already tainted, we might as well give up and flush it down the drain right? Someone please lay out an argument for me that shows how wrong incest is and how right homosexuality is. You have yet to do it. All I have gotten so far is "More people are gay than incest." More people are right handed than left handed. A lot of people cheat on their spouses. You're gonna need to come up with a better argument... For someone to say that homosexuals should be allowed to get married because it doesn't directly affect anyone, and then say that a brother and sister getting married would be offensive is completely hypocritical. 115704[/snapback] Simple in this society...homosexuality is accepted..sorry its true deal with it....even most homosexuals are against incest as is most of society Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Since it would have no affect on you for them to get married, why should we be able to stop them for being married, but let homosexuals? You guys are missing my point, every reason you guys use to say homosexuals should be allowed to get married can be said about incestual couple as well. Should we allow any single couple in the world to wed, regardless of any circumstances as long as it doesn't directly affect us? We might as well since marriage is already tainted, we might as well give up and flush it down the drain right? Someone please lay out an argument for me that shows how wrong incest is and how right homosexuality is. You have yet to do it. All I have gotten so far is "More people are gay than incest." More people are right handed than left handed. A lot of people cheat on their spouses. You're gonna need to come up with a better argument... For someone to say that homosexuals should be allowed to get married because it doesn't directly affect anyone, and then say that a brother and sister getting married would be offensive is completely hypocritical. 115704[/snapback] The difference has been given to you a half dozen times, directly and indirectly, and you just ignore it, so I will give it to you again: the difference between homosexuals getting married and incestuals (if that's a word) getting married is that about half of the country thinks that one (homosexuality) is okay, and NO ONE THINKS INCEST IS OKAY A large portion of the people who actually are involved in incest and poligamy don't even like it or accept it, for crissakes. Tell me one law (excluding unenforced antiquated blue laws) that NO ONE is in favor of. There aren't any, you know why? Because NO ONE is in favor of them. Public opinion means something. If all of America thinks something is good, it will be okay and accepted. If half of America thinks something is good and the other half doesn't, it will be debated. One side or the other may win, and the law of the land may reflect it. But if NO ONE wants something, it is NOT ACCEPTED. Hence, incest is not accepted. Poligamy is not accepted. They will never be accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 The difference has been given to you a half dozen times, directly and indirectly, and you just ignore it, so I will give it to you again: the difference between homosexuals getting married and incestuals (if that's a word) getting married is that about half of the country thinks that one (homosexuality) is okay, andNO ONE THINKS INCEST IS OKAY A large portion of the people who actually are involved in incest and poligamy don't even like it or accept it, for crissakes. Tell me one law (excluding unenforced antiquated blue laws) that NO ONE is in favor of. There aren't any, you know why? Because NO ONE is in favor of them. Public opinion means something. If all of America thinks something is good, it will be okay and accepted. If half of America thinks something is good and the other half doesn't, it will be debated. One side or the other may win, and the law of the land may reflect it. But if NO ONE wants something, it is NOT ACCEPTED. Hence, incest is not accepted. Poligamy is not accepted. They will never be accepted. 115727[/snapback] This is becoming a circular debate since I keep asking the same question, and I keep getting the same answer. The problem with the answer is that many years ago, homosexuality was not accepted either. I am not arguing that incest is now. I am simply saying that there is no way you could say that down the road, incest will never be accepted as homosexuality is today because there is no real moral difference between the two. I understand your point, and if I had nothing against the act of homosexuality, I too would see no problem with them getting married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 This is becoming a circular debate since I keep asking the same question, and I keep getting the same answer. The problem with the answer is that many years ago, homosexuality was not accepted either. I am not arguing that incest is now. I am simply saying that there is no way you could say that down the road, incest will never be accepted as homosexuality is today because there is no real moral difference between the two. I understand your point, and if I had nothing against the act of homosexuality, I too would see no problem with them getting married. 115770[/snapback] Homosexuality has been prevalent and accepted in cultures since the beginning of man. Hell, threesomes with two women being together sexually is one of if not the biggest fantasy men have all over the world. Homosexuality is accepted by a huge portion of the population. People don't put Britney Spears kissing her brother in their avatar but they seem to love her kissing Madonna. Or does two women not count, just two men? No one anywhere (in civilized countries, I am sure there may be tribes somewhere who accept it) accepts incest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 It is not proven that that is the case, but if it is, people are also genetically predisposed to have a greater chance of being an alchoholic. Should alchoholism be encouraged??Some people even think that people are genetically predisposed to be violent and more likely to commit murders. Should murders be allowed as well? 115539[/snapback] You are on shaky ground here if only because one could come right back at you and say, if someone is born with sickle-cell anemia, is that their fault? Of course not. Your examples are of people with genetic predispositions to be destructive to themselves and to others. A person predisposed to prefer a homosexual relationship is doing no such thing -- it is only a condition, and not one that has proven to be harmful to others. On the contrary, the stigma in this society of being gay and being forced to hold back natural desires has probably proven to be more costly than just letting gay people be who they are. I am not in any way excusing people who have committed deplorable crimes, but if, for example, a gay person did not feel repressed and felt joining the clergy was his only option, he would not even be put into the position of taking advantage of children. If we were open and honest about this in society, homosexuals would feel more comfortable about who they are, and we might not see such a high suicide rate among young gay people. It's time we stopped treating them like second-class citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts