| Blogs > Alou |
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On June 28 2010 16:14 omninmo wrote: if you legalize gay marriage then you have to legalize incest User was temp banned for this post. Funnily enough, most states already allow marriage between cousins. If I remember correctly, Florida allows first cousin marriages and there are no laws against bestiality... but gay marriage is constitutionally banned. | ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
On June 28 2010 16:04 Manifesto7 wrote: What I can't reconcile is that people would want to have children and nurture them, but not want to (or be able to) exist in a relationship were children are the result of that relationship. Is it just nature's cruel joke to make gay people, give them the same paternal urges as straight people, then point and laugh? That seems pretty unfortunate. Well I'm going to assume that this is what you mean with the "paternal and maternal feelings of a homosexual". And yes, it is nature's cruel joke towards gay people. Although they technically aren't able to have kids, the theorized purpose of homosexuals from an evolutionary standpoint is to help pass on the genes of their relatives--and this is through sharing ''parental'' responsibilities with relatives because of their inability to naturally conceive their own children. It's what's known as "kin selection" and the wikipedia entry sums it up nicely: Some organisms tend to exhibit strategies that favor the reproductive success of their relatives, even at a cost to their own survival and/or reproduction. The classic example is a eusocial insect colony, with sterile females acting as workers to assist their mother in the production of additional offspring. Many evolutionary biologists explain this by the theory of kin selection. There are actually even studies showing that the female relatives of gay men also happen to be more fecund, which accounts for gays not having children, and would help to further cement the theory that this is an alternative, albeit less common, strategy of passing on one's genes. So yes, you could even make the argument that gay couples would probably have more of an urge to take care of children other than their own. | ||
|
Pathology
Canada132 Posts
| ||
|
RisingTide
Australia769 Posts
On June 28 2010 16:04 Manifesto7 wrote: What I can't reconcile is that people would want to have children and nurture them, but not want to (or be able to) exist in a relationship were children are the result of that relationship. Is it just nature's cruel joke to make gay people, give them the same paternal urges as straight people, then point and laugh? That seems pretty unfortunate. The way I view this is that gay couples are no different to couples who can't reproduce for biological reason, such as impotency. Being unable to have children doesn't take away the urge to, and parental instincts exist regardless of if the child is biologically theirs or not. If nature is playing a cruel joke on gay people then it's also a joke on straight but impotent people. Things like adoption allow for couple who otherwise can't have kids to take care of children who would otherwise grow up in orphanages or raised by crackheads, and like someone above mentioned, there is a vastly underused proportion of the population whose parental instincts are going to waste because they are gay. | ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
On June 28 2010 16:14 omninmo wrote: if you legalize gay marriage then you have to legalize incest User was temp banned for this post. There are many biological mechanisms which try and reduce incest between humans for one particular reason: it can cause many genetic defects. Allowing two adults of the same sex to marry doesn't create the chance that a child will be brought into this world with genetic defects. | ||
|
defenestrate
United States579 Posts
On June 28 2010 16:28 Masamune wrote: There are many biological mechanisms which try and reduce incest between humans for one particular reason: it can cause many genetic defects. Allowing two adults of the same sex to marry doesn't create the chance that a child will be brought into this world with genetic defects. But what about gay incest? | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On June 28 2010 16:28 Masamune wrote: There are many biological mechanisms which try and reduce incest between humans for one particular reason: it can cause many genetic defects. Allowing two adults of the same sex to marry doesn't create the chance that a child will be brought into this world with genetic defects. Eugenics won't last, i have to agree on the slippery slope argument. Once gay marriage is legalized, other types of marriages will be discussed. Polygamy, incest, group marriage, etc will come into question. A theory i have is that the mormon church is intentionally forcing the issue on gay marriage in order to promote polygamy. Eventually I think this will force the issue on the legislation of marriage as a whole and hopefully the government decides that it is not smart enough to know what the definition is. :p | ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
But allowing incest introduces the risk of bringing genetically mutated people into this world without their consent, and that's a bit concerning to me. If you allow incest, then whose to say that it's wrong of a person to drink alcohol or smoke while pregnant. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and gay marriage is well before that mark. | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On June 28 2010 16:46 Masamune wrote: omninmo's comment was that if you legalized gay marriage, then you'd have to legalize incest. Those are two different things. The marriage of close relatives is a slippery slope, I agree. But allowing incest introduces the risk of bringing genetically mutated people into this world without their consent, and that's a bit concerning to me. If you allow incest, then whose to say that it's wrong of a person to drink alcohol or smoke while pregnant. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and gay marriage is well before that mark. Well, it stems from the idea that gay people shouldn't be discriminated against because of their sexual preferences. However, it has been shown that gay sex is very dangerous health risk. So the eugenics argument against homosexual marriage is ignored, yet at the same time, incest marriage or polygamous marriage also has health risks and they would claim they also have a right and they say the eugenics argument is also invalid. The question then becomes, at what point does marriage end? Today its between a man and a woman, tomorrow its between two people who are not related, next year its between three or more people, the year after its between family members, the year after it includes communes. Redefining it begs the question as to the correct definition. My argument is that its impossible to define by a single person and that government should not be responsible for defining it at all. ( | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6342 Posts
On June 28 2010 16:28 Masamune wrote: There are many biological mechanisms which try and reduce incest between humans for one particular reason: it can cause many genetic defects. Allowing two adults of the same sex to marry doesn't create the chance that a child will be brought into this world with genetic defects. Cousin couples have just 2 percent more of a chance of having children with birth defect as compared to unrelated couples, so I guess it's not that much of a problem... In the end every argument that pro-gay marriage lobbies use can also be used to support polygamy. If marriage by it's definition is a union between 'two people' and 'a man and a woman'. How can you say that the 'man and a woman' part is flawed and not the 'two people' part? Who's to say later that 'marriage' can't be between a woman and a dog/cat (bestiality). If you let a man marry a dog... incest marriages don't seem that wrong, do they? EDIT: just realized darmousseh beat me to it  | ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
On June 28 2010 16:46 Masamune wrote: omninmo's comment was that if you legalized gay marriage, then you'd have to legalize incest. Those are two different things. The marriage of close relatives is a slippery slope, I agree. But allowing incest introduces the risk of bringing genetically mutated people into this world without their consent, and that's a bit concerning to me. If you allow incest, then whose to say that it's wrong of a person to drink alcohol or smoke while pregnant. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and gay marriage is well before that mark. Read the bold. As I said above, incestuous marriage is more of a slippery slope. Also, I'm failing to see what eugenics has to do with gay marriage. However, it has been shown that gay sex is very dangerous health risk Heterosexuals also have anal sex, so you could apply this to them as well. In fact, anal sex is not as common among homosexuals as you would think, and some researchers even believe that its prevalence is higher among heterosexual couples. | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
On June 28 2010 17:13 fox[tail] wrote: Cousin couples have just 2 percent more of a chance of having children with birth defect as compared to unrelated couples, so I guess it's not that much of a problem... In the end every argument that pro-gay marriage lobbies use can also be used to support polygamy. If marriage by it's definition is a union between 'two people' and 'a man and a woman'. How can you say that the 'man and a woman' part is flawed and not the 'two people' part? Who's to say later that 'marriage' can't be between a woman and a dog/cat (bestiality). If you let a man marry a dog... incest marriages don't seem that wrong, do they? Um.... first of all you can't marry a dog because the dog doesn't give consensual agreement . Not only that, but if you wanted to have intercourse with a dog.... that's just frickin creepy. Also, marriage is first and foremost a religious sacrament, and alot of the reasons I know people are against same-sex marriage is not because they're homophobic or something, but that it's intruding upon the religion of a man if he is to be forced to offer a marriage to a same-sex couple. So basically the counter argument to this would be that polygamy and same-sex marriage is against the Christian marriage, upon which "legal" marriages are based upon. That's why alot of bills especially offer not marriage, but civil unionis. This way, they, at least should, have the same rights as a marriage would offfer, but the priest/religious figure doesn't have to perform it. Anyway, just my opinion. | ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
On June 28 2010 17:13 fox[tail] wrote: Cousin couples have just 2 percent more of a chance of having children with birth defect as compared to unrelated couples, so I guess it's not that much of a problem... Sibling couples have just 25 percent more of a chance of having children with birth defect as compared to unrelated couples, so I guess it's not that much of a problem... | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On June 28 2010 17:24 Masamune wrote: Read the bold. As I said above, incestuous marriage is more of a slippery slope. Also, I'm failing to see what eugenics has to do with gay marriage. Heterosexuals also have anal sex, so you could apply this to them as well. In fact, anal sex is not as common among homosexuals as you would think, and some researchers even believe that its prevalence is higher among heterosexual couples. Eugenics in marriage has to do with the belief that environment and genes can adversely affect human development and that we should prevent certain types of marriage for medical purposes. Difference between marriage and gay marriage has to do with the the sex of the partners involved. Incest marriage has to do with the relation of the partners involved, polygamy has to do with the numbers involved. These questions will come up. | ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
| ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
On June 28 2010 13:49 Baloop wrote: Haha, my best buddy is living in Iceland right Now. hope he doesn't turn gay  If he does, you have to marry him. On June 28 2010 16:14 omninmo wrote: if you legalize gay marriage then you have to legalize buttsex Fixed. On June 28 2010 17:35 Masamune wrote: Sibling couples have just 25 percent more of a chance of having children with birth defect as compared to unrelated couples, so I guess it's not that much of a problem... It's not really a problem for the first-generation inbreds. (Having kids when you're past 35 is a greater risk of birth defects than incest, IIRC. Although presumably they stack.) The main damage comes from multiple generations of inbreeding. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6342 Posts
On June 28 2010 17:25 Pandain wrote: Um.... first of all you can't marry a dog because the dog doesn't give consensual agreement . Not only that, but if you wanted to have intercourse with a dog.... that's just frickin creepy. Also, marriage is first and foremost a religious sacrament, and alot of the reasons I know people are against same-sex marriage is not because they're homophobic or something, but that it's intruding upon the religion of a man if he is to be forced to offer a marriage to a same-sex couple. So basically the counter argument to this would be that polygamy and same-sex marriage is against the Christian marriage, upon which "legal" marriages are based upon. That's why alot of bills especially offer not marriage, but civil unionis. This way, they, at least should, have the same rights as a marriage would offfer, but the priest/religious figure doesn't have to perform it. Anyway, just my opinion. I remember watching an episode of Judge Judy a long time ago, and this couple was arguing who gets custody of a dog. Judy came up with the idea: 'let the dog chose', basically the dog would go to whichever 'parent' it loved most... Hey if that shit could pass in a court of television law why can't they use the same 'test' to see if the dog wants to get married? They only sexual 'bond' that i can think of now that could not require 'consent' in any way is necrophilia (unless a person gives consent before they die) I agree with you, marriage is a religious thing with a deeper meaning, maybe there should be a new word or union made up for homosexual, polygamist, incestuous or whatever is thought up of as needing rights next... Like: gayiagge or homoiagge | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
On June 28 2010 17:42 fox[tail] wrote: I remember watching an episode of Judge Judy a long time ago, and this couple was arguing who gets custody of a dog. Judy came up with the idea: 'let the dog chose', basically the dog would go to whichever 'parent' it loved most... Hey if that shit could pass in a court of television law why can't they use the same 'test' to see if the dog wants to get married? They only sexual 'bond' that i can think of now that could not require 'consent' in any way is necrophilia (unless a person gives consent before they die) I agree with you, marriage is a religious thing with a deeper meaning, maybe there should be a new word or union made up for homosexual, polygamist, incestuous or whatever is thought up of as needing rights next... Like: gayiagge or homoiagge Rofl the parent could have easily swayed the dog if they had scent of food. Such a test to "prove" who the dog loves most is futile, and could only have been thought of by Judge Judy. Ah Judge Judy, you make me laugh Also, I agree with Marmamuse(sp?). Could the involved person clarify on how eugenics is exactly involved in same-sex couples. On June 28 2010 14:40 JWD wrote: One more thing on this issue: "marriage" is something between two people and their church / family / the marrying institution. It's only the bundle of rights and privileges that come with marriage that are government business at all. Proposing that the government can control whether people marry is like proposing that the government can control whether my favorite color is green. The government might be able to deny me some rights if I say my favorite color is green, but no law is going to change the fact that I like green. Similarly no law is going to change the fact that gay couples are married, and believe they are married, when they undergo a certain ceremony / make a commitment / whatever. Put another way: you can't tell me that two people who commit to be together exclusively until the day they die (in a marriage ceremony) are "not married" simply because some elected dudes across the country said so. Any gay couple that's been married is married, the government can pretend they're not but that's farcical. The only real issues here are 1) will the government give that couple the rights a straight couple could have and 2) a purely cultural / political one: will the government sanction their marriage by referring to it as such. This is why "civil unions" (answering yes to question 1 but no to question 2) are unsatisfying: a "civil union" scheme says "ok gays, you can have your rights, but just as a fuck you to you guys, we're not going to call it marriage. ppbbbbbbbbtttt." Seems like a really low, unnecessary, purely animus-motivated blow to gays: simply refusing to acknowledge that they are married. Also in response to this, this is a well thought out argument but I see some problems with this. In the first paragraph, when saying that the governement can't say whether your favorite color is green, I'd say the government can say whatever it wants. The government just doesn't have the right to decide about this matter. Do you think the government has the right to order a priest to offer a religious function that goes against what his religion tells him to? No! Not everyone who is against same sex marriage is homophobic. You said that I can't tell you that two devoted same sex couples can't be denied the rights of marriage, but I can tell you they can be denied the right to have a marriage if having one goes against the religion of another man. That's why civil unions will afford them the same rights as a marriage, yet it doesn't count as a marriage. It's not a "really low, unncceary, purely animus-motivated blow to gays", its a way of guaranteeing the right to practice your religion. Is THAT really so bad? | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
This has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, nor does eugenics... but it wouldn't be the internet without accusations of bestiality and Nazism. | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On June 28 2010 17:40 Masamune wrote: Once again, how does eugenics have anything to do with gay marriage when gays can't have reproduce with each other? It includes environment when adopting children. | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL22 NKC (BSL vs China)
Jaystar vs Dewalt
eOnzErG vs TerrOr
XuanXuan vs Bonyth
Mihu vs Dewalt
Messiah vs Jaystar
eOnzErG vs Bonyth
TerrOr vs Dewalt
Wardi Open
OSC
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Replay Cast
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
