100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Pat Robertson warns God will destroy America over same sex m | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
genetic defects are not an evolutionary result of 'love' they are a result of 'reproductive' activity animals need not worry themself with the former, just survival humans tend to factor in 'emotions', for 'happiness' my parents are brother and sister, no biggy,,,,,that about sums up where things are headed,,, You seem to be missing the whole point, or simply refusing to see it. Why would an infinitely-capable supposedly-benevolent God design such atrocities into genetics in the first place? The idea that some God is responsible for this kind of purposeful design has to be SUPERSTITION. Besides what's wrong with love between a brother and a sister? Is their love for each other not good enough or what? How could LOVE of any kind be considered to be "immoral" by a supposedly all-loving all-benevolent God? Why should love between a bother and a sister be considered to be "immoral"? LOVE is LOVE? How does LOVE become immoral? I'm still waiting for an answer on that one. as much as any emotion is 'natural' and therefore not wrong neither is 'love' neither is 'anger' (although its nothing to encourage ,,,) SEX, is a different thing, just as violence is,,, these are EXPRESSIONS of an emotion that are not automatically justified by the emotion itself When is conentual sex between two adults, in responce to emotional love, not "justified"? I think you need to explain that a little better, it seems you may be suggesting that your own morals are the only one's by which behavior can be justified. in cases of 'statuatory' nature such as 'statuatory' rape,, where both parties may have felt in 'love' and consented to the activity or 'incest' where both parties consent to an activity out of 'love', but the law decides such an expression of said love is disturbing to 'domestic peace' (whatever that has been decided to be) Let's take the law out of it, using our own minds how is any of this not justified? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mg wrote: For myself it's pretty easy to see right and wrong for me in a very simplistic belief in God and Christ from the studies I have done, but I see a lot of angry Christians that scare the Jesus out of me and I wouldn't want to be in their church or close circle. I do think (even though he needs chill pills lol) that Abra is right about there being much ego and bigotry in the Christian community, but this comes from man being out of touch with God and not God producing it. At least I've never seen God produce it. But isn't that precisely what I've been saying about the Bible itself all along? I can't believe that a God produced it. But can believe that men did. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 07/02/11 07:56 PM
|
|
genetic defects are not an evolutionary result of 'love' they are a result of 'reproductive' activity animals need not worry themself with the former, just survival humans tend to factor in 'emotions', for 'happiness' my parents are brother and sister, no biggy,,,,,that about sums up where things are headed,,, You seem to be missing the whole point, or simply refusing to see it. Why would an infinitely-capable supposedly-benevolent God design such atrocities into genetics in the first place? The idea that some God is responsible for this kind of purposeful design has to be SUPERSTITION. Besides what's wrong with love between a brother and a sister? Is their love for each other not good enough or what? How could LOVE of any kind be considered to be "immoral" by a supposedly all-loving all-benevolent God? Why should love between a bother and a sister be considered to be "immoral"? LOVE is LOVE? How does LOVE become immoral? I'm still waiting for an answer on that one. as much as any emotion is 'natural' and therefore not wrong neither is 'love' neither is 'anger' (although its nothing to encourage ,,,) SEX, is a different thing, just as violence is,,, these are EXPRESSIONS of an emotion that are not automatically justified by the emotion itself When is conentual sex between two adults, in responce to emotional love, not "justified"? I think you need to explain that a little better, it seems you may be suggesting that your own morals are the only one's by which behavior can be justified. in cases of 'statuatory' nature such as 'statuatory' rape,, where both parties may have felt in 'love' and consented to the activity or 'incest' where both parties consent to an activity out of 'love', but the law decides such an expression of said love is disturbing to 'domestic peace' (whatever that has been decided to be) Let's take the law out of it, using our own minds how is any of this not justified? good question I wish I knew a singular reason why things like incest or prostitution cause some to recoil I consider it all 'consentual' sex but Id have to say that, within a community, personal actions can become significantly detrmental or helpful when they are multiplied by enough persons like my mom used to say about litter, even something as small as a spitball,,,by itself it seems rather harmless, but if EVERYONE did it,, ,, it could cause significant impact, so that little insignificant choice was therefore not SUPPORTED because it couldnt be supported in a situation where everyone did it,,,, something would become off balance,, so to speak similar to women going to work in a culture where MEN worked, what followed was an attitude that men could likewise just stay home after that attitude MULTIPLIED we had noone who felt they SHOULD be held to any standard whatsoever besides what was good to 'them' and our kids suffered a great deal from this lack of identifiable structure,,,, I dont envy the day when children will have no structure by which to define their mom and dad, or sister and brother, where they come from, or who they are, in relation to the world and others,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
genetic defects are not an evolutionary result of 'love' they are a result of 'reproductive' activity animals need not worry themself with the former, just survival humans tend to factor in 'emotions', for 'happiness' my parents are brother and sister, no biggy,,,,,that about sums up where things are headed,,, You seem to be missing the whole point, or simply refusing to see it. Why would an infinitely-capable supposedly-benevolent God design such atrocities into genetics in the first place? The idea that some God is responsible for this kind of purposeful design has to be SUPERSTITION. Besides what's wrong with love between a brother and a sister? Is their love for each other not good enough or what? How could LOVE of any kind be considered to be "immoral" by a supposedly all-loving all-benevolent God? Why should love between a bother and a sister be considered to be "immoral"? LOVE is LOVE? How does LOVE become immoral? I'm still waiting for an answer on that one. as much as any emotion is 'natural' and therefore not wrong neither is 'love' neither is 'anger' (although its nothing to encourage ,,,) SEX, is a different thing, just as violence is,,, these are EXPRESSIONS of an emotion that are not automatically justified by the emotion itself When is conentual sex between two adults, in responce to emotional love, not "justified"? I think you need to explain that a little better, it seems you may be suggesting that your own morals are the only one's by which behavior can be justified. in cases of 'statuatory' nature such as 'statuatory' rape,, where both parties may have felt in 'love' and consented to the activity or 'incest' where both parties consent to an activity out of 'love', but the law decides such an expression of said love is disturbing to 'domestic peace' (whatever that has been decided to be) Let's take the law out of it, using our own minds how is any of this not justified? good question I wish I knew a singular reason why things like incest or prostitution cause some to recoil I consider it all 'consentual' sex but Id have to say that, within a community, personal actions can become significantly detrmental or helpful when they are multiplied by enough persons like my mom used to say about litter, even something as small as a spitball,,,by itself it seems rather harmless, but if EVERYONE did it,, ,, it could cause significant impact, so that little insignificant choice was therefore not SUPPORTED because it couldnt be supported in a situation where everyone did it,,,, something would become off balance,, so to speak similar to women going to work in a culture where MEN worked, what followed was an attitude that men could likewise just stay home after that attitude MULTIPLIED we had noone who felt they SHOULD be held to any standard whatsoever besides what was good to 'them' and our kids suffered a great deal from this lack of identifiable structure,,,, In defense of that.....both parents have to work anymore to make ends meet anyway anymore so.....not much you can do about that. In any case, I don't see the issue with a woman wanting to work, while the guy stays home or vice versa. If it works for them, more power to them. I don't think you can really put a relationship into a particular box like that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wish I knew a singular reason why things like incest or prostitution cause some to recoil The opposition to incest is largely based on the fact that it's wrong to the next generation. Every one of us is a product of the genetic lottery that is human reproduction, but the products of incest are handed an automatic losing hand. There is also the hierarchic relationships that are normal in a family. Younger family members look up to older family members and those ties can be manipulated easily. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wish I knew a singular reason why things like incest or prostitution cause some to recoil The opposition to incest is largely based on the fact that it's wrong to the next generation. Every one of us is a product of the genetic lottery that is human reproduction, but the products of incest are handed an automatic losing hand. There is also the hierarchic relationships that are normal in a family. Younger family members look up to older family members and those ties can be manipulated easily. 'wrong' is subjective though incest isnt an 'automatic' losing hand,, it just increases the ODDS in the event that there is some genetic issue within the family hierarchy is also not 'normal' for everyone,, many have families where everyone is 'equal' many have families where siblings are equal, and others where elder siblings are to be respected,,,,so those ties are not , in my opinion, a legally sound argument,,, it was once 'normal' for children to look up to a 'mom' and a 'dad' in this way 'normal' is very subjective and not very legally viable as an argument,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wish I knew a singular reason why things like incest or prostitution cause some to recoil The opposition to incest is largely based on the fact that it's wrong to the next generation. Every one of us is a product of the genetic lottery that is human reproduction, but the products of incest are handed an automatic losing hand. There is also the hierarchic relationships that are normal in a family. Younger family members look up to older family members and those ties can be manipulated easily. 'wrong' is subjective though incest isnt an 'automatic' losing hand,, it just increases the ODDS in the event that there is some genetic issue within the family hierarchy is also not 'normal' for everyone,, many have families where everyone is 'equal' many have families where siblings are equal, and others where elder siblings are to be respected,,,,so those ties are not , in my opinion, a legally sound argument,,, it was once 'normal' for children to look up to a 'mom' and a 'dad' in this way 'normal' is very subjective and not very legally viable as an argument,,, Hey, sounds like you are all for incest. Hopefully you have a single brother. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wish I knew a singular reason why things like incest or prostitution cause some to recoil The opposition to incest is largely based on the fact that it's wrong to the next generation. Every one of us is a product of the genetic lottery that is human reproduction, but the products of incest are handed an automatic losing hand. There is also the hierarchic relationships that are normal in a family. Younger family members look up to older family members and those ties can be manipulated easily. 'wrong' is subjective though incest isnt an 'automatic' losing hand,, it just increases the ODDS in the event that there is some genetic issue within the family hierarchy is also not 'normal' for everyone,, many have families where everyone is 'equal' many have families where siblings are equal, and others where elder siblings are to be respected,,,,so those ties are not , in my opinion, a legally sound argument,,, it was once 'normal' for children to look up to a 'mom' and a 'dad' in this way 'normal' is very subjective and not very legally viable as an argument,,, Hey, sounds like you are all for incest. Hopefully you have a single brother. nope, Im 'FOR' consistency if sex should be supported by the government between all 'consenting adults',,,,that would include incest Im 'FOR' continuing to support marriage as it is defined, between unrelated male-female bonds,,, as a model for the foundation of a family,,, ...but what I want is being slowly outvoted , and what the voters are advocating would necessarily need to reconsider incestual restrictions as well,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Sat 07/02/11 11:32 PM
|
|
nope, Im 'FOR' consistency if sex should be supported by the government between all 'consenting adults',,,,that would include incest Im 'FOR' continuing to support marriage as it is defined, between unrelated male-female bonds,,, as a model for the foundation of a family,,, ...but what I want is being slowly outvoted , and what the voters are advocating would necessarily need to reconsider incestual restrictions as well,,, If a man carries a detrimental recessive gene and has two children and those children have a child, the chances of a deformity is 50 times more likely than two unrelated people would have. I'm sorry if you don't feel that to be a big enough risk, but it sounds pretty terrible to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
genetic defects are not an evolutionary result of 'love' they are a result of 'reproductive' activity animals need not worry themself with the former, just survival humans tend to factor in 'emotions', for 'happiness' my parents are brother and sister, no biggy,,,,,that about sums up where things are headed,,, You seem to be missing the whole point, or simply refusing to see it. Why would an infinitely-capable supposedly-benevolent God design such atrocities into genetics in the first place? The idea that some God is responsible for this kind of purposeful design has to be SUPERSTITION. Besides what's wrong with love between a brother and a sister? Is their love for each other not good enough or what? How could LOVE of any kind be considered to be "immoral" by a supposedly all-loving all-benevolent God? Why should love between a bother and a sister be considered to be "immoral"? LOVE is LOVE? How does LOVE become immoral? I'm still waiting for an answer on that one. as much as any emotion is 'natural' and therefore not wrong neither is 'love' neither is 'anger' (although its nothing to encourage ,,,) SEX, is a different thing, just as violence is,,, these are EXPRESSIONS of an emotion that are not automatically justified by the emotion itself When is conentual sex between two adults, in responce to emotional love, not "justified"? I think you need to explain that a little better, it seems you may be suggesting that your own morals are the only one's by which behavior can be justified. in cases of 'statuatory' nature such as 'statuatory' rape,, where both parties may have felt in 'love' and consented to the activity or 'incest' where both parties consent to an activity out of 'love', but the law decides such an expression of said love is disturbing to 'domestic peace' (whatever that has been decided to be) OK - but sex between two consenting adults of the same-sex is not illegal. So according to the law it is justified and before too long it will also be 'culturally' justified as the majority of citizens accept it within marriage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nope, Im 'FOR' consistency if sex should be supported by the government between all 'consenting adults',,,,that would include incest Im 'FOR' continuing to support marriage as it is defined, between unrelated male-female bonds,,, as a model for the foundation of a family,,, ...but what I want is being slowly outvoted , and what the voters are advocating would necessarily need to reconsider incestual restrictions as well,,, If a man carries a detrimental recessive gene and has two children and those children have a child, the chances of a deformity is 50 times more likely than two unrelated people would have. I'm sorry if you don't feel that to be a big enough risk, but it sounds pretty terrible to me. it 'sounds' pretty terrible , Im just wondering if its a valid figure,,, where did you get it? the highest percentage I have read is up to 37 percent but as low as 7 percent ,,whereas the general population has a 2 percent chance of giving birth to children with 'defects' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
genetic defects are not an evolutionary result of 'love' they are a result of 'reproductive' activity animals need not worry themself with the former, just survival humans tend to factor in 'emotions', for 'happiness' my parents are brother and sister, no biggy,,,,,that about sums up where things are headed,,, You seem to be missing the whole point, or simply refusing to see it. Why would an infinitely-capable supposedly-benevolent God design such atrocities into genetics in the first place? The idea that some God is responsible for this kind of purposeful design has to be SUPERSTITION. Besides what's wrong with love between a brother and a sister? Is their love for each other not good enough or what? How could LOVE of any kind be considered to be "immoral" by a supposedly all-loving all-benevolent God? Why should love between a bother and a sister be considered to be "immoral"? LOVE is LOVE? How does LOVE become immoral? I'm still waiting for an answer on that one. as much as any emotion is 'natural' and therefore not wrong neither is 'love' neither is 'anger' (although its nothing to encourage ,,,) SEX, is a different thing, just as violence is,,, these are EXPRESSIONS of an emotion that are not automatically justified by the emotion itself When is conentual sex between two adults, in responce to emotional love, not "justified"? I think you need to explain that a little better, it seems you may be suggesting that your own morals are the only one's by which behavior can be justified. in cases of 'statuatory' nature such as 'statuatory' rape,, where both parties may have felt in 'love' and consented to the activity or 'incest' where both parties consent to an activity out of 'love', but the law decides such an expression of said love is disturbing to 'domestic peace' (whatever that has been decided to be) OK - but sex between two consenting adults of the same-sex is not illegal. So according to the law it is justified and before too long it will also be 'culturally' justified as the majority of citizens accept it within marriage. we are agreeing, Im just adding that someday siblings may be considered 'culturally' and 'legally' justified as well |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Sat 07/02/11 11:56 PM
|
|
genetic defects are not an evolutionary result of 'love' they are a result of 'reproductive' activity animals need not worry themself with the former, just survival humans tend to factor in 'emotions', for 'happiness' my parents are brother and sister, no biggy,,,,,that about sums up where things are headed,,, You seem to be missing the whole point, or simply refusing to see it. Why would an infinitely-capable supposedly-benevolent God design such atrocities into genetics in the first place? The idea that some God is responsible for this kind of purposeful design has to be SUPERSTITION. Besides what's wrong with love between a brother and a sister? Is their love for each other not good enough or what? How could LOVE of any kind be considered to be "immoral" by a supposedly all-loving all-benevolent God? Why should love between a bother and a sister be considered to be "immoral"? LOVE is LOVE? How does LOVE become immoral? I'm still waiting for an answer on that one. as much as any emotion is 'natural' and therefore not wrong neither is 'love' neither is 'anger' (although its nothing to encourage ,,,) SEX, is a different thing, just as violence is,,, these are EXPRESSIONS of an emotion that are not automatically justified by the emotion itself When is conentual sex between two adults, in responce to emotional love, not "justified"? I think you need to explain that a little better, it seems you may be suggesting that your own morals are the only one's by which behavior can be justified. in cases of 'statuatory' nature such as 'statuatory' rape,, where both parties may have felt in 'love' and consented to the activity or 'incest' where both parties consent to an activity out of 'love', but the law decides such an expression of said love is disturbing to 'domestic peace' (whatever that has been decided to be) OK - but sex between two consenting adults of the same-sex is not illegal. So according to the law it is justified and before too long it will also be 'culturally' justified as the majority of citizens accept it within marriage. But what does 'culturally' justification and God have to do with one another in any way? Cultures change with time and on the whim of people. God never changes, has never changed, and never will change. So again, what does the two have to do with one another? Just because some culture accepts something as right or wrong doesn't mean God does. Marriage is a joining of two people before God eg., the vows they take. Those vows aren't just for saying to each other, it is in a sense a public confession of love for the other. Regardless how you wish to flip the coin, marriage is a joining of two people making them as one to live together for ever. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
which is why I say, barring some constitutional guarantee that the government has a right to regulate 'potential' birth defects in children incestuous marriages will probably be next in our culture ,,,uncle dad and aunty mom might become staples for our kids,,,YAY! So? If there were no birth defects associated with that, then what would be wrong with it? What's fundamentally wrong with people who are closely related genetically to fall in love? Personally I think that would be rather rare. Most people have no desire to marry their own sisters or brothers. But my point is, if there were no genetic problems with that arrangement then what's wrong with it?  I would argue that siblings should already be allowed to marry under certain circumstances. As I've already said, if one of them is sterile and unable to procreate and they plan on adopting, then what's the problem? In fact, with today's medical abilities they could ask to be made "sterile" if their true intention is to adopt. Or maybe they aren't even interested in raising kids at all. Who knows? But yes, remove the potential for genetic defects in closely related people and I have no problem at all with "uncle dad, and aunt mom". It's no biggy. So my parents are also brother and sister? So what? What's wrong with that? Why should that be "immoral"?  Please tell me what is so "immoral" about that? It seems to me that the only real argument that can be given is because - "Well according to Hebrew folklore God doesn't approve of it".  That's not a satisfying answer for me. I see no reason why it should be immoral for closely related people to fall in love and marry. If this "God" hadn't been so evil in the first place to design genetics to be so disgusting as to cause birth defects in closely related humans then there wouldn't be a problem with it at all. The mere fact that genetics works out to be like that doesn't say much for a supposedly all-benevolent God. This is why some people are atheists. They see this as just being a result of evolution and nothing more. Why would an all-wise all-benevolent God be pulling dirty rotten stunts like that in the first place? Causing innocent babies to be born grossly defective just because two siblings happened to fall in LOVE with each other?  Where is there any LOVE and compassion in that? Please, explain that one to me. genetic defects are not an evolutionary result of 'love' they are a result of 'reproductive' activity animals need not worry themself with the former, just survival humans tend to factor in 'emotions', for 'happiness' my parents are brother and sister, no biggy,,,,,that about sums up where things are headed,,, OK - NOW, how can you related the 'legal' reasons that states dissallow incestuous marriage in any way to same-sex marriage? In other words, how are they similar? in looking up some reason why incestuous marriage is disallowed , I found very little but,, this The purpose of incest statutes is to prevent sexual intercourse between individuals related within the degrees set forth, for the furtherance of the public policy in favor of domestic peace. The prohibition of intermarriage is also based upon genetic considerations, since when excessive inbreeding takes place, undesirable recessive genes become expressed and genetic defects and disease are more readily perpetuated. from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sibling+incest so, according to the above, the 'legal' case against incest is disruption of 'domestic peace' (a fairly vague term that can be applied just about anywhere people are 'closely' related, including step children and adopted children raised in the same home, but who would not be prone to incest laws) similarly, such an assumption about how domestically 'close' two consenting adults are or how disrupted that closeness might be if sex occured, could be argued to be beyond the scope of the law, and unconstitutional ...once those 'legal reasons' are successfully deemed unconstitional I see no way that incest laws will stand as anything other than unfairly discriminatory ,,,similar to the argument in favor of same sex marriage, that to not allow it is unfairly disciminatory,,, Obviously there is a question as to why states do not allow incestuous marriage, so you lack a full understanding of why this is so. Yet somehow, even without a full understanding, you still feel the need to justify why same-sex marriage should not be legal by connecting it to incestuous marriage of which you lack a clear understanding. To most clear thinking individuals that would not make sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
genetic defects are not an evolutionary result of 'love' they are a result of 'reproductive' activity animals need not worry themself with the former, just survival humans tend to factor in 'emotions', for 'happiness' my parents are brother and sister, no biggy,,,,,that about sums up where things are headed,,, You seem to be missing the whole point, or simply refusing to see it. Why would an infinitely-capable supposedly-benevolent God design such atrocities into genetics in the first place? The idea that some God is responsible for this kind of purposeful design has to be SUPERSTITION. Besides what's wrong with love between a brother and a sister? Is their love for each other not good enough or what? How could LOVE of any kind be considered to be "immoral" by a supposedly all-loving all-benevolent God? Why should love between a bother and a sister be considered to be "immoral"? LOVE is LOVE? How does LOVE become immoral? I'm still waiting for an answer on that one. as much as any emotion is 'natural' and therefore not wrong neither is 'love' neither is 'anger' (although its nothing to encourage ,,,) SEX, is a different thing, just as violence is,,, these are EXPRESSIONS of an emotion that are not automatically justified by the emotion itself When is conentual sex between two adults, in responce to emotional love, not "justified"? I think you need to explain that a little better, it seems you may be suggesting that your own morals are the only one's by which behavior can be justified. in cases of 'statuatory' nature such as 'statuatory' rape,, where both parties may have felt in 'love' and consented to the activity or 'incest' where both parties consent to an activity out of 'love', but the law decides such an expression of said love is disturbing to 'domestic peace' (whatever that has been decided to be) OK - but sex between two consenting adults of the same-sex is not illegal. So according to the law it is justified and before too long it will also be 'culturally' justified as the majority of citizens accept it within marriage. But what does 'culturally' justification and God have to do with one another in any way? Cultures change with time and on the whip of people. God never changes, has never changed, and never will change. So again, what does the two have to do with one another? Just because some culture accepts something as right or wrong doesn't mean God does. Marriage is a joining of two people before God eg., the vows they take. Those vows aren't just for saying to each other, it is in a sense a public confession of love for the other. Regardless how you wish to flip the coin, marriage is a joining of two people making them as one to live together for ever. in the legal sense, its just terminology to be defined by the voting public,,,, for those who consider it more, it will still be more to them,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Sun 07/03/11 12:03 AM
|
|
genetic defects are not an evolutionary result of 'love' they are a result of 'reproductive' activity animals need not worry themself with the former, just survival humans tend to factor in 'emotions', for 'happiness' my parents are brother and sister, no biggy,,,,,that about sums up where things are headed,,, You seem to be missing the whole point, or simply refusing to see it. Why would an infinitely-capable supposedly-benevolent God design such atrocities into genetics in the first place? The idea that some God is responsible for this kind of purposeful design has to be SUPERSTITION. Besides what's wrong with love between a brother and a sister? Is their love for each other not good enough or what? How could LOVE of any kind be considered to be "immoral" by a supposedly all-loving all-benevolent God? Why should love between a bother and a sister be considered to be "immoral"? LOVE is LOVE? How does LOVE become immoral? I'm still waiting for an answer on that one. as much as any emotion is 'natural' and therefore not wrong neither is 'love' neither is 'anger' (although its nothing to encourage ,,,) SEX, is a different thing, just as violence is,,, these are EXPRESSIONS of an emotion that are not automatically justified by the emotion itself When is conentual sex between two adults, in responce to emotional love, not "justified"? I think you need to explain that a little better, it seems you may be suggesting that your own morals are the only one's by which behavior can be justified. in cases of 'statuatory' nature such as 'statuatory' rape,, where both parties may have felt in 'love' and consented to the activity or 'incest' where both parties consent to an activity out of 'love', but the law decides such an expression of said love is disturbing to 'domestic peace' (whatever that has been decided to be) OK - but sex between two consenting adults of the same-sex is not illegal. So according to the law it is justified and before too long it will also be 'culturally' justified as the majority of citizens accept it within marriage. But what does 'culturally' justification and God have to do with one another in any way? Cultures change with time and on the whip of people. God never changes, has never changed, and never will change. So again, what does the two have to do with one another? Just because some culture accepts something as right or wrong doesn't mean God does. Marriage is a joining of two people before God eg., the vows they take. Those vows aren't just for saying to each other, it is in a sense a public confession of love for the other. Regardless how you wish to flip the coin, marriage is a joining of two people making them as one to live together for ever. in the legal sense, its just terminology to be defined by the voting public,,,, for those who consider it more, it will still be more to them,,, The only thing the government has to do with marriage is the marriage certificate. That little piece of paper is worth no more then the paper it's written on. That little piece of paper holds no true power. People don't need the government to be married. Yes they do need it for the government to recognise this marriage. But all in all, the government has no real part in a marriage, no power, no stance. It is between the two people and God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wish I knew a singular reason why things like incest or prostitution cause some to recoil The opposition to incest is largely based on the fact that it's wrong to the next generation. Every one of us is a product of the genetic lottery that is human reproduction, but the products of incest are handed an automatic losing hand. There is also the hierarchic relationships that are normal in a family. Younger family members look up to older family members and those ties can be manipulated easily. 'wrong' is subjective though incest isnt an 'automatic' losing hand,, it just increases the ODDS in the event that there is some genetic issue within the family hierarchy is also not 'normal' for everyone,, many have families where everyone is 'equal' many have families where siblings are equal, and others where elder siblings are to be respected,,,,so those ties are not , in my opinion, a legally sound argument,,, it was once 'normal' for children to look up to a 'mom' and a 'dad' in this way 'normal' is very subjective and not very legally viable as an argument,,, Hey, sounds like you are all for incest. Hopefully you have a single brother. nope, Im 'FOR' consistency if sex should be supported by the government between all 'consenting adults',,,,that would include incest Im 'FOR' continuing to support marriage as it is defined, between unrelated male-female bonds,,, as a model for the foundation of a family,,, ...but what I want is being slowly outvoted , and what the voters are advocating would necessarily need to reconsider incestual restrictions as well,,, msharmony, the DOJ brief which argues that DOMA is unconstitutional explains the discrimination against gay and lesbians that has been on-going and even institutionalized. The reason this argument is being applied is becaue gays and lesbians are in a minority class and therefore laws with respect to their rights should be subject to heightened scrutiny. If you don't understand what all that means, please look it up and then explain why you think a brother and sister are being discriminated againt as a class minority, whose rights should be subject to heightened scrutiny? In fact don't even try because if you try to do so then you are not understanding the law. This part of the law is just one of reasons why incestuous marriage is not nearly the threat to you that you are making it out to be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh Yeah. That is what you would like everyone to think but we all know it is really more like this! http://youtu.be/aP3gzee1cps 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wish I knew a singular reason why things like incest or prostitution cause some to recoil The opposition to incest is largely based on the fact that it's wrong to the next generation. Every one of us is a product of the genetic lottery that is human reproduction, but the products of incest are handed an automatic losing hand. There is also the hierarchic relationships that are normal in a family. Younger family members look up to older family members and those ties can be manipulated easily. Especially when the top of the hierarchy is dysfunctional. Add in religion and you have a real train wreck in some cases. Some of the loudest voices for this theory of familial harmony have, themselves, the most dsyfunctional relationships with the broken families of which they are a part and for which their actions bear some of the responsibility for their being that way. BTW, your first paragraph just made an excellent case why comparing incest and homosexuality is a non sequitur when debating gay marriage. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
