24

Pages:
1
…
4
5
6
…
11

24
Tweet Topic Started: Jul 9 2011, 09:09 PM (4,100 Views)
_Saladin_	Jul 19 2011, 10:58 AM Post #121
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	If they get the same benefits, then why call it something different? That's just disrespectful. It implies segregation.



DragonLegend	Jul 19 2011, 11:25 AM Post #122
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Hyperactive Jam Jul 19 2011, 04:15 AM There are legitimate, but trivial differences. Most of what we would call gender role is cultural. It is a spectrum with some men being very effeminate and some women being very 'macho', which is my preference. Trivial in what way? There are no major physical and mental differences between the two genders? And I said gender, not gender role. Quote: Imagine 10 people with joint insurance. The laws and benefits, which are more than 1000, are designed for two people. Okay, what about a two or three spouse limit? Or if you insist on monogamy, how about, say, a mother and her [adult] daughter? Quote: The word marriage has meaning to people. Gay marriage is marriage in every meaningful sense of the word. Marriage does have meaning to people. And to most people it's "Joe and Jane", not "Charles and Harry." Here's what befuddles me: It's already legal for any person to marry anyone or anything they want. No one would be prosecuted for marrying a toaster, homosexual loved one, or anything. And most people support giving homosexuals civil unions, so they can have the same benefits as married heterosexuals. So, homosexuals can marry and have marriage's legal benefits. Why is this not enough? Why must society be forced to accept their relationships/marriages as entirely the same as heterosexuals ones?



DragonLegend	Jul 19 2011, 11:27 AM Post #123
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	_Saladin_ Jul 19 2011, 10:58 AM If they get the same benefits, then why call it something different? That's just disrespectful. It implies segregation. It means "different but legally equal." Most people consider marriage a union between a man and a woman. Edited by DragonLegend, Jul 19 2011, 11:29 AM.



_Saladin_	Jul 19 2011, 01:13 PM Post #124
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	Separate but equal almost never works. Separation in this case will carry negative connotations.



gs	Jul 19 2011, 01:32 PM Post #125
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	DragonLegend Jul 19 2011, 10:41 AM gs Jul 18 2011, 12:47 PM DragonLegend Jul 18 2011, 02:53 AM gs Jul 16 2011, 08:48 PM DragonLegend Jul 16 2011, 07:20 PM And that is where we disagree. Why should the government recognize their marriage? i personally don't think the government should be 'recognizing' anyone's marriage, but if they insist on doing so why not gay marriage too? it's a sexual/love bond between 2 people that isn't illegal, why should their official bonding be illegal? I agree the government shouldn't recognize any marriage. But marriage recognition isn't a right, or a necessary function of the government, so it should be almost entirely left to the people to decide whether to do it or not. If people want their government to recognize gay marriage, fine by me. New York just did it, for example, and most New Yorkers approve of it. then where do we disagree The recognition of incestuous marriage bit. well i looked it up and incest is actually illegal in most countries so we don't actually disagree there either



DragonLegend	Jul 19 2011, 02:10 PM Post #126
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	gs Jul 19 2011, 01:32 PM DragonLegend Jul 19 2011, 10:41 AM gs Jul 18 2011, 12:47 PM DragonLegend Jul 18 2011, 02:53 AM gs Jul 16 2011, 08:48 PM DragonLegend Jul 16 2011, 07:20 PM And that is where we disagree. Why should the government recognize their marriage? i personally don't think the government should be 'recognizing' anyone's marriage, but if they insist on doing so why not gay marriage too? it's a sexual/love bond between 2 people that isn't illegal, why should their official bonding be illegal? I agree the government shouldn't recognize any marriage. But marriage recognition isn't a right, or a necessary function of the government, so it should be almost entirely left to the people to decide whether to do it or not. If people want their government to recognize gay marriage, fine by me. New York just did it, for example, and most New Yorkers approve of it. then where do we disagree The recognition of incestuous marriage bit. well i looked it up and incest is actually illegal in most countries so we don't actually disagree there either I meant, if it were legal. Homosexuality used to be illegal, too.



DragonLegend	Jul 19 2011, 02:12 PM Post #127
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	_Saladin_ Jul 19 2011, 01:13 PM Separate but equal almost never works. Separation in this case will carry negative connotations. But them's the facts. Most people don't consider gay marriage real marriage. The concept is nonsensical to them.



gs	Jul 19 2011, 02:16 PM Post #128
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	lol the difference is that incest is illegal right now, and actually for a reason other than people's stupidity.



DragonLegend	Jul 19 2011, 02:26 PM Post #129
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	There's no reason why adult, sane (relatively speaking...) human beings can't have consensual sexual relations with close family members other than big government nanny-statism.



gs	Jul 19 2011, 03:20 PM Post #130
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	or maybe the odds of retarded babies



_Saladin_	Jul 19 2011, 03:20 PM Post #131
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	DragonLegend Jul 19 2011, 02:12 PM _Saladin_ Jul 19 2011, 01:13 PM Separate but equal almost never works. Separation in this case will carry negative connotations. But them's the facts. Most people don't consider gay marriage real marriage. The concept is nonsensical to them. That fact is irrelevant. Most people didn't consider blacks people either at one point.



DragonLegend	Jul 19 2011, 05:31 PM Post #132
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	gs Jul 19 2011, 03:20 PM or maybe the odds of retarded babies The chances for abnormalities exist for everyone, and increase significantly as women age. Should older women be banned from having children? What about people with diabetes or other hereditary diseases?



DragonLegend	Jul 19 2011, 05:34 PM Post #133
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	_Saladin_ Jul 19 2011, 03:20 PM DragonLegend Jul 19 2011, 02:12 PM _Saladin_ Jul 19 2011, 01:13 PM Separate but equal almost never works. Separation in this case will carry negative connotations. But them's the facts. Most people don't consider gay marriage real marriage. The concept is nonsensical to them. That fact is irrelevant. Most people didn't consider blacks people either at one point. When people decide to change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, gay marriage will happen. It's not like government recognition of marriage is a right.



_Saladin_	Jul 19 2011, 06:45 PM Post #134
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	So? Does that mean gay marriage shouldn't be allowed? You subtly keep dodging my point that just because people have a definition of marriage, doesn't mean that gay marriage shouldn't be legal and called marriage.



Incog	Jul 19 2011, 06:46 PM Post #135
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	DragonLegend Jul 19 2011, 05:31 PM gs Jul 19 2011, 03:20 PM or maybe the odds of retarded babies The chances for abnormalities exist for everyone, and increase significantly as women age. Should older women be banned from having children? What about people with diabetes or other hereditary diseases? Except that incest will make abnormal children.
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


DragonLegend	Jul 20 2011, 04:03 AM Post #136
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	_Saladin_ Jul 19 2011, 06:45 PM So? Does that mean gay marriage shouldn't be allowed? You subtly keep dodging my point that just because people have a definition of marriage, doesn't mean that gay marriage shouldn't be legal and called marriage. I didn't dodge it. I've said repeatedly that unless something is an actual function of the government, it should be left to the people to decide whether to do it or not. Most people think marriage is between a man and a woman. Society, not the government, says what marriage is.



DragonLegend	Jul 20 2011, 04:19 AM Post #137
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Incog Jul 19 2011, 06:46 PM DragonLegend Jul 19 2011, 05:31 PM gs Jul 19 2011, 03:20 PM or maybe the odds of retarded babies The chances for abnormalities exist for everyone, and increase significantly as women age. Should older women be banned from having children? What about people with diabetes or other hereditary diseases? Except that incest will make abnormal children. A mother/daughter couple can't make children, and neither can father/son, brother/brother, sister/sister, etc. couples. And what about people with hereditary diseases, such as diabetes? Should they be banned from having sex? As you can see, there's no good reason to legally disallow incest, from a liberty perspective. Legality ≠ morality. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's moral or legitimate.



Incog	Jul 20 2011, 07:41 AM Post #138
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	If mother/son is illegal then why should mother/daughter be legal?
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


DragonLegend	Jul 20 2011, 11:51 AM Post #139
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Neither should be illegal. As I said, it's despicable, but immorality isn't a reason to legally ban something.



Incog	Jul 20 2011, 12:03 PM Post #140
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	So legalise murder?
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


DragonLegend	Jul 20 2011, 12:41 PM Post #141
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Murder is a violation of another person's right to life. What and whose rights does a consensual mother/daughter relationship violate?



Incog	Jul 20 2011, 12:54 PM Post #142
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	Ah so that's the difference.
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


_Saladin_	Jul 20 2011, 03:33 PM Post #143
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	DragonLegend Jul 20 2011, 04:03 AM _Saladin_ Jul 19 2011, 06:45 PM So? Does that mean gay marriage shouldn't be allowed? You subtly keep dodging my point that just because people have a definition of marriage, doesn't mean that gay marriage shouldn't be legal and called marriage. I didn't dodge it. I've said repeatedly that unless something is an actual function of the government, it should be left to the people to decide whether to do it or not. Most people think marriage is between a man and a woman. Society, not the government, says what marriage is. The government has already allowed people to get married even though it's not their function to do so. Why should it discriminate because a lot of people define marriage differently? Just because the majority disagrees, doesn't mean they're right.



_Saladin_	Jul 20 2011, 03:39 PM Post #144
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	DragonLegend Jul 20 2011, 04:19 AM Incog Jul 19 2011, 06:46 PM DragonLegend Jul 19 2011, 05:31 PM gs Jul 19 2011, 03:20 PM or maybe the odds of retarded babies The chances for abnormalities exist for everyone, and increase significantly as women age. Should older women be banned from having children? What about people with diabetes or other hereditary diseases? Except that incest will make abnormal children. A mother/daughter couple can't make children, and neither can father/son, brother/brother, sister/sister, etc. couples. And what about people with hereditary diseases, such as diabetes? Should they be banned from having sex? As you can see, there's no good reason to legally disallow incest, from a liberty perspective. Legality ≠ morality. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's moral or legitimate. There is a good reason to ban incest. It's the same reason student teacher relationships are banned and minor-adult relationships are banned. There is no reasonable claim that the son or daughter can give consent. The parent is an authority figure just like the teacher, even more so actually. In fact, anyone in your family can be considered an authority figure. Familial pressure is incredibly strong. Family members are incapable of giving consent to each other for this reason.



DragonLegend	Jul 20 2011, 06:23 PM Post #145
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	_Saladin_ Jul 20 2011, 03:33 PM DragonLegend Jul 20 2011, 04:03 AM _Saladin_ Jul 19 2011, 06:45 PM So? Does that mean gay marriage shouldn't be allowed? You subtly keep dodging my point that just because people have a definition of marriage, doesn't mean that gay marriage shouldn't be legal and called marriage. I didn't dodge it. I've said repeatedly that unless something is an actual function of the government, it should be left to the people to decide whether to do it or not. Most people think marriage is between a man and a woman. Society, not the government, says what marriage is. The government has already allowed people to get married even though it's not their function to do so. Yes... because they have the consent of the majority of the people.



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Jul 20 2011, 06:31 PM Post #146
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	DragonLegend Jul 20 2011, 11:51 AM Neither should be illegal. As I said, it's despicable, but immorality isn't a reason to legally ban something. This is really just a matter of perspective; 200 years ago, a great number of countries carried the death penalty for sodomy, so anal sex was essentially illegal. Of course, it's much to the contrary now, but that's only because perspectives have evolved; not because liberalism has grown more pronounced. Is there any rational reason to rendering sodomy impermissible? It's just a sexual practice.
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


DragonLegend	Jul 20 2011, 07:04 PM Post #147
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	_Saladin_ Jul 20 2011, 03:39 PM DragonLegend Jul 20 2011, 04:19 AM Incog Jul 19 2011, 06:46 PM DragonLegend Jul 19 2011, 05:31 PM gs Jul 19 2011, 03:20 PM or maybe the odds of retarded babies The chances for abnormalities exist for everyone, and increase significantly as women age. Should older women be banned from having children? What about people with diabetes or other hereditary diseases? Except that incest will make abnormal children. A mother/daughter couple can't make children, and neither can father/son, brother/brother, sister/sister, etc. couples. And what about people with hereditary diseases, such as diabetes? Should they be banned from having sex? As you can see, there's no good reason to legally disallow incest, from a liberty perspective. Legality ≠ morality. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's moral or legitimate. There is a good reason to ban incest. It's the same reason student teacher relationships are banned and minor-adult relationships are banned. There is no reasonable claim that the son or daughter can give consent. The parent is an authority figure just like the teacher, even more so actually. In fact, anyone in your family can be considered an authority figure. Familial pressure is incredibly strong. Family members are incapable of giving consent to each other for this reason. That is entirely your opinion. Adults are capable of making their own sexual decisions and don't need the government to tell them who they can or can't bang. Edited by DragonLegend, Jul 20 2011, 07:05 PM.



_Saladin_	Jul 21 2011, 03:32 PM Post #148
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	DragonLegend Jul 20 2011, 07:04 PM _Saladin_ Jul 20 2011, 03:39 PM DragonLegend Jul 20 2011, 04:19 AM Incog Jul 19 2011, 06:46 PM DragonLegend Jul 19 2011, 05:31 PM gs Jul 19 2011, 03:20 PM or maybe the odds of retarded babies The chances for abnormalities exist for everyone, and increase significantly as women age. Should older women be banned from having children? What about people with diabetes or other hereditary diseases? Except that incest will make abnormal children. A mother/daughter couple can't make children, and neither can father/son, brother/brother, sister/sister, etc. couples. And what about people with hereditary diseases, such as diabetes? Should they be banned from having sex? As you can see, there's no good reason to legally disallow incest, from a liberty perspective. Legality ≠ morality. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's moral or legitimate. There is a good reason to ban incest. It's the same reason student teacher relationships are banned and minor-adult relationships are banned. There is no reasonable claim that the son or daughter can give consent. The parent is an authority figure just like the teacher, even more so actually. In fact, anyone in your family can be considered an authority figure. Familial pressure is incredibly strong. Family members are incapable of giving consent to each other for this reason. That is entirely your opinion. Adults are capable of making their own sexual decisions and don't need the government to tell them who they can or can't bang. What? That is not just my opinion, I already compared it with analogous laws. People in a position of direct authority over you have incredible influence and can make you do things simply because of the pressure of their power. How is this opinion? Unless you're trying to tell me that your parents don't have power over you.



_Saladin_	Jul 21 2011, 03:34 PM Post #149
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	DragonLegend Jul 20 2011, 06:23 PM _Saladin_ Jul 20 2011, 03:33 PM DragonLegend Jul 20 2011, 04:03 AM _Saladin_ Jul 19 2011, 06:45 PM So? Does that mean gay marriage shouldn't be allowed? You subtly keep dodging my point that just because people have a definition of marriage, doesn't mean that gay marriage shouldn't be legal and called marriage. I didn't dodge it. I've said repeatedly that unless something is an actual function of the government, it should be left to the people to decide whether to do it or not. Most people think marriage is between a man and a woman. Society, not the government, says what marriage is. The government has already allowed people to get married even though it's not their function to do so. Yes... because they have the consent of the majority of the people. So it's ok for them to do things that isn't their function as long as most people agree? What kind of logic is that?



Vondongo	Jul 21 2011, 07:25 PM Post #150
Moo. Posts: 5,434 Group: Member Member #130 Joined: October 15, 2008



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General chat · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
4
5
6
…
11