|
On June 28 2010 17:41 Severedevil wrote:
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.
You are recalling wrong. A woman aged 44 has around an 8% chance of conceiving a child with general birth defects. Down Syndrome is the most common birth defect in children to older mothers, and a woman aged 45 has a around a 4% chance of this occurring. These figures are significantly lower than the minimal estimate of a 25% chance of birth defects shared between sibling couples or parent/child couples.
The main damage actually comes from shared mutations due to common ancestry.
|
On June 28 2010 18:04 Severedevil wrote:
Considering the things we think are OK to do to animals (abandon them, train them for violence through systematic abuse, kill them, kill and eat them, lock them inside for their entire lives, cut their balls off, make them fuck each other) I've never understand why sexing them up would be on the "Not OK" list.
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.
There are laws against that (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty_to_animals)
|
On June 28 2010 18:05 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Excuse me, eugenics has to do with selective breeding and altering the gene pool. What part of "gays not being able to reproduce" don't you understand? Eugenics has nothing to do with gay marriage.
If you want to talk about an environmental aspect only, perhaps you would have been wise in using the term euthenics.
And since when does gay marriage have anything to do with adopting children?
|
|
|
Where's the "I couldn't care either way" button?
|
Gay people can live together no problem. get up the required laws etc to make this happen
If the religion they are marrying under accepts it or not, is another story and is their right to deny.
And no, they should not be able to adopt.
|
The argument about same sex marriage is hilarious because both sides are arguing different things. Supporters of it are arguing that gay people should have all the same rights as straight people, and opposer's are generally arguing that it goes against Christianity to allow it.
When heterosexual people get married they are entitled to a religious ceremony because the church agrees with what they're doing even though they are not followers of the religion. Homosexuals do not have these entitlements because Christianity does not allow it, so it's actually totally reasonable that they aren't allowed to get married in the same way as heterosexual couples.
Most heterosexual couples who have no religious beliefs don't believe that they are taking part in a holy union and just treat their marriage as a civil partnership. Homosexual couples dislike the idea that they have to get a civil union even though that is essentially what they are doing.
So the argument goes round in a circle and both sides are correct.
|
The day gays can adopt and marry will be a huge step forward against homophobia.
If you claim that it is not good for a child to have a gay couple as parents, you are implicetely saying that somehow, it is not very "normal" or very "good" to be gay. Somehow, a country which doesn't allow gays to marry and adopt has written, implicitely, in his law code that being gay is bad, a way or another.
Anyway, I'm really happy for Iceland. In France... We can still hope, but it is not our right wing government which will make such step.
|
United States12607 Posts
On June 28 2010 20:01 Piy wrote:
The argument about same sex marriage is hilarious because both sides are arguing different things. Supporters of it are arguing that gay people should have all the same rights as straight people, and opposer's are generally arguing that it goes against Christianity to allow it.
When heterosexual people get married they are entitled to a religious ceremony because the church agrees with what they're doing even though they are not followers of the religion. Homosexuals do not have these entitlements because Christianity does not allow it, so it's actually totally reasonable that they aren't allowed to get married in the same way as heterosexual couples.
Most heterosexual couples who have no religious beliefs don't believe that they are taking part in a holy union and just treat their marriage as a civil partnership. Homosexual couples dislike the idea that they have to get a civil union even though that is essentially what they are doing.
So the argument goes round in a circle and both sides are correct.
Sorry, but this post is very uninformed. Opposers of gay marriage are not merely arguing that it is anathema to their religion to allow gay people to marry, but that the government should not recognize gay marriages for a variety of (misguided) cultural, political, and social reasons. In fact that's the entire brunt of the debate. If the opposition's only contention was "it's against Christianity" then this would be pretty simple, wouldn't it be? Separation of church and state wins out easily.
Furthermore you are way, way off the mark saying that "Christianity does not allow homosexuals to marry". Many churches across the US are marrying gays, individual churches have been a hub of gay rights activism, and actually I know of at least one entire church (the Episcopalian) that has thrown its weight behind the gay rights movement.
And do you really believe that nonreligious heterosexual couples treat their relationship as any less meaningful or significant than the marriage that Christians enjoy? To differentiate between those in a "civil union" and those that are "married" based purely on religious belief is to lose sight of the meaning of marriage today. Religion and marriage are intertwined but you can absolutely have one without the other!
|
On June 28 2010 18:05 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 17:41 Severedevil wrote:
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. You are recalling wrong. A woman aged 44 has around an 8% chance of conceiving a child with general birth defects. Down Syndrome is the most common birth defect in children to older mothers, and a woman aged 45 has a around a 4% chance of this occurring. These figures are significantly lower than the minimal estimate of a 25% chance of birth defects shared between sibling couples or parent/child couples. The main damage actually comes from shared mutations due to common ancestry.
Minimal estimate of 25%? Where are you getting those figures from?
Sibling and parent/child offspring will statistically share 25% identical genome. Sharing identical genome =/= birth defects.
Statistical evidence shows the risk for birth defects in first cousin couples to be around 4% (about 2% higher than normal). Their offspring, however, should share 6.25% of the same genome.
Anyway. I don't really think there's any statistical data available to settle this. Though, it's probably safe to say sibling and parent/child offspring will suffer a significantly higher risk of being born with birth defects than children of 40+ y.o mothers.
|
Oh come on, incest and homosexuality problems have nothing to do with each others.
Both are problems of social norms. You don't need to hold a PhD in sciology to know that incest is something implicitely prohibited today in our society, and that there is no way it should change anytime soon. For many great intellectuals, such as Levi Strauss or for psychoanalysis, the prohibition of incest is a taboo necessary to any structured society.
Prohibition of homosexuality, on the other hand, is not a norm anymore.
The question is not wether we should abolish all social norms, it doesn't even mean anything. The problem is what do we do with the case of homosexuality which is a norm "in between".
|
On June 28 2010 21:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Oh come on, incest and homosexuality problems have nothing to do with each others.
Both are problems of social norms. You don't need to hold a PhD in sciology to know that incest is something implicitely prohibited today in our society, and that there is no way it should change anytime soon. For many great intellectuals, such as Levi Strauss or for psychoanalysis, the prohibition of incest is a taboo necessary to any structured society.
Prohibition of homosexuality, on the other hand, is not a norm anymore.
The question is not wether we should abolish all social norms, it doesn't even mean anything. The problem is what do we do with the case of homosexuality which is a norm "in between".
What is the between homosexuality and polygamy? Only the number of partners right? So I say polygamy is next to be promoted to be legalized and if you are against it you are bigoted right?
But seriously, this is the reason the government needs to get out of the issue. If the public wants to argue, then let them argue. The government should have no say.
|
On June 28 2010 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The day gays can adopt and marry will be a huge step forward against homophobia.
If you claim that it is not good for a child to have a gay couple as parents, you are implicetely saying that somehow, it is not very "normal" or very "good" to be gay. Somehow, a country which doesn't allow gays to marry and adopt has written, implicitely, in his law code that being gay is bad, a way or another.
Anyway, I'm really happy for Iceland. In France... We can still hope, but it is not our right wing government which will make such step.
Really well said. Simple and correct. I can't see Australia legalising it anytime soon either, even with the most left-wing government we've had in years  . How is the general political outlook in France at the moment? Has there been a significant shift to the right in recent decades? It's happened here very strongly since the late 70's. Quite sad.
I loved the discussion between Mani and JWD as well.
On June 28 2010 14:21 Manifesto7 wrote:
I don't know how to reconcile the maternal or paternal instincts in people who are not heterosexual. I guess I need to have more exposure to that kind of environment to better understand it.
I'm glad you said that you may just need more exposure. It doesn't sound like you're against gay adoption as such, just that you have some concerns.
On June 28 2010 15:47 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.
I think the same argument could be made for sterile couples. It seems like a horrible joke of nature to make some people sterile while still letting them retain all the normal parental instincts. Basically nature is pretty random, it doesn't get it all right.
|
Good for Iceland. That country apparently has less homophobes, hicks and bigots than my country!
|
On June 28 2010 21:10 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 21:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Oh come on, incest and homosexuality problems have nothing to do with each others.
Both are problems of social norms. You don't need to hold a PhD in sciology to know that incest is something implicitely prohibited today in our society, and that there is no way it should change anytime soon. For many great intellectuals, such as Levi Strauss or for psychoanalysis, the prohibition of incest is a taboo necessary to any structured society.
Prohibition of homosexuality, on the other hand, is not a norm anymore.
The question is not wether we should abolish all social norms, it doesn't even mean anything. The problem is what do we do with the case of homosexuality which is a norm "in between". What is the between homosexuality and polygamy? Only the number of partners right? So I say polygamy is next to be promoted to be legalized and if you are against it you are bigoted right? But seriously, this is the reason the government needs to get out of the issue. If the public wants to argue, then let them argue. The government should have no say.
As everybody believes so firmly in democracy, the government is supposed to adapt to the way society goes.
I don't think it is a norm at all to have 3 wives in Western culture today. The real problem with all this is that basically the fact that homosexuals are not allowed to marry or to adopt means purely and simply that homosexuality is still not perceived as something normal. Which I find a bit sad.
On June 28 2010 21:11 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The day gays can adopt and marry will be a huge step forward against homophobia.
If you claim that it is not good for a child to have a gay couple as parents, you are implicetely saying that somehow, it is not very "normal" or very "good" to be gay. Somehow, a country which doesn't allow gays to marry and adopt has written, implicitely, in his law code that being gay is bad, a way or another.
Anyway, I'm really happy for Iceland. In France... We can still hope, but it is not our right wing government which will make such step. Really well said. Simple and correct. I can't see Australia legalising it anytime soon either, even with the most left-wing government we've had in years . How is the general political outlook in France at the moment? Has there been a significant shift to the right in recent decades? It's happened here very strongly since the late 70's. Quite sad.
France is a very ambiguous country. It is a revolutionary place with a strong tradition of social struggle and defiance against the authority. In the other hand, it is a very conservative, boring and repressive country.
Theses days, the conservative side is much stronger. Thirty years ago, we would have been the first people on earth to fight for gay marriage and adoption, but it's really not the case today. It will come, soon or late though, also because it is not a machist country. Probably next left wing government.
|
On June 28 2010 16:19 koreasilver wrote:
I don't understand why the ability to procreate must be such a fundamental part of nurturing a child. There is nothing lesser about raising a child that is not of your blood. hormones, like oxytocin for example? im no biologist, but thats one that came to mind.
|
I can think of a reason why I don't want same sex marriage.
For the god dam kids!!!
I personally believe that the environment plays a large role in the way a child develops.
I do not want to be walking down the street to the park and seeing two gay guys making out on the bench in front of my kid! What has this world come to? Blurrying every line in existent because it's more "open-minded." Think of the consequence!!
Next it'll be ok to marry your dog since it doesn't affect anyone else except for you.
|
United States12607 Posts
unfortunately TunaFishyMe's post captures a common conception of homosexuality and the effects of allowing gay marriage.
|
Marriage is so useless I'm happy gays in Iceland can do it too. 
I mean, i don't know why gay marriage - especially in France - isn't legalized more often. I live in a secular state, and it's not done yet. Come on ! I hope those conservative dudes will leave the government one day or other.
|
On June 28 2010 20:30 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 20:01 Piy wrote:
The argument about same sex marriage is hilarious because both sides are arguing different things. Supporters of it are arguing that gay people should have all the same rights as straight people, and opposer's are generally arguing that it goes against Christianity to allow it.
When heterosexual people get married they are entitled to a religious ceremony because the church agrees with what they're doing even though they are not followers of the religion. Homosexuals do not have these entitlements because Christianity does not allow it, so it's actually totally reasonable that they aren't allowed to get married in the same way as heterosexual couples.
Most heterosexual couples who have no religious beliefs don't believe that they are taking part in a holy union and just treat their marriage as a civil partnership. Homosexual couples dislike the idea that they have to get a civil union even though that is essentially what they are doing.
So the argument goes round in a circle and both sides are correct. Sorry, but this post is very uninformed. Opposers of gay marriage are not merely arguing that it is anathema to their religion to allow gay people to marry, but that the government should not recognize gay marriages for a variety of (misguided) cultural, political, and social reasons. In fact that's the entire brunt of the debate. If the opposition's only contention was "it's against Christianity" then this would be pretty simple, wouldn't it be? Separation of church and state wins out easily. Furthermore you are way, way off the mark saying that "Christianity does not allow homosexuals to marry". Many churches across the US are marrying gays, individual churches have been a hub of gay rights activism, and actually I know of at least one entire church (the Episcopalian) that has thrown its weight behind the gay rights movement. And do you really believe that nonreligious heterosexual couples treat their relationship as any less meaningful or significant than the marriage that Christians enjoy? To differentiate between those in a "civil union" and those that are "married" based purely on religious belief is to lose sight of the meaning of marriage today. Religion and marriage are intertwined but you can absolutely have one without the other!
Well maybe in America.
Most people I know in UK treat marriage in the same way as a civil union unless they are religious. The problem is that people use the terms religious and civil meanings interchangeably without understanding that they are doing so. This is what breeds this conflict over the issue.
The huge opposition to same sex marriage in any country is from the religious right, or those with largely right wing conservative beliefs. I assume it's the same in America. A large percentage of these people oppose gay-marriage because of predominantly religious reasons.
Also Christianity doesn't only not allow gays to marry, it actually carries some pretty nasty consequences if you ever even harbor homosexual thoughts (flick through to the last bit, or any of the old testament. Fire and Stones are the operative terms I believe).
I would argue that the social stigma associated with Homosexual activity stems entirely from the residue of religious belief that is still present in the minds of the average citizen, even those unaffiliated with a religion.
And no I don't believe that non religious couples treat it as any less meaningful. If you read my post you'll see that was the whole point of my argument. A civil partnership [b]is[/b] a marriage if you aren't religious, it's just a different name.
Also strange is that you end up summing up one side of my argument. Marriage can be extricated from religion in the form of a civil partnership, but marriage cannot be extricated from religion if you yourself are religious, not without ignoring some pretty significant chunks of the bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
