| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/17/2008 11:38:41 PM · #401 |
Why are you assuming that an incestuous relationship would (a) produce offspring and (b) produce offspring via a sexual relationship and not adoption? If you really want to go the brothers route, your argument is that sexual incestuous relationships produce genetic depression. Fine. Agreed. But if they want to adopt, then should the so called 'Liberty argument' now be allowed back into the picture?
Anyways, I do not hear about siblings or even cousins clamouring for the right to be legally married (as said by K10)
And PS, I'm not for brothers getting married |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 11:43:44 PM · #402 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Heh, you guys just aren't willing to follow the logical conclusion to the argument (actually I can't say that you two in particular ever used the Liberty argument to start with). Well, K10 now admits that he IS for allowing the brothers to get married. OK, that takes some guts to say, but I hear ya.
|
Classic mis-direction, and I thought about editing my post to avoid you going there, but I thought I'd see if you would. You did. Thank you for not disappointing me. I suppose now I have to get all angry and point out that I didn't say I was for OR against allowing it, but that I actually stated that I'd have that discussion when/if it ever became an issue. So, there, I'm all flustered now. Look at my red puffy face and bulging eyes.
You really are kind of getting desperate. I'm sorry.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2008 11:49:06 PM · #403 |
You keep saying I'm getting desperate, but I think you feel backed in a corner. If you want to leave the Liberty argument out of the conversation, we can leave this be, but I want to know the answer to the hypothetical question. It allows us to see potential contradictions in your position. If you don't want to answer that question directly, then answer this more sanitized version: "Do you feel that the liberties of two consenting adults can be limited by society if no harm is found by their action?"
Message edited by author 2008-10-17 23:49:23. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 11:49:57 PM · #404 |
Sure, let brothers get married.
But the difference with gay marriage is that the genie's out of the bottle. It ain't going back in.
You yourself have said that you don't want to discriminate against homosexuals, but your stance that marriage should exclude them does discriminate. It strongly implies that there is something wrong with homosexual erotic love, because it cannot be sanctified by your religion.
You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. The historical argument is ridiculous. There are historical arguments for slavery, for women being subservient to men, for monarchy, for imperialism, the list goes on. It's only recently and only in some parts of the world that marriage is considered a culmination of romantic love. It has no consistent history. History is there for us to learn from, not simply repeat. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 11:52:36 PM · #405 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Sure, let brothers get married.
But the difference with gay marriage is that the genie's out of the bottle. It ain't going back in.
|
I'm not sure I get what you mean Don. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 12:00:47 AM · #406 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... "Do you feel that the liberties of two consenting adults can be limited by society if no harm is found by their action?" |
No. Why should they? |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 12:02:38 AM · #407 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... "Do you feel that the liberties of two consenting adults can be limited by society if no harm is found by their action?" |
No. Why should they? |
So you are up for our brothers in love getting married and having all the legal rights that anybody else has and calling this marriage? |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 12:02:42 AM · #408 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You keep saying I'm getting desperate, but I think you feel backed in a corner. If you want to leave the Liberty argument out of the conversation, we can leave this be, but I want to know the answer to the hypothetical question. It allows us to see potential contradictions in your position. If you don't want to answer that question directly, then answer this more sanitized version: "Do you feel that the liberties of two consenting adults can be limited by society if no harm is found by their action?" |
I'm hardly backed into a corner. I mean, until your mention of it, the very idea of two brothers wanting to get married was alien to me. It never registered on my brain in any way. Now, mere hours later, I'm supposed to be some kind of expert on adult incestual relationships and have to give some kind of opinion one way or another to satisfy your super hypothetical urges? I think not. I'm not going to give snap opinions on an issue that is meant to be diverting. You might feel that you need an answer for whatever reason, but there are far too many factors to consider to give a blanket opinion. I'll reserve my judgments for when and if the issues come up in the society I find myself a part of. Right now, that is same-sex marriage, and on this point, I've said all I can.
Have fun from here on out. Peace. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 12:04:19 AM · #409 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Sure, let brothers get married.
But the difference with gay marriage is that the genie's out of the bottle. It ain't going back in.
|
I'm not sure I get what you mean Don. |
Sarah Palin cannot say publically that homosexuality is wrong. The American Psychiatric Association (or whatever it's called) no longer classifies homosexuality as a disorder. The idea that homosexuality is just something you're born with, not a perversion or a sin, is catching on. It's sinking in.
You used the brothers example because it's something that people feel a visceral disgust for. That same disgust is disappearing for homosexuality. There's simply too much of it going on, too many homosexuals out there being normal, decent people. It's actually very similar to the early centuries A.D., when accusations that Christians had orgies and virgin sacrifices started falling flat. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 12:04:53 AM · #410 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Have fun from here on out. Peace. |
Man, I scared him away! :( You can't even answer the philosophical question about limiting liberty? |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 12:05:24 AM · #411 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Have fun from here on out. Peace. |
Man, I scared him away! :( You can't even answer the philosophical question about limiting liberty? |
Nah, you bored me away. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 12:08:14 AM · #412 |
I hear ya, but your last line is actually backwards...
From an article about "How NOT to start an ancient religion"...
"This is not one of the greatest barriers, but it is a significant one, and of course still is today. Ethically, Christian religion is "hard to do". Judaism was as well, and that is one reason why there were so few God-fearers. Christianity didn't offer nice, drunken parties or orgies with temple prostitutes; in fact it forbade them. It didn't encourage wealth; it encouraged sharing the wealth. It didn't appeal to the senses, it promised "pie in the sky by and by." This was a problem in the ancient world as much as it is now -- if not more so."
I use the brothers example because I want to show there may be a limit to liberty after all...
Message edited by author 2008-10-18 00:09:18. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 12:09:52 AM · #413 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Have fun from here on out. Peace. |
Man, I scared him away! :( You can't even answer the philosophical question about limiting liberty? |
Nah, you bored me away. |
You don't think it would be exciting to answer the question, "Do you feel that the liberties of two consenting adults can be limited by society if no harm is found by their action?" |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 12:15:29 AM · #414 |
WIKI reference to ancient Roman & Greek gay marriages
"The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for the union of same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. The term, however, was rarely associated with same-sex relationships, even though the relationships themselves were common.[12] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared that same-sex marriage to be illegal.[13] In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public.[14]"
Complete with references. Sounds like this argument has been around for (at least) a couple thousand years. Isn't it about time to end it?
|
|
|
|
10/18/2008 12:16:48 AM · #415 |
[tongue-in-cheek] For your debate lesson of the day, let it be shown that most of the arguments opposed to my "brothers in love" dilemma are what we call "ad hominem". Wiki quotes: "An ad hominem argument consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
Instead of answering the question, K10 rather repeatedly referred to me as "desperate" and "boring".
We now return you to the debate.
[/tongue-in-cheek]
|
|
|
|
10/18/2008 12:17:29 AM · #416 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
WIKI reference to ancient Roman & Greek gay marriages
"The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for the union of same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. The term, however, was rarely associated with same-sex relationships, even though the relationships themselves were common.[12] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared that same-sex marriage to be illegal.[13] In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public.[14]"
Complete with references. Sounds like this argument has been around for (at least) a couple thousand years. Isn't it about time to end it? |
Sure, except it can be ended in two ways. ;) |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 12:20:40 AM · #417 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[tongue-in-cheek] For your debate lesson of the day, let it be shown that most of the arguments opposed to my "brothers in love" dilemma are what we call "ad hominem". Wiki quotes: "An ad hominem argument consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
Instead of answering the question, K10 rather repeatedly referred to me as "desperate" and "boring".
We now return you to the debate.
[/tongue-in-cheek] |
I answered it. I can't help that you won't accept an answer other than "yes" or "no".
*edit* Also, I personally only called you desperate once. Same with boring. What is the debate term for "twisting things to your own purpose"?
Message edited by author 2008-10-18 00:22:48. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 12:25:58 AM · #418 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, that's two people who are afraid to answer. |
The law can prohibit any siblings from marrying without discriminating on the basis of gender. It's inapplicable to the present situation.
You still don't seem to get the idea of full equality under the law. If Person A is legally entitled to marry, and Person B is legally entitled to marry, and they are not siblings (or first cousins or whatever restriction you care to make here), it is discriminatory to say that Persons A and B cannot marry each other solely on the basis of their gender. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 12:28:13 AM · #419 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, that's two people who are afraid to answer. |
The law can prohibit any siblings from marrying without discriminating on the basis of gender. It's inapplicable to the present situation.
You still don't seem to get the idea of full equality under the law. If Person A is legally entitled to marry, and Person B is legally entitled to marry, and they are not siblings (or first cousins or whatever restriction you care to make here), it is discriminatory to say that Persons A and B cannot marry each other solely on the basis of their gender. |
That's a bit circular. If the law can prohibit siblings from marrying then why can't it prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender? If you say it's unconstitutional, then you must assume that the 1996 DOMA is unconstitutional, which has never been shown. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 12:29:28 AM · #420 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
WIKI reference to ancient Roman & Greek gay marriages
"The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for the union of same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. The term, however, was rarely associated with same-sex relationships, even though the relationships themselves were common.[12] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared that same-sex marriage to be illegal.[13] In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public.[14]"
Complete with references. Sounds like this argument has been around for (at least) a couple thousand years. Isn't it about time to end it? |
One awesome thing about debates like this, it makes me look things up I'd never ever have looked up otherwise. Here's the quote from citation [12]. You tell me if you think it was viewed in a valid light...
From the Suetonius , Life of Nero:
"Besides abusing freeborn boys and seducing married women, he debauched the vestal virgin Rubria. The freedwoman Acte he all but made his lawful wife, after bribing some ex-consuls to perjure themselves by swearing that she was of royal birth. He castrated the boy Sporus and actually tried to make a woman of him; and he married him with all the usual ceremonies, including a dowry and a bridal veil, took him to his house attended by a great throng, and treated him as his wife. And the witty jest that someone made is still p133current, that it would have been well for the world if Nero's father Domitius had had that kind of wife. 2 This Sporus, decked out with the finery of the empresses and riding in a litter, he took with him to the assizes and marts of Greece, and later at Rome through the Street of the Images,84 fondly kissing him from time to time. That he even desired illicit relations with his own mother, and was kept from it by her enemies, who feared that such a help might give the reckless and insolent woman too great influence, was notorious, especially after he added to his concubines a courtesan who was said to look very like Agrippina. Even before that, so they say, whenever he rode in a litter with his mother, he had incestuous relations with her, which were betrayed by the stains on his clothing.
29 He so prostituted his own chastity that after defiling almost every part of his body, he at last devised a kind of game, in which, covered with the skin of some wild animal, he was let loose from a cage and attacked the private parts of men and women, who were bound to stakes, and when he had sated his mad lust, was dispatched85 by his freedman Doryphorus; for he was even married to this man in the same way that he himself had married Sporus, going so far as to imitate the cries and lamentations of a maiden being deflowered. I have heard from some men that it was his unshaken conviction that no man was chaste or pure in any part of his body, but that most of them concealed their vices and cleverly drew a veil over them; and that therefore he pardoned all other faults in those who confessed to him their lewdness. "
|
|
|
|
10/18/2008 12:36:58 AM · #421 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, that's two people who are afraid to answer. |
The law can prohibit any siblings from marrying without discriminating on the basis of gender. It's inapplicable to the present situation.
You still don't seem to get the idea of full equality under the law. If Person A is legally entitled to marry, and Person B is legally entitled to marry, and they are not siblings (or first cousins or whatever restriction you care to make here), it is discriminatory to say that Persons A and B cannot marry each other solely on the basis of their gender. |
That's a bit circular. If the law can prohibit siblings from marrying then why can't it prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender? If you say it's unconstitutional, then you must assume that the 1996 DOMA is unconstitutional, which has never been shown. |
Proposition 8 is an attempt to allow discrimination on the basis of gender, not prohibit it as current law does. Yes, I'd consider the DOMA unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 12:40:28 AM · #422 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... "Do you feel that the liberties of two consenting adults can be limited by society if no harm is found by their action?" |
No. Why should they? |
So you are up for our brothers in love getting married and having all the legal rights that anybody else has and calling this marriage? |
Why not sisters too?
I don't think it would happen nearly as often as two unrelated males or females that are in love, wanting to marry, but what is the moral argument against such a relationship aside from the "EWWWWWW Gross" factor? |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 12:56:11 AM · #423 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
... but what is the moral argument against such a relationship aside from the "EWWWWWW Gross" factor? |
Possibly that, given lifelong mutual influences on each other, there might be some doubt as to the "freely consenting" part -- much the same reasoning that makes children younger than a certain age considered not competent to make certain decisions. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 01:41:36 AM · #424 |
If as Jason says, the word "marriage" is rooted in religion, and marriages that take place at the courthouse are not "marriages in the eyes of the church", then I still want to know why California thinks it can legislate the definition of a religious activity. If I were a religious person in California, I would be outraged. The State defining my religion for me?? And hey, I'm all for brothers getting married if that's what they want, or at least I'm not for the state telling them they can't because they're both male. As for cousins? The world's monarchies were all built that way, were they not? Doesn't mean it's a good idea, but there's precedent.
Edit to add that if the State can define "marriage", a religious term, what's next? Defining God? And what if the State determines that definition to be other than a Christian God?
Message edited by author 2008-10-18 02:10:25. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 01:43:52 AM · #425 |
| and once again I am reminded why I stopped posting in the first place. Nobody reads anymore anyways. And I was going to make a quip about sisters marrying, but Spaz did it for me. Thanks, spaz |
|
