100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Do you think that.... | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Tue 01/11/11 10:48 AM
|
|
Pan: Therein lies my point. "We know that certain behaviors pose an imminent danger to the success of a free society." What danger to society does incestuous marriage pose? What danger does mentally challenged marriage pose? What about the younger people being allowed to marry, where is the danger in that? The only harm or danger would be to the individuals, no? creative: I fail to see your point. You've partially quoted something that applied to a certain kind of behavior and are attempting to remove the context and apply it where it doesn't. I'm not arguing for or against incestuous marriage, nor mentally challenged marriage based upon those behaviors being an imminent danger to the success of a free society. You have however argued such a thing against gay marriage. Pan: But this is the problem I think. I'm not aguing against gay marriage. Really now?  I am arguing for incestuous, underage and mentally challenged. When and if you can give a valid argument against any of those, I will show you how they can be applied to gay marriage. That's my point! I too, can show how valid argumants are incorrectly applied to things outside the scope of their application. This thread and these forums are full of those kinds of examples. It seems to me that you are hell-bent upon justifying your earlier accusations about some of the authors here, rather than arguing to support your position. So your point is moot - bolded or not. If you are arguing for incestuous, underage, and mentally challenged marriage, then argue for it. I'll look forward to seeing how you justify such things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pan: Therein lies my point. "We know that certain behaviors pose an imminent danger to the success of a free society." What danger to society does incestuous marriage pose? What danger does mentally challenged marriage pose? What about the younger people being allowed to marry, where is the danger in that? The only harm or danger would be to the individuals, no? creative: I fail to see your point. You've partially quoted something that applied to a certain kind of behavior and are attempting to remove the context and apply it where it doesn't. I'm not arguing for or against incestuous marriage, nor mentally challenged marriage based upon those behaviors being an imminent danger to the success of a free society. You have however argued such a thing against gay marriage. Pan: But this is the problem I think. I'm not aguing against gay marriage. Really now? I am arguing for incestuous, underage and mentally challenged. When and if you can give a valid argument against any of those, I will show you how they can be applied to gay marriage. That's my point! I too, can show how valid argumants are incorrectly applied to things outside the scope of their application. This thread and these forums are full of those kinds of examples. It seems to me that you are hell-bent upon justifying your earlier accusations about some of the authors here, rather than arguing to support your position. So your point is moot - bolded or not. If you are arguing for incestuous, underage, and mentally challenged marriage, then argue for it. I'll look forward to seeing how you justify such things. There's nothing I can do to fix your hypocrisy... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now you have four unjustified positions?
1. Arguing against gay marriage based upon 'protecting' something which has yet to have been explained. 2. Arguing that your not arguing against gay marriage. 3. Arguing for incestuous, underaged, and mentally challenged marriage without actually putting forth an argument of your own. 4. Arguing that I am being hypocritical without putting forth an argument which makes such a claim plausible. Put forth an argument. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now you have four unjustified positions? <snip> 4. Arguing that I am being hypocritical without putting forth an argument which makes such a claim plausible. Put forth an argument. creative said: "Being biased for equal affordances of right/priveleges to all people does not require automatically granting priveleges to all. It only requires that sufficient reason be given to justify not granting such priveleges, and that when any attempt to deny is unjustified, that those priveleges be granted." First off , ALL means ALL!!! But then you wish to limit equal affordances to all by "sufficient reason" for denial... But, whether or not you admit the above statement is hypocritical is irrellevant now... Calling gay relationships "unhealthy" does not satisfy being justification for discrimination. Now I'm fairly positive that you have no case against incest now. Using your scenario (incestuous marriage), and using your restrictions (calling icest unhealthy), what "sufficient reason(s)" do you have for denying the privelege of marriage? Think about what you said earlier: Just admit it. "I discriminate against gays for no good reason other than they are gay." ****, at least be honest with yourself. Join the Nazis and KKK... They share the exact same reasons.  Then think real hard on all of these these posts. Detemine if you fit the description now... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's nothing I can do to fix your hypocrisy...
I despise hypocrisy though. I'm not aguing against gay marriage. I am arguing for incestuous, underage and mentally challenged. The best we can hope for as a society is an open discussion without the name-calling... Gee, you really like PP in your face, huh? The truth is as obvious as the PP in your mouth. Gwendolyn, please do me a favor and assume that I know everything because god told me what I know. Spidercmb, didn't you hear? You can't argue with people who think they know it all... I'll readily admit I don't know everything, what say you? Wux, take your own advice and learn how to read numbers as well as words. First, Thomas has said he doesn't approve of incest. Second, there was a punctuation mark between his sentences, it's called a PERIOD! Did you even read the OP? Like I said, childish and lame... I know how much you love PP. PP fills your head with knowledge. You can't stop thinking about PP. Sometimes (like earlier in this thread) you think it's PP, even when it's not, obviously you're obsessed with PP. Watch out using all those emoticons, cause if you try to butter up and stroke PP's ego, PP is gonna spit in your face!!! you're a pathetic puppetmaster! BTW, calling me "PP" is an extremely lame attempt using an extremely childish reference to a penis, so PP (pathetic puppetmaster) is more fitting to yourself. Perhaps I should just say EAT ME!!! The honorable thing to do would be to correct it. Again, a concept that I wouldn't expect you to understand. Nobody is condemming a gay lifestyle or homosexual activity anymore. Unless you are willing to give 12 year olds and mentally challenged people the same rights, then you have no basis for claiming discrimination, PERIOD! The same applies to incestuos marriages, some states allow cousins to marry, some do not. First, I'm not judging anyone for their sexual prefernces Why deprive the mentally challenged from the same rights you would give others? Why descriminate against "underaged" people who truly love someone? The issue is your blatant disregard for honesty now. ...is just you attempting to salvage some sort of dignity. More blatant dishonesty... I "brought forth, as a witness," Walter Shumm, not Cameron. Stop focussing on the irrelevant. But this also brings into question your ethics as you've admitted to the mistake of authorship, yet still insist I referenced Cameron And now you show a total lack of understanding of the English language You may also want to look up Dr Cameron's study I mean, gee whiz, if you believe that was the scenario then that doesn't say much about you does it? cs, you should really know better than to challenge me with bigotry, bias and dishonesty. You're obviously not into reading and research, are you? ... you can read, can't you? ... try to be more complete when you quote something, paraphrasing is akin to intelectual dishonesty. You may also want to look up Dr Cameron's study Trying to deny the truth is a moot point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's nothing I can do to fix your hypocrisy... I despise hypocrisy though. I'm not aguing against gay marriage. I am arguing for incestuous, underage and mentally challenged. The best we can hope for as a society is an open discussion without the name-calling... Gee, you really like PP in your face, huh? The truth is as obvious as the PP in your mouth. Gwendolyn, please do me a favor and assume that I know everything because god told me what I know. Spidercmb, didn't you hear? You can't argue with people who think they know it all... I'll readily admit I don't know everything, what say you? Wux, take your own advice and learn how to read numbers as well as words. First, Thomas has said he doesn't approve of incest. Second, there was a punctuation mark between his sentences, it's called a PERIOD! Did you even read the OP? Like I said, childish and lame... I know how much you love PP. PP fills your head with knowledge. You can't stop thinking about PP. Sometimes (like earlier in this thread) you think it's PP, even when it's not, obviously you're obsessed with PP. Watch out using all those emoticons, cause if you try to butter up and stroke PP's ego, PP is gonna spit in your face!!! you're a pathetic puppetmaster! BTW, calling me "PP" is an extremely lame attempt using an extremely childish reference to a penis, so PP (pathetic puppetmaster) is more fitting to yourself. Perhaps I should just say EAT ME!!! The honorable thing to do would be to correct it. Again, a concept that I wouldn't expect you to understand. Nobody is condemming a gay lifestyle or homosexual activity anymore. Unless you are willing to give 12 year olds and mentally challenged people the same rights, then you have no basis for claiming discrimination, PERIOD! The same applies to incestuos marriages, some states allow cousins to marry, some do not. First, I'm not judging anyone for their sexual prefernces Why deprive the mentally challenged from the same rights you would give others? Why descriminate against "underaged" people who truly love someone? The issue is your blatant disregard for honesty now. ...is just you attempting to salvage some sort of dignity. More blatant dishonesty... I "brought forth, as a witness," Walter Shumm, not Cameron. Stop focussing on the irrelevant. But this also brings into question your ethics as you've admitted to the mistake of authorship, yet still insist I referenced Cameron And now you show a total lack of understanding of the English language You may also want to look up Dr Cameron's study I mean, gee whiz, if you believe that was the scenario then that doesn't say much about you does it? cs, you should really know better than to challenge me with bigotry, bias and dishonesty. You're obviously not into reading and research, are you? ... you can read, can't you? ... try to be more complete when you quote something, paraphrasing is akin to intelectual dishonesty. You may also want to look up Dr Cameron's study Trying to deny the truth is a moot point. LOL, I never claimed to be nice. I've always said I'll throw back the crap slung at me and others You see, I'll readily admit to making moral judgemnets, you won't... I'm not hypocritical in my words and actions, I generally tend to go with majority descision. You know why? BECAUSE I DON'T ASSUME TO BE SUPERIOR! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative said: "Being biased for equal affordances of right/priveleges to all people does not require automatically granting priveleges to all. It only requires that sufficient reason be given to justify not granting such priveleges, and that when any attempt to deny is unjustified, that those priveleges be granted." Pan: First off , ALL means ALL!!! The meaning of "all" is not in question. The capitalization of such does make it any more important, or any less already better explained in order to minimize your confusion. Quote and address my original answer to this. But then you wish to limit equal affordances to all by "sufficient reason" for denial... That is the criterion for how it is rightfully done. It requires being reasonable. But, whether or not you admit the above statement is hypocritical is irrellevant now... No, it's not irrelevent. You are falsely accusing me of being hypocritical. My failure to admit to a false accusation does not change the fact that it is false. This is proving my earlier point. Rather than putting forth an argument in support of your position against gay marriage, you're instead hell-bent on attempting to 'prove' your unjustified accusations about my personal thoughts/character. What this does show is that the name-calling that you have quite clearly engaged, is as equally unjustified as your 'position' against gay marriage. creative: Calling gay relationships "unhealthy" does not satisfy being justification for discrimination. Pan: Now I'm fairly positive that you have no case against incest now. As if that is, or has been, my reason to deny incest. Calling incest "unhealthy" does not satisfy being justification against it either, Pan. Using your scenario (incestuous marriage), and using your restrictions (calling icest unhealthy), what "sufficient reason(s)" do you have for denying the privelege of marriage? There exists an apparent breach between what you think the case is, and what the case actually is. Pan: Think about what you said earlier: "Just admit it. "I discriminate against gays for no good reason other than they are gay." ****, at least be honest with yourself. Join the Nazis and KKK... They share the exact same reasons." Then think real hard on all of these these posts. Detemine if you fit the description now... If it is so clear to you that I am being hypocritical in my assessments, you've done a poor job of showing it. Justify your claims. Show me where I have put forth reasons to deny incestuous and/or underage marriage based upon what you say here. Or show me where I have put forth reasons that amount to being "just because they are". I suggest you get your **** straight here, Pan! I've not given reasoning for denying incestuous and underage marriage just because it is incestuous and underaged, nor "unhealthy". You've mistaken that fact with your own delusions. You're continuing to imagine things that are quite simply untrue, that have no basis in fact. I have not made the claims which you suggest/imply. Neither have you - nor can you - shown otherwise. The accusation depends upon 'evidence' which is not at hand. Now, as soon as you are ready to put forth an argument in support of your position, either on gay marriage or on incest, I'll engage again. Until then, your thoughts about me, personally, are irrelevent and against the rules of this forum. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you think that being Christian or Islamic (since they are so similar) makes a person overly obsessed with death/reward so that they cannot live life? Or even truly be themselves and genuine?
,,,crazy how often an OP goes off topic,,,, I think that being OBSESSED makes a person overly obsessed with whatever, be it death, reward, germs or anything else. I think anyone with an obsessive personality can find things to obsess about anywhere, be it a history book, the local news, or the bible or the quran. case in point, I see the news and I see a prevalance of minorities committing crimes, thankfully I am a minority so I know that this portrayal by media is not necessarily indicative of some real time trend amongst minorities others see the news, and obsess over their safety around minorities likewise, I Read a book of historical accounts about mans actions and laws and Gods laws and reactions, and I take from it a message of human imperfection and godly forgiveness , causing me to see men as equally FLAWED although having different specific flaws ad all flawed men equally worthy of love and respect others read that same book and they take from it a message of the perpetual end of the world, or christian vs sinner, where christians will receive great reward and sinners will be burned alive, and they obsess over trying to ensure they receive the 'reward' instead of the 'punishment',,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Tue 01/11/11 05:57 PM
|
|
If it is so clear to you that I am being hypocritical in my assessments, you've done a poor job of showing it. Justify your claims. Show me where I have put forth reasons to deny incestuous and/or underage marriage based upon what you say here. Or show me where I have put forth reasons that amount to being "just because they are". I suggest you get your **** straight here, Pan! creative said: "Incestuous marriage has it's own set of reasons for the objections. I do not believe that genetic mutation is the only one. There is over a hundred years worth of psychological studies which object on much different ground. I have trouble believing that two family members would, as adults, find one another to be attractive candidates for life-long partners without there first being some kind of sexual abuse during childhood." "Your assertions here are not true. I could offer reasons against incest that are true, based upon fact gained from the last hundred years' worth of psychological study, that do not apply to gays. Likwise, I can offer reasons for gay mariage that do not apply to the mentally challenged nor incestual cases." "The objections to such things are not arbitrary, nor based upon personal belief/conviction. They are based upon known fact, and therefore contain the element of veracity that the objections against gay marriage does not." end creative said: But you used your own reason for disqualifying objections to same-sex marriage. "Calling gay relationships "unhealthy" does not satisfy being justification for discrimination." So if you can't use "unhealthy" as "justification for discrimination.", then your "last hundred years' worth of psychological study" can't be cited for opposition to incestuos marriage. What objection to incest would there be left? All that's left is one's own bias, correct? I've not given reasoning for denying incestuous and underage marriage just because it is incestuous and underaged, nor "unhealthy". You've mistaken that fact with your own delusions. You're continuing to imagine things that are quite simply untrue, that have no basis in fact. I have not made the claims which you suggest/imply. Neither have you - nor can you - shown otherwise. The accusation depends upon 'evidence' which is not at hand. Alright, perhaps I'm simplifying the term too much. What grounds are the "last hundred years' worth of psychological study" based on if not "health"? and What evidence is this exactly? "They are based upon known fact, and therefore contain the element of veracity that the objections against gay marriage does not" Now, as soon as you are ready to put forth an argument in support of your position, either on gay marriage or on incest, I'll engage again. Until then, your thoughts about me, personally, are irrelevent and against the rules of this forum. My position is this: I believe that equal rights/priveleges should be afforded to all people that society deems acceptable unless sufficient reason is given to justify not granting such priveleges, and that when any attempt to deny is unjustified, that those rights/priveleges be granted. As in incestuous marriage. As long as a man and woman are of age and sound mind, they should be allowed to marry. What two people choose to do sexually should be of no consequence in determining one's rights/priveleges. Calling incestuous relationships "sick" or "unhealthy" does not satisfy being justification for discrimination. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative: Incestuous marriage has it's own set of reasons for the objections. I do not believe that genetic mutation is the only one. There is over a hundred years worth of psychological studies which object on much different ground. I have trouble believing that two family members would, as adults, find one another to be attractive candidates for life-long partners without there first being some kind of sexual abuse during childhood. Your assertions here are not true. I could offer reasons against incest that are true, based upon fact gained from the last hundred years' worth of psychological study, that do not apply to gays. Likwise, I can offer reasons for gay mariage that do not apply to the mentally challenged nor incestual cases. The objections to such things are not arbitrary, nor based upon personal belief/conviction. They are based upon known fact, and therefore contain the element of veracity that the objections against gay marriage does not. Pan: But you used your own reason for disqualifying objections to same-sex marriage. "Calling gay relationships "unhealthy" does not satisfy being justification for discrimination." So if you can't use "unhealthy" as "justification for discrimination.", then your "last hundred years' worth of psychological study" can't be cited for opposition to incestuos marriage. What objection to incest would there be left? My citing that psychological studies are also the ground against incest does not equate to my calling something "unhealthy". The colored part of your response is incorrect. I've never called incest "unhealthy", and then attempted to use that as a reason to deny marriage priveleges to incestual partners. In fact, I've not argued for or against incest in this thread. What grounds are the "last hundred years' worth of psychological study" based on if not "health"? The studies are based upon the mental and physical effects of incest and/or repeated incest. While the mental health is a prime factor, the generic label "unhealthy" does not satisfy describing what is going on. It's like calling the sun "bright", and then drawing a "bright" comparison rather than looking at what constitutes being the sun. What evidence is this exactly? "They are based upon known fact, and therefore contain the element of veracity that the objections against gay marriage does not" I do not understand the question here. Are you asking about the available evidence, or are you asking me if the words of mine are supposed to be evidence? My position is this: I believe that equal rights/priveleges should be afforded to all people that society deems acceptable unless sufficient reason is given to justify not granting such priveleges, and that when any attempt to deny is unjustified, that those rights/priveleges be granted. Hmmm. That looks familiar. As in incestuous marriage. As long as a man and woman are of age and sound mind, they should be allowed to marry. What two people choose to do sexually should be of no consequence in determining one's rights/priveleges. Calling incestuous relationships "sick" or "unhealthy" does not satisfy being justification for discrimination. I agree, but those are not the only reasons that incestual marriage is forbidden. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As in incestuous marriage. As long as a man and woman are of age and sound mind, they should be allowed to marry. What two people choose to do sexually should be of no consequence in determining one's rights/priveleges. Calling incestuous relationships "sick" or "unhealthy" does not satisfy being justification for discrimination. I agree, but those are not the only reasons that incestual marriage is forbidden. Name 1 other please... More if you have 'em... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For what purpose Pan? What is your intent?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For what purpose Pan? What is your intent? The purpose was to continue the engagement you offered me: "Now, as soon as you are ready to put forth an argument in support of your position, either on gay marriage or on incest, I'll engage again. Until then, your thoughts about me, personally, are irrelevent and against the rules of this forum." My intent has always been to prove that no matter what the opposition claims, morals come from an individual, not a book. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. Unexpected as well.
That subject matter need not focus upon the arguments for or against gay or incestual marriage. Immediately it occurs to me that it does not follow from the fact that morals are necessarily expressed through a person that all morals come from an individual. The origin of personal morals has a completely different scope than ethics. Marriage is and always has been a social construct(an applied ethical concern) - by definition alone. I completely agree that morals do not "come from a book". However, that is not to deny the fact that morals can be learned and/or greatly influenced from a book. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In actuality the source of morality isn't really a part of this discussion.
It is the law and the unjustness of the laws that are created from antiquated social/moral conditions of society. Also marriage being a legal union takes the church out of the control of it or at least it should. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In actuality the source of morality isn't really a part of this discussion. It is the law and the unjustness of the laws that are created from antiquated social/moral conditions of society. Also marriage being a legal union takes the church out of the control of it or at least it should. You've got to be kidding me. You wrote the OP, I suggest you read it again and re-examine your views. Look back on page 1. The wisest comment was only quoted once and it was only used as a lead-in to a religion bashing rant. (chocolina) The fact this degraded into a gay-marriage debate did not surprise me at all. It surely isn't the first... So using the "law of the land", what objection do you have against incestuous marriage? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The law states that incestuous relationships too close together are biologically too risky. There are only 31 states that have bans or conditional bans on first cousin or closer marriage.
But that is no comparison to an adult gay relationship anyway. Gay adults do not compare to relatives or underage people at all. So it is a waste of time. Adults should be allowed to marry as long as they are of age and mental consent. Again personally I don't care of brothers and sister want to marry it is their business. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. Unexpected as well. That subject matter need not focus upon the arguments for or against gay or incestual marriage. Immediately it occurs to me that it does not follow from the fact that morals are necessarily expressed through a person that all morals come from an individual. The origin of personal morals has a completely different scope than ethics. Marriage is and always has been a social construct(an applied ethical concern) - by definition alone. So, is it safe for me to assume my point has been realised and you won't be offering suffient reason to deny incestuous marriage? You hit the nail on the head with your description of marriage. I completely agree that morals do not "come from a book". However, that is not to deny the fact that morals can be learned and/or greatly influenced from a book. I can deny that my morals came from a book, that's for sure. What I can't do, is claim that yours do, and that's the only reason that you're opposed to incestuous marriage... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 01/12/11 12:56 PM
|
|
Interesting. Unexpected as well. That subject matter need not focus upon the arguments for or against gay or incestual marriage. Immediately it occurs to me that it does not follow from the fact that morals are necessarily expressed through a person that all morals come from an individual. The origin of personal morals has a completely different scope than ethics. Marriage is and always has been a social construct(an applied ethical concern) - by definition alone. So, is it safe for me to assume my point has been realised and you won't be offering suffient reason to deny incestuous marriage? You hit the nail on the head with your description of marriage. I completely agree that morals do not "come from a book". However, that is not to deny the fact that morals can be learned and/or greatly influenced from a book. I can deny that my morals came from a book, that's for sure. What I can't do, is claim that yours do, and that's the only reason that you're opposed to incestuous marriage... PP, whats in a label hon? might be kind of cute for the kids to have uncle dads and auntie moms,,,not too CONFUSING at all,,,lol(sarcasm) family constructs need to be totally turned on their heads, they have served NO PURPOSE at all(more sarcasm) I look forward to the day with no more labels to identify relations OR biology,, perhaps just 'human with testicles' to describe males or 'human with ovaries' to define females and guardian to define whatever person cares for the child REGARDLESS of biology and SIGNIFICANT other, to define whatever person we have committed to live life with "and now, you may kiss your significant other'....yeah, has such a romantic ring to it,,lol ,,,,sigh ,,,anyhow,, carry on, IM just feeling a bit antsy this afternoon |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pan expressed: My intent has always been to prove that no matter what the opposition claims, morals come from an individual, not a book. creative: That subject matter(meaning the origin of morals) need not focus upon the arguments for or against gay or incestual marriage. Immediately it occurs to me that it does not follow from the fact that morals are necessarily expressed through a person that all morals come from an individual. The origin of personal morals has a completely different scope than ethics. Marriage is and always has been a social construct(an applied ethical concern) - by definition alone. Pan: So, is it safe for me to assume my point has been realised and you won't be offering suffient reason to deny incestuous marriage? That would be far from a "safe" assumption. You've yet to concisely make a point. It would literally be error prone at best to base my next move upon that which has yet to have happened. I'm certainly not going to assume that I know what point it is that you're trying to make. I mean, I've asked on more than one occasion for you to post your position and argue for it. I'm still waiting. You hit the nail on the head with your description of marriage. Was it ever in question? creative: I completely agree that morals do not "come from a book". However, that is not to deny the fact that morals can be learned and/or greatly influenced from a book. Pan: I can deny that my morals came from a book, that's for sure. What I can't do, is claim that yours do, and that's the only reason that you're opposed to incestuous marriage... Well, you could if you knew that that were true. I mean, if I told you that my morals strictly adhere to Biblical notions such as the Ten Commandments then you would be justified in such claim. Still, I'm failing to see where you're attempting to go with this. We have been discussing the ethical concerns of gay marriage, not the origins of personal moral belief/conviction. One involves public justification and the other private. Those are two completely different animals. |
|
|
|
|
