100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Pat Robertson warns God will destroy America over same sex m | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
People who bring those topics up are basically confessing that they have no rational arguments against the topic at hand. And the MOST rational argument of all by religionists that _claim_ to have the sanctity of marriage at heart would be to _first_ virtually outlaw divorce. Or pass laws that demand that wives do their spousal duty and never deny their husbands' divine right of sexual congress. Sure, they'd get laughed off the planet, their contributions would dry up because their congregations would go elsewhere for more liberal 'laws', but at least they'd sound more consistently rational. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is rational about outlawing divorce, or advocating marital rape?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, your first paragraph just made an excellent case why comparing incest and homosexuality is a non sequitur when debating gay marriage. That was intentional. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. There is 'some question' about alot of things. However, I did post one legal explanation of the reason behind the view on incestuous marriage, AND offered the link between gay marriage and incestuous marriage as related to THAT explanation. IM very clear thinking and made perfect sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is rational about outlawing divorce, or advocating marital rape? it makes as much sense as bring up incest and bestiality in a debate over same sex 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' http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=243 So you are okay with deformities being 18 times more likely? What "Christian" advocates a behavior that is 18 times more likely to damage or destroy a child's life? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is rational about outlawing divorce, or advocating marital rape? it makes as much sense as bring up incest and bestiality in a debate over same sex marriage... Yeah that was my thought too. I have gay friends and I will dance for joy when their marriages are recognized. I find it sad that most will not accept gay marriages as bigotry truely is an issue. I honestly don't think God will destroy America or anyone else. We are destroying ourselves with racism, bigotry, sexism, hatred, and just not being accepting. We truly are a sad species. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. here are the facts, homosexuality was once, UP UNTIL the seventies, considered an 'illness' it was considered abnormal, it 'seemed' to serve no beneficial purpose in the seventies, the homosexual community organized to have this view changed,,,and have the diagnosis removed from the medical community altogether,,, they continued to organize, and became viewed as a 'class' of people instead of individuals with an illness that was not beneficial ,,,fast forward to now,, and how everything connects and every individual choice impacts the community if the number of individuals making it increase and those individuals 'organize' NOW, homosexuals are seen as a discriminated 'class' of people,, lending them the argument that the government should lend their relationship the same support as the male female relationship by allowing them to 'marry' ,,ok,,, now,, INCESTUOUS couples, are likewise seen as ill, or abnormal. incestuous couples, cant be proven to have not been 'born' that way inecestous couples, are much more discriminated against and have to hide(im sure) their feelings much in the same way homosexuals once did if individuals with an incestuous nature can organize in large enough groups to argue they are a discriminated class,,, the rest will follow and it starts with the medical community , as it did in the case of homosexuals, stepping up to remove the stigma attached to those feelings,,which it is already starting to do as well according to genetic counselors, the risk of deformity in cousins is only four or five percent higher than the mainstream risk, and amongs siblings it is close to nine, although some estimates take it as high as 37 again though, in this technological age, that will slowly become less of a factor because such 'deformities' are simple to catch in pregnancy and becoming easier to treat and deal with ,,,the stated 'reasons' in this thread about some automatic result of deformity from such unions isnt true,,,,even if they were true, to justify such discrimination would legally require an explanation of why others with such a 'genetic risk' are allowed to marry, or to show where else the government practices selective eugenics... there are plenty of legal arguments against disallowing incestuous marriage, and with this 'victory', I can see those individuals feeling more of a chance to be accepted and supported if they wish to pursue marriage with each other,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 07/03/11 09:54 AM
|
|
what is rational about outlawing divorce, or advocating marital rape? it makes as much sense as bring up incest and bestiality in a debate over same sex marriage... beastiality isnt my concern, thats more of a stretch incest however is much more closely related,,,in how it is viewed and the 'reasons' for those views in the 'progression' of what science and medicine are saying about such views in the potential for it to become 'acceptable' based upon these changes in view brought on by science and medicine and the longing we all have to make sure all loving consentual adults can share their life with whomever they wish,,,, and have the government put their stamp of approval on it,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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' http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=243 So you are okay with deformities being 18 times more likely? What "Christian" advocates a behavior that is 18 times more likely to damage or destroy a child's life? a christian that doesnt support eugenics a christian who understands the advances of prenatal screening and testing a christian who had a child at 38, which increased the likelihood of a 'deformity' such as downs at least TEN TIMES as if I had had her before 30 ...yet the government doesnt disallow my 'right' to marry based upon this 'damaging' likelihood... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a christian that doesnt support eugenics a christian who understands the advances of prenatal screening and testing a christian who had a child at 38, which increased the likelihood of a 'deformity' such as downs at least TEN TIMES as if I had had her before 30 ...yet the government doesnt disallow my 'right' to marry based upon this 'damaging' likelihood... Whatever, you aren't worth my time. I hope you have your brother or father or whatever have a great time together. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a christian that doesnt support eugenics a christian who understands the advances of prenatal screening and testing a christian who had a child at 38, which increased the likelihood of a 'deformity' such as downs at least TEN TIMES as if I had had her before 30 ...yet the government doesnt disallow my 'right' to marry based upon this 'damaging' likelihood... Whatever, you aren't worth my time. I hope you have your brother or father or whatever have a great time together. I choose heterosexual, unrelated partnerships. IM just advocating that everyone choose whomever they love without interference from others. And if you dont agree with incestuous relationships,, dont have one,,,( I know I wont.) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a christian that doesnt support eugenics a christian who understands the advances of prenatal screening and testing a christian who had a child at 38, which increased the likelihood of a 'deformity' such as downs at least TEN TIMES as if I had had her before 30 ...yet the government doesnt disallow my 'right' to marry based upon this 'damaging' likelihood... Whatever, you aren't worth my time. I hope you have your brother or father or whatever have a great time together. I choose heterosexual, unrelated partnerships. IM just advocating that everyone choose whomever they love without interference from others. And if you dont agree with incestuous relationships,, dont have one,,,( I know I wont.) How many horribly deformed children will the average homosexual relationship produce? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a christian that doesnt support eugenics a christian who understands the advances of prenatal screening and testing a christian who had a child at 38, which increased the likelihood of a 'deformity' such as downs at least TEN TIMES as if I had had her before 30 ...yet the government doesnt disallow my 'right' to marry based upon this 'damaging' likelihood... Whatever, you aren't worth my time. I hope you have your brother or father or whatever have a great time together. I choose heterosexual, unrelated partnerships. IM just advocating that everyone choose whomever they love without interference from others. And if you dont agree with incestuous relationships,, dont have one,,,( I know I wont.) How many horribly deformed children will the average homosexual relationship produce? homosexuals cant produce children with homosexuals , only with hetero or bi sexuals,, which brings up a whole other debate about how 'defined' they are by sexuality,,, but even so,,doesnt matter, as the government has no say over anyone elses body or reproductive rights,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a christian that doesnt support eugenics a christian who understands the advances of prenatal screening and testing a christian who had a child at 38, which increased the likelihood of a 'deformity' such as downs at least TEN TIMES as if I had had her before 30 ...yet the government doesnt disallow my 'right' to marry based upon this 'damaging' likelihood... Whatever, you aren't worth my time. I hope you have your brother or father or whatever have a great time together. I choose heterosexual, unrelated partnerships. IM just advocating that everyone choose whomever they love without interference from others. And if you dont agree with incestuous relationships,, dont have one,,,( I know I wont.) How many horribly deformed children will the average homosexual relationship produce? homosexuals cant produce children with homosexuals , only with hetero or bi sexuals,, which brings up a whole other debate about how 'defined' they are by sexuality,,, but even so,,doesnt matter, as the government has no say over anyone elses body or reproductive rights,,, We aren't talking about the consenting adult's bodies, we are talking about the unborn child's rights and the unborn child's body. The child cannot speak for itself, so the Government must in this case. Just like we don't allow pregnant women to get drunk, try to kill her body or do drugs while pregnant, we cannot allow incest to produce a mentally or physically defective child. Your comparison of homosexuality and incest is disgusting. If you don't like homosexuality, FINE. GOOD. If you see two people having sex with absolutely 0% chance of having children the same thing as a father railing his daughter with a very high chance of producing children with deformities, then I'm not sure that anyone outside of God himself can help you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a christian that doesnt support eugenics a christian who understands the advances of prenatal screening and testing a christian who had a child at 38, which increased the likelihood of a 'deformity' such as downs at least TEN TIMES as if I had had her before 30 ...yet the government doesnt disallow my 'right' to marry based upon this 'damaging' likelihood... Whatever, you aren't worth my time. I hope you have your brother or father or whatever have a great time together. I choose heterosexual, unrelated partnerships. IM just advocating that everyone choose whomever they love without interference from others. And if you dont agree with incestuous relationships,, dont have one,,,( I know I wont.) How many horribly deformed children will the average homosexual relationship produce? haha..nice try...just go get married to your buddy, have all the gay butt sex you want, and be happy... just don't try to involve the non gays |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a christian that doesnt support eugenics a christian who understands the advances of prenatal screening and testing a christian who had a child at 38, which increased the likelihood of a 'deformity' such as downs at least TEN TIMES as if I had had her before 30 ...yet the government doesnt disallow my 'right' to marry based upon this 'damaging' likelihood... Whatever, you aren't worth my time. I hope you have your brother or father or whatever have a great time together. I choose heterosexual, unrelated partnerships. IM just advocating that everyone choose whomever they love without interference from others. And if you dont agree with incestuous relationships,, dont have one,,,( I know I wont.) How many horribly deformed children will the average homosexual relationship produce? haha..nice try...just go get married to your buddy, have all the gay butt sex you want, and be happy... just don't try to involve the non gays Someone didn't take their be nice pills today. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a christian that doesnt support eugenics a christian who understands the advances of prenatal screening and testing a christian who had a child at 38, which increased the likelihood of a 'deformity' such as downs at least TEN TIMES as if I had had her before 30 ...yet the government doesnt disallow my 'right' to marry based upon this 'damaging' likelihood... Whatever, you aren't worth my time. I hope you have your brother or father or whatever have a great time together. I choose heterosexual, unrelated partnerships. IM just advocating that everyone choose whomever they love without interference from others. And if you dont agree with incestuous relationships,, dont have one,,,( I know I wont.) How many horribly deformed children will the average homosexual relationship produce? homosexuals cant produce children with homosexuals , only with hetero or bi sexuals,, which brings up a whole other debate about how 'defined' they are by sexuality,,, but even so,,doesnt matter, as the government has no say over anyone elses body or reproductive rights,,, We aren't talking about the consenting adult's bodies, we are talking about the unborn child's rights and the unborn child's body. The child cannot speak for itself, so the Government must in this case. Just like we don't allow pregnant women to get drunk, try to kill her body or do drugs while pregnant, we cannot allow incest to produce a mentally or physically defective child. Your comparison of homosexuality and incest is disgusting. If you don't like homosexuality, FINE. GOOD. If you see two people having sex with absolutely 0% chance of having children the same thing as a father railing his daughter with a very high chance of producing children with deformities, then I'm not sure that anyone outside of God himself can help you. I disagree. this isnt about unborn children as the government is not in the business of eugenics and the idea that they care about 'unborn children' doesnt have alot of merit so long as they are not opposing 'termination' of pregnancies This isnt about unborn children or eugenics as there is no age limit by which women can marry even though risks of certain genetic issues rise significantly as women age,,, As I said before, the potential deformities is the ONLY argument the anti incest debate has and with technology advancing at such a rate as to make such deformities less of a risk(With proper screening and treatement),and with little support for the position that places the government as authority over anyones reproductive rights,, that argument is LOSING GROUND so, yes, the right of two consenting adults, regardless of their biology, to marry each other and choose whether they wish to take on WHATEVER risks,,, will slowly transcend into rights for incestous couples just like it has for homosexual couples,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a christian that doesnt support eugenics a christian who understands the advances of prenatal screening and testing a christian who had a child at 38, which increased the likelihood of a 'deformity' such as downs at least TEN TIMES as if I had had her before 30 ...yet the government doesnt disallow my 'right' to marry based upon this 'damaging' likelihood... Whatever, you aren't worth my time. I hope you have your brother or father or whatever have a great time together. I choose heterosexual, unrelated partnerships. IM just advocating that everyone choose whomever they love without interference from others. And if you dont agree with incestuous relationships,, dont have one,,,( I know I wont.) How many horribly deformed children will the average homosexual relationship produce? haha..nice try...just go get married to your buddy, have all the gay butt sex you want, and be happy... just don't try to involve the non gays Someone didn't take their be nice pills today. are those the red ones or the blue ones? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a christian that doesnt support eugenics a christian who understands the advances of prenatal screening and testing a christian who had a child at 38, which increased the likelihood of a 'deformity' such as downs at least TEN TIMES as if I had had her before 30 ...yet the government doesnt disallow my 'right' to marry based upon this 'damaging' likelihood... Whatever, you aren't worth my time. I hope you have your brother or father or whatever have a great time together. I choose heterosexual, unrelated partnerships. IM just advocating that everyone choose whomever they love without interference from others. And if you dont agree with incestuous relationships,, dont have one,,,( I know I wont.) How many horribly deformed children will the average homosexual relationship produce? homosexuals cant produce children with homosexuals , only with hetero or bi sexuals,, which brings up a whole other debate about how 'defined' they are by sexuality,,, but even so,,doesnt matter, as the government has no say over anyone elses body or reproductive rights,,, We aren't talking about the consenting adult's bodies, we are talking about the unborn child's rights and the unborn child's body. The child cannot speak for itself, so the Government must in this case. Just like we don't allow pregnant women to get drunk, try to kill her body or do drugs while pregnant, we cannot allow incest to produce a mentally or physically defective child. Your comparison of homosexuality and incest is disgusting. If you don't like homosexuality, FINE. GOOD. If you see two people having sex with absolutely 0% chance of having children the same thing as a father railing his daughter with a very high chance of producing children with deformities, then I'm not sure that anyone outside of God himself can help you. I disagree. this isnt about unborn children as the government is not in the business of eugenics and the idea that they care about 'unborn children' doesnt have alot of merit so long as they are not opposing 'termination' of pregnancies This isnt about unborn children or eugenics as there is no age limit by which women can marry even though risks of certain genetic issues rise significantly as women age,,, As I said before, the potential deformities is the ONLY argument the anti incest debate has and with technology advancing at such a rate as to make such deformities less of a risk(With proper screening and treatement),and with little support for the position that places the government as authority over anyones reproductive rights,, that argument is LOSING GROUND so, yes, the right of two consenting adults, regardless of their biology, to marry each other and choose whether they wish to take on WHATEVER risks,,, will slowly transcend into rights for incestous couples just like it has for homosexual couples,,, they are just trying to change the subject, they know this opens doors for all sorts of deviant sex laws coming about, so they still try to justify this nonsence.. since 2 people "love" each other, how long will it take to change the laws where teachers can marry students? priests marrying there alter boys? brothers marrying there sisters? and robertson is right, all counties in the past have fell apart after embracing same sex couples... sparta, greece, romans,sodam and gamora, just to name a few |
|
|
|
|
