What's your opinion of people who disagree with you politically?

Yeah, and now women can indiscriminately kill their babies without the father's consent, and pre-teens can kill their babies without parental consent. After all the father's only responsibility is to pay for the kid if and when the woman decides she is not going to murder him. Hooray for progress!!!

:roll:
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Yeah, and now women can indiscriminately kill their babies without the father's consent, and pre-teens can kill their babies without parental consent. After all the father's only responsibility is to pay for the kid if and when the woman decides she is not going to murder him. Hooray for progress!!!

:roll:[/quote]

Yeah and now if a father rapes a daughter, the daughter can't abort the baby without the rapist father's consent. Obey thy father! Hooray for the New Moral Order!
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='Scrubking']Yeah, and now women can indiscriminately kill their babies without the father's consent, and pre-teens can kill their babies without parental consent. After all the father's only responsibility is to pay for the kid if and when the woman decides she is not going to murder him. Hooray for progress!!!

:roll:[/quote]

Yeah and now if a father rapes a daughter, the daughter can't abort the baby without the rapist father's consent. Obey thy father! Hooray for the New Moral Order![/quote]

Hoorayy for heavy handed, blanket solutions to all problems1!!!!!11
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe']I know the theory of evolution, thank you. You have pointed it out: homosexuality is either not natural or it is a mutation. According to the theory of evolution, homosexuality would not occur over time because over time homosexuals or even bisexuals would not reproduce as much. Over thousands of years, according to the theory, this should have been weeded out.
[/quote]

By that logic, there would be no cases of low sperm count, no sterile men or women, no miscarriages, no asexual people, and nothing else that interferes with the sexual reproduction function of the human body. Yet all of these traits occur naturally within certain people. I believe the reason is because genetic traits can be recessive. So let's say that a parent has a recessive homosexual gene that's passed on to 3 kids, maybe one will go gay and the other two will be straight. If the two straight kids have kids of their own, then the trait will keep getting passed down the family.

Recessive genes are naturally occuring phenomena. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that homosexuality is a natural genetic trait. (IE homosexuality is natural)[/quote]


What people don't get about evolution (besides the people that say there is no proof, then believe God did everything because he's god) is that in evolution the species needs to find ways to live, some birdes get smaller beaks, others get longer ones. But then if there are too many the species still might die because they are fighting for food. Now gays won't have any kids, most of them, and that would help the birth rate and is a polulation control.

That is the problem with Right Winged Relgious Wackos, they think marriage is about having kids, but then when asked what straight people who don't wants kids should be allowed to marry they have some fucked thing they say.
 
[quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='Scrubking']Yeah, and now women can indiscriminately kill their babies without the father's consent, and pre-teens can kill their babies without parental consent. After all the father's only responsibility is to pay for the kid if and when the woman decides she is not going to murder him. Hooray for progress!!!

:roll:[/quote]

Yeah and now if a father rapes a daughter, the daughter can't abort the baby without the rapist father's consent. Obey thy father! Hooray for the New Moral Order![/quote]

Hoorayy for heavy handed, blanket solutions to all problems1!!!!!11[/quote]

Last time I looked, it wasn't the progressives who were sewing the ten commandments into their robes or trying to tack their religious beliefs onto the US Constitution.
 
Wow. I havent read this thread until now. Started off fine. Now its taken a weird turn.

When interracial marriage was legalized, people made the same claims about mass marriages, bigamy, and bestiality. Of course none of that stuff happened. It is a shame to see the same kind of argument actually taking hold again some 60 years later.

Just had to throw my .02 in there. BTW, I voted for the "respectfully disagree with their opinion" option. If I had read the thread before voting, I would have voted differently.
 
[quote name='Elrod']Wow. I havent read this thread until now. Started off fine. Now its taken a weird turn.

When interracial marriage was legalized, people made the same claims about mass marriages, bigamy, and bestiality. Of course none of that stuff happened. It is a shame to see the same kind of argument actually taking hold again some 60 years later.

Just had to throw my .02 in there. BTW, I voted for the "respectfully disagree with their opinion" option. If I had read the thread before voting, I would have voted differently.[/quote]

I still think that bigamy and polygamy would have to be revisited.
Incest and bestiality would have no ground to stand on, as the actives on thier surfuce are detrimental to the human condition, introducing genetics/diseases that are dangerous to the continued existance of the human race (This is especially dangerous considering that HIV is believed to be disease that was first transfered to a human from an animal.)

However, bigamy and polygamy are both based upon sexual preference, just like homosexuality. It's just as hypocritical for homosexuality advocates to say that those types of unions are invalid as they believe hetrosexuals saying that homosexual unions are invalid are.

Some people take that argument to far and create a slippery slope, but to deny one activity whose basis is similar to the one you're championing and declaring it null and void is completely hypocritical.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe']I know the theory of evolution, thank you. You have pointed it out: homosexuality is either not natural or it is a mutation. According to the theory of evolution, homosexuality would not occur over time because over time homosexuals or even bisexuals would not reproduce as much. Over thousands of years, according to the theory, this should have been weeded out.
[/quote]

By that logic, there would be no cases of low sperm count, no sterile men or women, no miscarriages, no asexual people, and nothing else that interferes with the sexual reproduction function of the human body. Yet all of these traits occur naturally within certain people. I believe the reason is because genetic traits can be recessive. So let's say that a parent has a recessive homosexual gene that's passed on to 3 kids, maybe one will go gay and the other two will be straight. If the two straight kids have kids of their own, then the trait will keep getting passed down the family.

Recessive genes are naturally occuring phenomena. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that homosexuality is a natural genetic trait. (IE homosexuality is natural)[/quote]

The way I read the theory of evolution is obviously different from the way you read it then. As I read it, there should be no homosexuality through genetics unless through mutation. I don't see how natural selection would select for a trait that causes 0 genes to be passed on. Even in your instance only two of three children pass their genes on instead of three of three. It's less effective. Due to the long period of time over which the theory of evolution is regarded to have taken place, that difference would amount to an extinction of that trait, unless somehow you can point to some evidence that homosexual tendencies have a positive effect on passing on your genes or no effect.

As for your miscarriages, birth defects, etc. those are not phenomena that normally occur. Those are caused by defective genes, not normal ones, or by some sort of outside influence early in development like drugs. There are some rare genetic diseases that are that serious, yet nowhere near the portion of homosexuals thought to in the general population (~1 percent).
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='Elrod']Wow. I havent read this thread until now. Started off fine. Now its taken a weird turn.

When interracial marriage was legalized, people made the same claims about mass marriages, bigamy, and bestiality. Of course none of that stuff happened. It is a shame to see the same kind of argument actually taking hold again some 60 years later.

Just had to throw my .02 in there. BTW, I voted for the "respectfully disagree with their opinion" option. If I had read the thread before voting, I would have voted differently.[/quote]

I still think that bigamy and polygamy would have to be revisited.
Incest and bestiality would have no ground to stand on, as the actives on thier surfuce are detrimental to the human condition, introducing genetics/diseases that are dangerous to the continued existance of the human race (This is especially dangerous considering that HIV is believed to be disease that was first transfered to a human from an animal.[/quote]

No one answered my query about two sisters or two brothers who might want to get married? Is that okay then, taking this to its ultimate conclusion? I mean, they can't conceive through their relationship, obviously.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe']I know the theory of evolution, thank you. You have pointed it out: homosexuality is either not natural or it is a mutation. According to the theory of evolution, homosexuality would not occur over time because over time homosexuals or even bisexuals would not reproduce as much. Over thousands of years, according to the theory, this should have been weeded out.
[/quote]

By that logic, there would be no cases of low sperm count, no sterile men or women, no miscarriages, no asexual people, and nothing else that interferes with the sexual reproduction function of the human body. Yet all of these traits occur naturally within certain people. I believe the reason is because genetic traits can be recessive. So let's say that a parent has a recessive homosexual gene that's passed on to 3 kids, maybe one will go gay and the other two will be straight. If the two straight kids have kids of their own, then the trait will keep getting passed down the family.

Recessive genes are naturally occuring phenomena. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that homosexuality is a natural genetic trait. (IE homosexuality is natural)[/quote]

The way I read the theory of evolution is obviously different from the way you read it then. As I read it, there should be no homosexuality through genetics unless through mutation. I don't see how natural selection would select for a trait that causes 0 genes to be passed on. Even in your instance only two of three children pass their genes on instead of three of three. It's less effective. Due to the long period of time over which the theory of evolution is regarded to have taken place, that difference would amount to an extinction of that trait, unless somehow you can point to some evidence that homosexual tendencies have a positive effect on passing on your genes or no effect.

As for your miscarriages, birth defects, etc. those are not phenomena that normally occur. Those are caused by defective genes, not normal ones, or by some sort of outside influence early in development like drugs. There are some rare genetic diseases that are that serious, yet nowhere near the portion of homosexuals thought to in the general population (~1 percent).[/quote]

OK, this is a scientific discussion and I didn't major in biology.

However there have been great civilizations in the past where a majority of the population was bisexual. Yet now it's all been whiped out due to the miracle of evolution and christ, and the only remnants of it are mutants.

How do you explain an American prison under this neat theory?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']No one answered my query about two sisters or two brothers who might want to get married? Is that okay then, taking this to its ultimate conclusion? I mean, they can't conceive through their relationship, obviously.[/quote]
Its fine with me. Well, a bit more accurately, I think its a bit tasteless and tacky, at the very _least_, but I don't think that its government's job to enforce good taste. so yes, I think they should have the legal right to do so. Of course, its their neighbor's legal right to smirk and giggle.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='Elrod']Wow. I havent read this thread until now. Started off fine. Now its taken a weird turn.

When interracial marriage was legalized, people made the same claims about mass marriages, bigamy, and bestiality. Of course none of that stuff happened. It is a shame to see the same kind of argument actually taking hold again some 60 years later.

Just had to throw my .02 in there. BTW, I voted for the "respectfully disagree with their opinion" option. If I had read the thread before voting, I would have voted differently.[/quote]

However, bigamy and polygamy are both based upon sexual preference, just like homosexuality. It's just as hypocritical for homosexuality advocates to say that those types of unions are invalid as they believe hetrosexuals saying that homosexual unions are invalid are.[/quote]


Just like it you like a black women would be a "preference" over a whit ewomen?

You truely are an idiot.
 
[quote name='David85'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='Elrod']Wow. I havent read this thread until now. Started off fine. Now its taken a weird turn.

When interracial marriage was legalized, people made the same claims about mass marriages, bigamy, and bestiality. Of course none of that stuff happened. It is a shame to see the same kind of argument actually taking hold again some 60 years later.

Just had to throw my .02 in there. BTW, I voted for the "respectfully disagree with their opinion" option. If I had read the thread before voting, I would have voted differently.[/quote]

However, bigamy and polygamy are both based upon sexual preference, just like homosexuality. It's just as hypocritical for homosexuality advocates to say that those types of unions are invalid as they believe hetrosexuals saying that homosexual unions are invalid are.[/quote]


Just like it you like a black women would be a "preference" over a whit ewomen?

You truely are an idiot.[/quote]

David, quiet down and let the grown-ups talk.
If you have something productive, informative, or interesting to say, go ahead and post. This trainwreck of a post you made could hardly be considered any of the above. Any type of proposed change to a norm adhered to by a society will lead to the examination of other related situations. Suggesting that if you allow homosexual to marry that everyone will be running to marry thier brother, sister or dog is ridiculous, but having to reexamine other types of unions previously banned only on moral grounds is completely reasonable. As terrible as it is, that was frowned upon based on a societal norm.
Yes, that is disgusting, but it was the way it was. But, it didn't shake the foundations of what the institution of marriage was... it was one man and one woman.

It really isn't unreasonable to think that if people redefined marriage to allow men and men, or woman and woman that people would start questioning why 2 men and one woman, or vice versa, could not marry.

To suggest that marraiges would then be non-standard polygamist, incesteous or to parters outside of the human race is pure folly.
But to suggest that such a radical redefinition of marriage wouldn't spark of demands for other changes is just as foolhardy.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe']I know the theory of evolution, thank you. You have pointed it out: homosexuality is either not natural or it is a mutation. According to the theory of evolution, homosexuality would not occur over time because over time homosexuals or even bisexuals would not reproduce as much. Over thousands of years, according to the theory, this should have been weeded out.
[/quote]

By that logic, there would be no cases of low sperm count, no sterile men or women, no miscarriages, no asexual people, and nothing else that interferes with the sexual reproduction function of the human body. Yet all of these traits occur naturally within certain people. I believe the reason is because genetic traits can be recessive. So let's say that a parent has a recessive homosexual gene that's passed on to 3 kids, maybe one will go gay and the other two will be straight. If the two straight kids have kids of their own, then the trait will keep getting passed down the family.

Recessive genes are naturally occuring phenomena. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that homosexuality is a natural genetic trait. (IE homosexuality is natural)[/quote]

The way I read the theory of evolution is obviously different from the way you read it then. As I read it, there should be no homosexuality through genetics unless through mutation. I don't see how natural selection would select for a trait that causes 0 genes to be passed on. Even in your instance only two of three children pass their genes on instead of three of three. It's less effective. Due to the long period of time over which the theory of evolution is regarded to have taken place, that difference would amount to an extinction of that trait, unless somehow you can point to some evidence that homosexual tendencies have a positive effect on passing on your genes or no effect.

As for your miscarriages, birth defects, etc. those are not phenomena that normally occur. Those are caused by defective genes, not normal ones, or by some sort of outside influence early in development like drugs. There are some rare genetic diseases that are that serious, yet nowhere near the portion of homosexuals thought to in the general population (~1 percent).[/quote]

OK, this is a scientific discussion and I didn't major in biology.

However there have been great civilizations in the past where a majority of the population was bisexual. Yet now it's all been whiped out due to the miracle of evolution and christ, and the only remnants of it are mutants.

How do you explain an American prison under this neat theory?[/quote]

I don't deny that there have been homosexuals throughout history. That is obvious. However, we are arguing whether it's genetic or not, not whether it exists. Behavior can be learned, even with no genetic tendencies, not to mentioned genetic determinations. I feel that if you take the theory of evolution as fact then it's very hard to make a good argument that there is a gene that selects people to be homosexual.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='David85'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='Elrod']Wow. I havent read this thread until now. Started off fine. Now its taken a weird turn.

When interracial marriage was legalized, people made the same claims about mass marriages, bigamy, and bestiality. Of course none of that stuff happened. It is a shame to see the same kind of argument actually taking hold again some 60 years later.

Just had to throw my .02 in there. BTW, I voted for the "respectfully disagree with their opinion" option. If I had read the thread before voting, I would have voted differently.[/quote]

However, bigamy and polygamy are both based upon sexual preference, just like homosexuality. It's just as hypocritical for homosexuality advocates to say that those types of unions are invalid as they believe hetrosexuals saying that homosexual unions are invalid are.[/quote]


Just like it you like a black women would be a "preference" over a whit ewomen?

You truely are an idiot.[/quote]

David, quiet down and let the grown-ups talk.
If you have something productive, informative, or interesting to say, go ahead and post. This trainwreck of a post you made could hardly be considered any of the above. Any type of proposed change to a norm adhered to by a society will lead to the examination of other related situations. Suggesting that if you allow homosexual to marry that everyone will be running to marry thier brother, sister or dog is ridiculous, but having to reexamine other types of unions previously banned only on moral grounds is completely reasonable. As terrible as it is, that was frowned upon based on a societal norm.
Yes, that is disgusting, but it was the way it was. But, it didn't shake the foundations of what the institution of marriage was... it was one man and one woman.

It really isn't unreasonable to think that if people redefined marriage to allow men and men, or woman and woman that people would start questioning why 2 men and one woman, or vice versa, could not marry.

To suggest that marraiges would then be non-standard polygamist, incesteous or to parters outside of the human race is pure folly.
But to suggest that such a radical redefinition of marriage wouldn't spark of demands for other changes is just as foolhardy.[/quote]

I believe it's called a slippery slope argument, actually, and it's a common rhetorical technique. Of course, it's a logical fallacy as well and, as such, shouldn't really be taken seriously, despite it's common use these days, especially when arguing against gay rights.

David's point wasn't supported the best, since I don't know that interracial marriage was ever officially against the law, but it's a good direction to debate. The question he should have posed would be: when gays were allowed civil unions, did pedophiles and bestialitists (word?) come out of the woodwork and demand that they be allowed civil unions with the children/animals they were with?
 
I believe it's called a slippery slope argument, actually, and it's a common rhetorical technique.

Only if you want to conceed any argument at that point.
That fallacy will lead to the systematic picking apart of what you say.
O

Of course, it's a logical fallacy as well and, as such, shouldn't really be taken seriously, despite it's common use these days, especially when arguing against gay rights.

There is a difference between suggesting that amending marriage laws will likely lead to discussion about other currently taboo unions being less restricted, and suggesting that that the change would lead to everyone marrying thier sister and/or dog.
One is a slippery slope fallacy. The other is not.


David's point wasn't supported the best, since I don't know that interracial marriage was ever officially against the law, but it's a good direction to debate.

It was phrased much better before he brought it up, and discussed in more reasonable and logical terms. More likely, he wanted to use that comment to mount a personal attack.
It's hard to argue he doesn't when he begins a bulk of his posts with "You idiot", or "You Dumbass".

Yes, it is a good point. But it was discussed with more decorum and more politely before David brought it up. Had he brought it up in a manner more civil, like you have, then I'd be more likely to dicuss it rather than immediately dismiss him.

The question he should have posed would be: when gays were allowed civil unions, did pedophiles and bestialitists (word?) come out of the woodwork and demand that they be allowed civil unions with the children/animals they were with?

Pedophila is much more taboo than homosexuality. Someone openly admitting they are a pedophile would land them in jail and on the sex offender's registry. The same cannot be said for homosexuals, except maybe in some towns that go apeshit and overenforce anti-sodomy laws.

Bestiality would never be granted protection under law because there is a benefit to society from prevent people from having sex with animals... it prevents the transfer of diseases from animal to human... many of which the human immune system would likely not handle well.
 
Actually, children and animals cannot legally consent to sex.

Adults can, and animals can have sex with each other.

But without consent, sex is rape. Rape is illegal.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']I believe it's called a slippery slope argument, actually, and it's a common rhetorical technique.

Only if you want to conceed any argument at that point.
That fallacy will lead to the systematic picking apart of what you say.
O

Of course, it's a logical fallacy as well and, as such, shouldn't really be taken seriously, despite it's common use these days, especially when arguing against gay rights.

There is a difference between suggesting that amending marriage laws will likely lead to discussion about other currently taboo unions being less restricted, and suggesting that that the change would lead to everyone marrying thier sister and/or dog.
One is a slippery slope fallacy. The other is not.


David's point wasn't supported the best, since I don't know that interracial marriage was ever officially against the law, but it's a good direction to debate.

It was phrased much better before he brought it up, and discussed in more reasonable and logical terms. More likely, he wanted to use that comment to mount a personal attack.
It's hard to argue he doesn't when he begins a bulk of his posts with "You idiot", or "You Dumbass".

Yes, it is a good point. But it was discussed with more decorum and more politely before David brought it up. Had he brought it up in a manner more civil, like you have, then I'd be more likely to dicuss it rather than immediately dismiss him.

The question he should have posed would be: when gays were allowed civil unions, did pedophiles and bestialitists (word?) come out of the woodwork and demand that they be allowed civil unions with the children/animals they were with?

Pedophila is much more taboo than homosexuality. Someone openly admitting they are a pedophile would land them in jail and on the sex offender's registry. The same cannot be said for homosexuals, except maybe in some towns that go apeshit and overenforce anti-sodomy laws.

Bestiality would never be granted protection under law because there is a benefit to society from prevent people from having sex with animals... it prevents the transfer of diseases from animal to human... many of which the human immune system would likely not handle well.[/quote]

Uh-huh. Again: were there or were there not protestors trying to get civil unions legalized for every fringe sexuality under the sun coming out en masse when homosexuals were allowed them? It simply doesn't follow that allowing gays to get married would mean every group of perverts in the country would demand the same treatment, nor would it mean that the government would have to give in to their demands if they did.
 
Uh-huh. Again: were there or were there not protestors trying to get civil unions legalized for every fringe sexuality under the sun coming out en masse when homosexuals were allowed them? It simply doesn't follow that allowing gays to get married would mean every group of perverts in the country would demand the same treatment, nor would it mean that the government would have to give in to their demands if they did
Perverts? Who are you to say the life practiced by bigamists and polygamists is perverse? That seems more like a religious, moral or ethical distiction that anything else.

You're lumping arguments together. My arguments are far from the slippery slope arguements offered by so of the other posters, yet you continue to try and attack them as if they were.

Anyways, how are you using as the baseline for this assumption that there was not an increase in the demands for equal treatment of poligamists? Media reports? Minutes from the sessions of state congresses? To suggest that there was no push by others groups with non-standard beliefs is hard to do... just because a group doesn't have a successful lobby or the ear of the mass media doesn't mean that there aren't groups out there working towards those aims.

I've not said that anything is a certainty, but if you're going to review the standards on how you define marriage to suit one group with non-standard practices, it's disengenous at best, and hypocritical at worst to exclude all other non-standard groups just because they lack the lobbying power that another group has.

To suggest that two men or two women have more of a right to marry than two women and one man, or two men and one woman is deeply hypocritical.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='jmcc']Uh-huh. Again: were there or were there not protestors trying to get civil unions legalized for every fringe sexuality under the sun coming out en masse when homosexuals were allowed them? It simply doesn't follow that allowing gays to get married would mean every group of perverts in the country would demand the same treatment, nor would it mean that the government would have to give in to their demands if they did.[/quote]

Perverts? Who are you to say the life practiced by bigamists and polygamists is perverse? That seems more like a religious, moral or ethical distiction that anything else.

You're lumping arguments together. My arguments are far from the slippery slope arguements offered by so of the other posters, yet you continue to try and attack them as if they were.

Anyways, how are you using as the baseline for this assumption that there was not an increase in the demands for equal treatment of poligamists? Media reports? Minutes from the sessions of state congresses? To suggest that there was no push by others groups with non-standard beliefs is hard to do... just because a group doesn't have a successful lobby or the ear of the mass media doesn't mean that there aren't groups out there working towards those aims.

I've not said that anything is a certainty, but if you're going to review the standards on how you define marriage to suit one group with non-standard practices, it's disengenous at best, and hypocritical at worst to exclude all other non-standard groups just because they lack the lobbying power that another group has.

To suggest that two men or two women have more of a right to marry than two women and one man, or two men and one woman is deeply hypocritical.[/quote]

I don't think I said anything about multiple partner relations. My point is, there's nothing historically or logically to indicate that letting homos get married would lead to the mass anarchy a lot of people say it will.

Frankly, though, I'm behind the idea I think you brought up earlier. Marriage should not be recognized at all by the government, technically. Everyone who wants to get together should join in a civil union and then if they want to get married, they're free to do that, but the marriage shouldn't carry any special rights or privileges like it does now, as far as I'm concerned. Then everyone would be on even footing, but the religious could still keep gays out of their sacred bonding rituals.
 
It depends. There can be a rival who has a respectable perspective, and there can be an idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']
To suggest that two men or two women have more of a right to marry than two women and one man, or two men and one woman is deeply hypocritical.[/quote]

True but society is often quite hypocritical with plenty of ambigious double standards. Maybe in 10 years Gays will be allowed to marry because society tolerates it and perhaps in another few decaced 10 people could all marry eachother.

The one thing that has always gotten me is the sanctity of marriage bit. Marriage was originally a government creation then it became church run and in america it again fell under the government's control. Yet people seem to insist that there is a sanctity to it, some sort of holly aura in a quite mechanical process regulated by the government

I find it equally odd that so many people run around claiming we must protect the sanctity of marriage by declaring that marriage is a union between a man and a women yet I never hear them saying marriage must be a union between 1 man and 1 women, I suppose they mean to imply it but you'd really think while they are off banning gay marriage they'd ban the poligamists too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top