Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Travis wrote: Anyone else a bit concerned that any conversation about gay marriage always leads to incest and group marriage?."
'bit' concerned? is that like a bit icky?
Or maybe when someone equates the non approval of gay marriage to slavery. That makes me concerned.
Young people in general are less concerned about gay marriage. Older people grew up in the days when gay meant wrong and illegal and their views have stuck with them. A change in the law does not mean the older people now automatically change their view. Many of those in the middle, I guess have changed their views over time.
And this is much the same with incest, rape or other sexuality activity.
If the laws of your land, or your religion told you that incest is wrong then most people will consider it wrong. But if the law of your land allows it.........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wiki...
'In Brazil', incest is considered any kind of sexual interaction between two blood related human beings. It has no criminal punishment if the involved are over the age of 14, capable of acting upon their legal rights, and that consent means that the relationship is absent of any kind of coercion or fraud. An uncle or aunt is allowed to have a relationship with a nephew or niece provided that they have a health check.
'Incest is illegal in Scotland[29] England and Wales'. It is defined as sexual intercourse between a person and their parent (including adoptive parent), grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. It is punishable with up to two years' imprisonment.[30] For familial child sex offences, the parent and sibling relationship definitions include step-parents and step-siblings
‘United States‘, from Hawaii 5 years to Florida Life imprisonment……..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If a consenting 15 year old and a 19 year old have sex in the UK that could by classed as rape, but would not be in Brazil.
Right or wrong is not written in stone, it is what a person perceives to be wrong, a bit concerning, icky or disgusting.
Which do you find more acceptable, the above laws of Brazil or the UK?
Incest or gay marriage can be a 'bit concerning' to different people for different reasons. But there does not seem to be an absolute right to either, unlike the unreasonable comparison to slavery, from a few posts back, which people do have an absolute right not to be enslaved.
cHriS wrote: "Maybe cows and cars have more to do with it, but I guess the blame will be more the fault of those dam religious cows."
Well, now ....
That's a conspiracy theory I've not heard of.
Oh, I've heard that cows are to blame. Cow flatulence. And, ... of course, the big and burly and Stetson wearing American men who like to eat them and refuse to consider becoming vegans.
But, I've never heard that cows are religious and that the religious cows are to blame for our downfall.
Interesting ....
You know, come to think of it ....
I'm going to take a wild guess that those big and burly men in Stetsons are religious.
You might be on to something, cHriS.
Well, now ....
That's a conspiracy theory I've not heard of.
Oh, I've heard that cows are to blame. Cow flatulence. And, ... of course, the big and burly and Stetson wearing American men who like to eat them and refuse to consider becoming vegans.
But, I've never heard that cows are religious and that the religious cows are to blame for our downfall.
Interesting ....
You know, come to think of it ....
I'm going to take a wild guess that those big and burly men in Stetsons are religious.
You might be on to something, cHriS.
Travis wrote: "You'd think people who believe in god would want to take better care of the planet.
They know the owner and what he's capable of when he gets ticked off. "
American Indian people who believe in Great Spirit do.
Of course, a lot of other religious people do. You'd think, when publishing a study, it would stand for something. You wouldn't think the author's of the study would say their study shouldn't be used to predict how people might vote and how policies might be adopted ... especially given the fact that ... that's how their study is being used. Peculiar.
Sounds suspect to me .... Not because I'm a believer ... but ... because I'm skeptical of studies centered on the idea that ... "it stands to reason that ...."
They know the owner and what he's capable of when he gets ticked off. "
American Indian people who believe in Great Spirit do.
Of course, a lot of other religious people do. You'd think, when publishing a study, it would stand for something. You wouldn't think the author's of the study would say their study shouldn't be used to predict how people might vote and how policies might be adopted ... especially given the fact that ... that's how their study is being used. Peculiar.
Sounds suspect to me .... Not because I'm a believer ... but ... because I'm skeptical of studies centered on the idea that ... "it stands to reason that ...."
cHriS wrote: "unlike the unreasonable comparison to slavery, from a few posts back, which people do have an absolute right not to be enslaved. "
I'll go on the record and agree with you on this point.
While you didn't ask me the question about Brazil and the UK, I'll answer. Of the two, the UK. However, I prefer Florida, honestly. I'm guessing that might have some things added to it. Someone who rapes a child under the age of .... I'm guessing the life sentence is for people hurting children under the age of 12. I'm aware of some laws, in my neck of the woods, that deal with age in this way. A perp over the age of ... 25, I think, who rapes a child under the age of 12 .... That's seen as a different thing. Then, you've got statutory rape. A 17-year old or a 21-year old with a 14-year old. It's against the law and you can get in trouble. Sure. But, there are different laws and different penalties. Etc....
When it comes to a child under 12, life seems reasonable to me, personally. And, no, I don't believe sex offenders of that variety can be cured. Or ... the sex offender who rapes older girls and women over and over. I don't believe they can be cured either. Vermont tried to do a special program with them and tried to prove they could be cured. Yeah.... Look at the Edwin Town (Towne?) case. I'm not convinced, though, I lost track of the research years ago.
I'll go on the record and agree with you on this point.
While you didn't ask me the question about Brazil and the UK, I'll answer. Of the two, the UK. However, I prefer Florida, honestly. I'm guessing that might have some things added to it. Someone who rapes a child under the age of .... I'm guessing the life sentence is for people hurting children under the age of 12. I'm aware of some laws, in my neck of the woods, that deal with age in this way. A perp over the age of ... 25, I think, who rapes a child under the age of 12 .... That's seen as a different thing. Then, you've got statutory rape. A 17-year old or a 21-year old with a 14-year old. It's against the law and you can get in trouble. Sure. But, there are different laws and different penalties. Etc....
When it comes to a child under 12, life seems reasonable to me, personally. And, no, I don't believe sex offenders of that variety can be cured. Or ... the sex offender who rapes older girls and women over and over. I don't believe they can be cured either. Vermont tried to do a special program with them and tried to prove they could be cured. Yeah.... Look at the Edwin Town (Towne?) case. I'm not convinced, though, I lost track of the research years ago.
Shannon wrote: Well, now ....That's a conspiracy theory I've not heard of. ..."
http://science.howstuffworks.com/zool...
Shannon you must know of the expression Holy Cow.
Shannon wrote: there are different laws and different penalties. Etc...."
...there are. But what I am trying to say is that there is no absolute 'right' or 'wrong' to these things, whether is be gay marriage or incest.
You come down on the side Florida and similar states regarding the penalties for incest, where as someone from Brazil reading this may wonder what all the fuss is about. It that not the same with most things we are discussing here. It is how, where and by whom we are brought up that determines how we view things.
The age of consent in the UK is 16. Yet the age of consent varies through the world from 'puberty'
(under 12) to 21. So why do I think 21 is ridicules while at the same time I think 12 is (to use the in word here) icky?
Shannon wrote: Guessing you don't have thoughts to share on rights and Gessen. True?."Oh yes......... she makes a good point, maybe she s a bit radical, but so are a lot of people with valid points to make.
At best she has uncovered a plot by gay people to undermine marriage and so in some warped way will make us even more equal, if that is possible.
At worst she is telling us what a minority of gay people would like to see happen, abolish marriage altogether...... one step beyond gay marriage.
What she does is show us that the gay marriage debate is not just a two horse race. There are many factors to be considered in the debate.
I have always though that there are just as many people wanting gay marriage, for the sake of it as want it in a genuine way.
It's also worth pointing out that the religious v gay marriage argument is not as strong as some here would have us believe; hence their ulterior motive for suggesting there is.
Of the eleven countries that allow gay marriage, three are catholic and it was the Church of Canada that approved gay marriage in Canada.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: Anyone else a bit concerned that any conversation about gay marriage always leads to incest and group marriage?."
'bit' concerned? is that like a bit icky?
Or maybe when someone eq..."
My concern is the flimsy nature of the slippery slope argument and the general, conversational lumping together.
I'm not a fan of religion, but won't be saying 'religious people, pedophiles and UfO enthusiasts' despite the obvious links between the three.
That and I don't see gay marriage as a multi-tasking issue.
We can deal with the big incest and group marriage lobbies when they start speaking up that they need support.
It feels at best, an unfortunate choice of words and at worst a deliberate gimmick to muddy the waters.
Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Maybe cows and cars have more to do with it, but I guess the blame will be more the fault of those dam religious cows."Well, now ....
That's a conspiracy theory I've not heard of. ..."
Obviously it's the religious cows, as it's a well known fact that atheists don't fart.
Why won't people wake up to the threat of the evil cattlemen conspiracy and their plot to destroy the eco-system!
Travis wrote: My concern is the flimsy nature of the slippery slope argument and the general, conversational lumping together...."
My reply was to your request for an answer to.....
Travis wrote: Anyone else a bit concerned that any conversation about gay marriage always leads to incest and group marriage?
..... the lumping together of gay marriage and incest, was included as part of your question. So the response only reflects that.
Travis wrote: "That and I don't see gay marriage as a multi-tasking issue."
It's an issue if it's about rights.
If the reason to grant gay marriage and the rights within marriage to gay couples is about gay couples and only about gay couples, that's one thing. An argument that went something like ... gay couples are just like heterosexual couples. They're human beings who want to marry the one person who supports them and loves them in that special way so many people, regardless of sexual orientation, often seek. Two people coming together to grow and love one another. They're people just like us, with the same needs and desires. How in the world can we treat people, who are just like us, so differently?
That's one thing.
Now, when we start talking about rights and linking rights to this, which has been done here and elsewhere ... when we say that's the reason we're doing it to begin with ... when we say ALL people should have rights, should have equal rights ... when we say no one should be discriminated against because everyone should have the same rights as everyone else ... we've got a more complicated issue. Enter multi-tasking.
I'll pull an Abigail Adams. It's well and good to talk about the rights of men. What about the rights of African-American men? What about the rights of women?
Why in the world, when talking about the rights of people, would we only talk about the rights of gay people who don't get to get married? Why wouldn't we talk about everyone who is in that situation?
It's an issue if it's about rights.
If the reason to grant gay marriage and the rights within marriage to gay couples is about gay couples and only about gay couples, that's one thing. An argument that went something like ... gay couples are just like heterosexual couples. They're human beings who want to marry the one person who supports them and loves them in that special way so many people, regardless of sexual orientation, often seek. Two people coming together to grow and love one another. They're people just like us, with the same needs and desires. How in the world can we treat people, who are just like us, so differently?
That's one thing.
Now, when we start talking about rights and linking rights to this, which has been done here and elsewhere ... when we say that's the reason we're doing it to begin with ... when we say ALL people should have rights, should have equal rights ... when we say no one should be discriminated against because everyone should have the same rights as everyone else ... we've got a more complicated issue. Enter multi-tasking.
I'll pull an Abigail Adams. It's well and good to talk about the rights of men. What about the rights of African-American men? What about the rights of women?
Why in the world, when talking about the rights of people, would we only talk about the rights of gay people who don't get to get married? Why wouldn't we talk about everyone who is in that situation?
Travis wrote: "I'm not a fan of religion, but won't be saying 'religious people, pedophiles and UfO enthusiasts' despite the obvious links between the three."
Actually, I'm 100% positive that all three things have been linked here before. Sometimes just two of the things ....
But, oh, yes, we've been there and we've done that.
Actually, I'm 100% positive that all three things have been linked here before. Sometimes just two of the things ....
But, oh, yes, we've been there and we've done that.
Travis wrote: "as it's a well known fact that atheists don't fart."
Interesting tidbit. Will be filing that away in my memory bank. ;)
Interesting tidbit. Will be filing that away in my memory bank. ;)
Shannon wrote: "Why in the world, when talking about the rights of people, would we only talk about the rights of gay people who don't get to get married? Why wouldn't we talk about everyone who is in that situation? "
I'm even going to answer my own questions, in part. Watched Lincoln for the first time last night and I'm fired up. (LOVED the Ethan Allen stories. Go, Green Mountain Boys!)
We're only dealing with gay couples and only dealing with the rights of gay couples and not the rights of others because ....
First, it might scuttle the chances of gay couples.
Second, it's not popular to argue for the rights of everyone. Is it? I mean, hey, it was one thing to discuss and deal with slavery. But, shoot, giving African-Americans and women the right to vote. Women? Oh, heck, no.
Now, just as then, there are paths we're not willing to walk.
No push for the other. No constituency. No $$. No power players in Hollywood or in NYC writing movies or plays about it. And, it scares us a little. I mean, dang .... They're different from us. It makes us feel icky.
The big question ... and ... I don't have the answer to this one.
Regarding marriage, is there ever a time when we say no? Age and consent. Yup. Got it. Past that? Is it a rights thing? A live and let live thing. Loving and consenting couples. Or, like I asked, are some things so abhorrent that we don't do them? Period. End of story.
Why run from the questions and the discussions? My first point.... Yup. That's a reason. But, is it a good reason? Does it justify not dealing with all people and all rights now? I'd say arguments could be made for both.
I'm even going to answer my own questions, in part. Watched Lincoln for the first time last night and I'm fired up. (LOVED the Ethan Allen stories. Go, Green Mountain Boys!)
We're only dealing with gay couples and only dealing with the rights of gay couples and not the rights of others because ....
First, it might scuttle the chances of gay couples.
Second, it's not popular to argue for the rights of everyone. Is it? I mean, hey, it was one thing to discuss and deal with slavery. But, shoot, giving African-Americans and women the right to vote. Women? Oh, heck, no.
Now, just as then, there are paths we're not willing to walk.
No push for the other. No constituency. No $$. No power players in Hollywood or in NYC writing movies or plays about it. And, it scares us a little. I mean, dang .... They're different from us. It makes us feel icky.
The big question ... and ... I don't have the answer to this one.
Regarding marriage, is there ever a time when we say no? Age and consent. Yup. Got it. Past that? Is it a rights thing? A live and let live thing. Loving and consenting couples. Or, like I asked, are some things so abhorrent that we don't do them? Period. End of story.
Why run from the questions and the discussions? My first point.... Yup. That's a reason. But, is it a good reason? Does it justify not dealing with all people and all rights now? I'd say arguments could be made for both.
Travis wrote: "We can deal with the big incest and group marriage lobbies when they start speaking up that they need support.
It feels at best, an unfortunate choice of words and at worst a deliberate gimmick to muddy the waters."
Nope. Not for me.
For some, I'm sure it is a gimmick to muddy the waters.
But, it's also the truth. For me, it's the truth. Rights are important. Rights are important to me. I'm a woman. I'm a woman of English, Irish, and American Indian descent. I don't play when it comes to rights and the rights of others.
Do we really wait until people have enough money to hire lobbyists and enough power and backing to get others behind them before we talk about their rights? Wait until the protest. Wait until they do hunger strikes. Wait until they, what ....
Granted, the two things on the table now aren't things we talk about often, not in polite society and not in the way we're discussing them.
But, shoot, .... How many times have we, as humans, gotten it wrong? Talked about the rights of one group and only one group because it was in vogue to do so, because there was pressure to do so, ... but ... didn't really and truly get the job done? Didn't get rights for all?
Or, do we accept that? That's the way it works. It's the "safe" way. Safe for the group in question .... It was safer to go for an anti-slavery amendment than going for that and equal rights at the same time. Better chances of it going through.
What's right?
This is a much more difficult conversation that it first appears.
It feels at best, an unfortunate choice of words and at worst a deliberate gimmick to muddy the waters."
Nope. Not for me.
For some, I'm sure it is a gimmick to muddy the waters.
But, it's also the truth. For me, it's the truth. Rights are important. Rights are important to me. I'm a woman. I'm a woman of English, Irish, and American Indian descent. I don't play when it comes to rights and the rights of others.
Do we really wait until people have enough money to hire lobbyists and enough power and backing to get others behind them before we talk about their rights? Wait until the protest. Wait until they do hunger strikes. Wait until they, what ....
Granted, the two things on the table now aren't things we talk about often, not in polite society and not in the way we're discussing them.
But, shoot, .... How many times have we, as humans, gotten it wrong? Talked about the rights of one group and only one group because it was in vogue to do so, because there was pressure to do so, ... but ... didn't really and truly get the job done? Didn't get rights for all?
Or, do we accept that? That's the way it works. It's the "safe" way. Safe for the group in question .... It was safer to go for an anti-slavery amendment than going for that and equal rights at the same time. Better chances of it going through.
What's right?
This is a much more difficult conversation that it first appears.
Shannon wrote: Regarding marriage, is there ever a time when we say no? Age and consent. Yup. Got it. Past that? Is it a rights thing? A live and let live thing. Loving and consenting couples. Or, like I asked, are some things so abhorrent that we don't do them? Period. End of story. "
Maybe a bit of everything Shannon.
Abhorrent, yes to some people.
A Religious thing where politics has to stay out of it, yes.
A time to say no, there has to be.
Is it a rights thing, no; but some people want it to be. That I think, in part, is what Gessen was saying.
Age and consent, of course, but commitment has to be in there as well.
A live and let live thing. Not really, unless there is a compromise, which would be the 'civil partnership'.
Side tracking a bit..........Is discrimination a good thing?
We have something over here called positive discrimination, I think it's called 'affirmative action' in the US. It's name is dressed up a bit to make it sound something other than what it is meant to be.
Some people will say it is not discrimination, others will say it is. How ever it is worded it is still discrimination.
So can discrimination be a good thing?
By adding the word positive in front of discrimination, do you change it's meaning?
By adding the word gay in front of the word marriage do you change it's meaning.
CHris wrote: "By adding the word positive in front of discrimination, do you change it's meaning?" - actually you do, connotatively it's different, but it IS still discrimination all the same.Then Chris wrote "By adding the word gay in front of the word marriage do you change it's meaning." - Not in any way I care beans about, no. Not at all.
cHriS wrote: "Maybe a bit of everything Shannon."
Yeah, I don't know ....
Like I said, I don't have the answers regarding polygamy, etc....
I do find it interesting, though ... in a discomforting sort of way.
I'm sure there are conservatives who, for various reasons ... including the obvious, use the polygamy, etc... argument in order to muddy the waters, as Travis said. I'm sure of it. Of course, there might be people who think of this just as a matter of course. If we're talking rights, ...? But, I imagine there are plenty who use this argument to end the gay marriage debate.
(Would love it if someone reading these posts is a lawyer ... if someone in the real world actually addressed this, legally. Would a precedent be set? Would this open the door to other legal relationships? Do they have a point? What country has had gay marriage the longest? How has it played out in their country? Like so many things, instead of pointing and saying, "You homophobic jerks!" wouldn't it be just lovely if intelligent people would share some facts. Heck!)
So, yes, I find it upsetting that some might bring it up as a political game, to have a better chance at stopping homosexuals from having legally recognized relationships.
However, ....
I also find it disconcerting that liberals don't seem willing to discuss this. Rights for all, no, oops, rights for some ....
I can't imagine, in this country (US), that there are many people who want to marry direct family members. As I said, I didn't go there in my head prior to yesterday's research. Of all of the people I've known throughout my life, I've known one couple, first cousins, who married. I think. I know they were together and had been for ten years or so. So, I guess, that's not against the law, at least in that state. Is that even considered an incestuous relationship? I don't know. I'd say so. Legally? Yes, they had children. Yes, as cerebus said, they had genetic issues. I had a seriously hard time wrapping my brain around the situation and relationship and felt very badly for the children, whose issues were obvious ... birth markings, etc.... I didn't know them well, knew them less than a year. However, in the limited time of knowing them, .... Much as this pains me and makes me uncomfortable, they seemed to be truly in love. Devoted to one another and their family. They seemed to have a very healthy relationship and seemed to be really good parents. Again, ... limited knowledge and I, personally, would never go there, but .... They were the nicest people. They were SO good to one another. And, ... they were awesome parents. What rights do these sorts of people have? If they don't have the right to marry, is it for us to tell them their families don't count?
Regarding polygamy, .... Do I know anyone in such relationships? No. I visited my Mormon cousin at BYU years ago and might have met a woman who was in such a relationship. Her husband was in jail. My cousin said there were rumors about the why's of that, possible polygamy. Would I consider polygamy for myself? Can't imagine it. However, I'm one of the only single people who writes here; I can't imagine being married to one man some days, so .... But, .... Should they have the right, if they're of age and choose that path?
And, if people are into rights and fighting for the rights of others, why in the world aren't we looking at the big picture ... especially if we get all kinds of outspoken about rights. People should have rights and anyone who says otherwise is a ..... Oh, ... until we bring up something that is a bit "weird" or controversial or that we've not thought about before.
The first ... the conservatives and possible intentions and tactics ... that doesn't shock me. Saddens me. Doesn't shock me. The second ... liberals and their not really and truly going down the path of rights for all ... well, that does shock me.
Yeah, I don't know ....
Like I said, I don't have the answers regarding polygamy, etc....
I do find it interesting, though ... in a discomforting sort of way.
I'm sure there are conservatives who, for various reasons ... including the obvious, use the polygamy, etc... argument in order to muddy the waters, as Travis said. I'm sure of it. Of course, there might be people who think of this just as a matter of course. If we're talking rights, ...? But, I imagine there are plenty who use this argument to end the gay marriage debate.
(Would love it if someone reading these posts is a lawyer ... if someone in the real world actually addressed this, legally. Would a precedent be set? Would this open the door to other legal relationships? Do they have a point? What country has had gay marriage the longest? How has it played out in their country? Like so many things, instead of pointing and saying, "You homophobic jerks!" wouldn't it be just lovely if intelligent people would share some facts. Heck!)
So, yes, I find it upsetting that some might bring it up as a political game, to have a better chance at stopping homosexuals from having legally recognized relationships.
However, ....
I also find it disconcerting that liberals don't seem willing to discuss this. Rights for all, no, oops, rights for some ....
I can't imagine, in this country (US), that there are many people who want to marry direct family members. As I said, I didn't go there in my head prior to yesterday's research. Of all of the people I've known throughout my life, I've known one couple, first cousins, who married. I think. I know they were together and had been for ten years or so. So, I guess, that's not against the law, at least in that state. Is that even considered an incestuous relationship? I don't know. I'd say so. Legally? Yes, they had children. Yes, as cerebus said, they had genetic issues. I had a seriously hard time wrapping my brain around the situation and relationship and felt very badly for the children, whose issues were obvious ... birth markings, etc.... I didn't know them well, knew them less than a year. However, in the limited time of knowing them, .... Much as this pains me and makes me uncomfortable, they seemed to be truly in love. Devoted to one another and their family. They seemed to have a very healthy relationship and seemed to be really good parents. Again, ... limited knowledge and I, personally, would never go there, but .... They were the nicest people. They were SO good to one another. And, ... they were awesome parents. What rights do these sorts of people have? If they don't have the right to marry, is it for us to tell them their families don't count?
Regarding polygamy, .... Do I know anyone in such relationships? No. I visited my Mormon cousin at BYU years ago and might have met a woman who was in such a relationship. Her husband was in jail. My cousin said there were rumors about the why's of that, possible polygamy. Would I consider polygamy for myself? Can't imagine it. However, I'm one of the only single people who writes here; I can't imagine being married to one man some days, so .... But, .... Should they have the right, if they're of age and choose that path?
And, if people are into rights and fighting for the rights of others, why in the world aren't we looking at the big picture ... especially if we get all kinds of outspoken about rights. People should have rights and anyone who says otherwise is a ..... Oh, ... until we bring up something that is a bit "weird" or controversial or that we've not thought about before.
The first ... the conservatives and possible intentions and tactics ... that doesn't shock me. Saddens me. Doesn't shock me. The second ... liberals and their not really and truly going down the path of rights for all ... well, that does shock me.
Why consider polygamy, if you want to go that way, go for polyamory. Polygamy is one man with many wives, but polyamory is a group of consenting adults, both male and female, who are mature enough to maintain relationships which are open and honest with a number of people at any given time. One of my closest friends is polyamourous, and he is married, and has relationships with 6 other women, who have relationships with other people, and they all know about each other, and it works, no jealousy, plenty of communication and everybody is happy.As with homosexuality, I honestly don't understand the obsession with what consenting adults are doing in their private lives.
A world without religion.
Hazel wrote: "Why consider polygamy, if you want to go that way, go for polyamory. Polygamy is one man with many wives, but polyamory is a group of consenting adults, both male and female, who are mature enough ..."
I think polygamy includes having more than one wife or more than one husband at a time. Don't think it's limited to one man with many wives, though, I'd guess, that's what we see most often.
Do people who practice polyamory have the rights people have been talking about? If they're in a committed relationship, do they get benefits, parental rights, etc...? If no, why is that not a problem? Or, are you saying they should have the same rights? I think the latter, but I'm not sure.
Why aren't we going there, by the way? Rights for all?
I think polygamy includes having more than one wife or more than one husband at a time. Don't think it's limited to one man with many wives, though, I'd guess, that's what we see most often.
Do people who practice polyamory have the rights people have been talking about? If they're in a committed relationship, do they get benefits, parental rights, etc...? If no, why is that not a problem? Or, are you saying they should have the same rights? I think the latter, but I'm not sure.
Why aren't we going there, by the way? Rights for all?
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: Anyone else a bit concerned that any conversation about gay marriage always leads to incest and group marriage?."
'bit' concerned? is that like a bit icky?
Or maybe when someone eq..."
Incest and same-sex marriage are different, in that incest has demonstrable genetic implications for offspring (thereby taking it out of the realms of two consenting adults into one with an impact on a non-consenting third party). There are no similar implications for same-sex marriage....there have been claims made (children are somehow affected) but these have not stood up to scrutiny.
It should be noted that in the UK cousins are able to marry, so at what point are you saying the familial boundary should be drawn? For me I would say where the odds of genetic implications drop to a level that is consistent with two non-related adults.
cHriS wrote: "So why do I think 21 is ridicules while at the same time I think 12 is (to use the in word here) icky? "A lot of what any of us consider "icky" (and we all consider stuff icky, it is an instinctive reaction, evolved over the ages to the point where we aren't consciously aware of it, we just know we feel "icky").
For age-of-consent questions again I think an argument can be made from studies of the age at which people can be considered capable of giving informed consent. I think a case could also be made that in different cultures this is at different ages (stating clearly that I don't think there would be big differences, I would doubt it would ever be below 16....)
This is a very difficult question for those people who really values religion and respect the ideas of science. They said that human brain is way bigger than the universe. So for those people who said, respect, love and comprehension is the most important thing, i do believe in that.
each of us has their own understanding and opinions, whichever they choice, whether it's religion or science, the important thing is, what they chose was the one they have their faith into.
That's all that matters right, its a weight of what you stand for and what you believe in.
cHriS wrote: "At best she has uncovered a plot by gay people to undermine marriage and so in some warped way will make us even more equal, if that is possible.At worst she is telling us what a minority of gay people would like to see happen, abolish marriage altogether...... one step beyond gay marriage.
What she does is show us that the gay marriage debate is not just a two horse race. There are many factors to be considered in the debate. "
There are factors to be considered in every race, and in this case I would say one person's hope (and however many "supporters") that it will destroy the concept of marriage is a minor factor. There are those opposing same-sex marriage who say it will destroy marriage, but cannot make a convincing case of how this will happen, the fact that there is a supporter of same-sex marriage who thinks (even hopes) it will destroy marriage doesn't make the case any more convincing....it's like the Biggins example, some gay people not wanting same-sex marriage to be legalised does not change the issue substantively at all. If Christopher Biggins doesn't want to get married, then legalising same-sex marriage is not going to force him to marry.
cHriS wrote: "It's also worth pointing out that the religious v gay marriage argument is not as strong as some here would have us believe; hence their ulterior motive for suggesting there is. "Anecdotally I would say the arguments I have seen against same-sex marriage have come from believers, whether they credit their position to their beliefs or not. Again, it is not a position universally held by believers, I am not claiming it is, and similarly I doubt it would be hard to find some examples of non-believers opposed to it, but as I said (anecdotally) the majority of discussions I have seen have had the arguments against it coming from believers.
Shannon wrote: "Why in the world, when talking about the rights of people, would we only talk about the rights of gay people who don't get to get married? Why wouldn't we talk about everyone who is in that situation? "Advocating for same-sex marriage does not imply in any way that a negative or even neutral position is being taken on all other potential rights issues. But it is senseless to say we cannot discuss one issue of rights without having to either genericise it so much that we just speak about "all rights", or that we make it so cumbersome that when we discuss same-sex marriage we also have to have a rider saying "and this is my position on the following list of rights issues".
If there is another rights issue you want to bring into the discussion, or I guess more appropriately start as a new discussion (I don't mean new thread, just different message), then have at it....
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "as it's a well known fact that atheists don't fart."Interesting tidbit. Will be filing that away in my memory bank. ;)"
I must not be a "real" atheist then. Farts are funny.
"You don’t have to be smart to laugh at farts, but you have to be stupid not to."
— Louis C.K.
'Kurt Vonnegut thought so. Here's an excerpt from his novel Galapagos, where he talks about the future of human evolution, after a disease forces us to abandon land and basically become seals:
"And people still laugh as much as they ever did, despite their shrunken brains. If a bunch of them are lying around on a beach, and one of them farts, everybody laughs and laughs, just as people would have done a million years ago."'
Shannon wrote: "I also find it disconcerting that liberals don't seem willing to discuss this. Rights for all, no, oops, rights for some .."Is this a general comment, or just on this discussion?
cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I also find it disconcerting that liberals don't seem willing to discuss this. Rights for all, no, oops, rights for some .."
Is this a general comment, or just on this discussion?"
Oh, definitely a general comment ... though it can go here, too. But, no, general. I've heard 5,001 conversations about this topic. In person. Local news. National news. International. I've heard some go on about how it would destroy marriage, and I've heard some go on about how it's an issue of rights, rights for all ... how can we live with ourselves when some have the right to do something that others don't.
Yet, with the exception of hearing a few conservatives throw out the idea of ... it will open the door to polygamy and worse things ... (always wondered what was meant by worse things ... now I know) and people calling those conservatives dirty rotten cowards and homophobes, I've never heard anyone really have the discussion.
Of all of the liberals I've known personally, who have gone on and on and on about rights, I've never heard one go here.
And, it would seem to me, of the all liberals who have fought for gays to have the rights to marry, they've not done a darned thing about others. Haven't even discussed it. Have only shouted down the conservatives who have brought it up.
So, yeah, I find that pretty darned disconcerting ... in a general way ... that extends to all sorts of areas ... the dinner table conversation, the news, etc....
Is this a general comment, or just on this discussion?"
Oh, definitely a general comment ... though it can go here, too. But, no, general. I've heard 5,001 conversations about this topic. In person. Local news. National news. International. I've heard some go on about how it would destroy marriage, and I've heard some go on about how it's an issue of rights, rights for all ... how can we live with ourselves when some have the right to do something that others don't.
Yet, with the exception of hearing a few conservatives throw out the idea of ... it will open the door to polygamy and worse things ... (always wondered what was meant by worse things ... now I know) and people calling those conservatives dirty rotten cowards and homophobes, I've never heard anyone really have the discussion.
Of all of the liberals I've known personally, who have gone on and on and on about rights, I've never heard one go here.
And, it would seem to me, of the all liberals who have fought for gays to have the rights to marry, they've not done a darned thing about others. Haven't even discussed it. Have only shouted down the conservatives who have brought it up.
So, yeah, I find that pretty darned disconcerting ... in a general way ... that extends to all sorts of areas ... the dinner table conversation, the news, etc....
cerebus wrote: "But it is senseless to say we cannot discuss one issue of rights without having to either genericise it so much that we just speak about "all rights", or that we make it so cumbersome that when we discuss same-sex marriage we also have to have a rider saying "and this is my position on the following list of rights issues".
If there is another rights issue you want to bring into the discussion, or I guess more appropriately start as a new discussion (I don't mean new thread, just different message), then have at it.... "
So, ....
It doesn't seem in the least odd to you that people would talk about rights, talk about this issue in terms of rights for all, and not really and truly think of it and talk about it in terms of rights for all?
Come on.... How many times has the argument been made ... consenting adults ...? Consenting adults who love one another?
If that's the argument, why aren't we being real about it? Why aren't we moving to change the law to say ... consenting adults? I mean, either we believe in that or we don't.
I find it odd.
Regarding the last bit, ....
I'm a bit unclear as to why I'd need to start a new message in order to discuss something or respond to the comments others have made regarding rights, the rights that all people should have, etc....
If there is another rights issue you want to bring into the discussion, or I guess more appropriately start as a new discussion (I don't mean new thread, just different message), then have at it.... "
So, ....
It doesn't seem in the least odd to you that people would talk about rights, talk about this issue in terms of rights for all, and not really and truly think of it and talk about it in terms of rights for all?
Come on.... How many times has the argument been made ... consenting adults ...? Consenting adults who love one another?
If that's the argument, why aren't we being real about it? Why aren't we moving to change the law to say ... consenting adults? I mean, either we believe in that or we don't.
I find it odd.
Regarding the last bit, ....
I'm a bit unclear as to why I'd need to start a new message in order to discuss something or respond to the comments others have made regarding rights, the rights that all people should have, etc....
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "That and I don't see gay marriage as a multi-tasking issue."It's an issue if it's about rights.
If the reason to grant gay marriage and the rights within marriage to gay couples i..."
Sorry, didn't mean to offend anyone out there that practices incest or polygamy by implying they are less worthy of rights.
cerebus wrote: "For me I would say where the odds of genetic implications drop to a level that is consistent with two non-related adults. "
I don't think grandparents, parents, children and/or siblings should marry. Cousins also seem sketchy to me. Why? Who the heck does that? Well, people. The ancient Egyptians and on down the line. I find it abhorrent to the nth degree. It goes against the mores of the society in which I was raised. I think it crosses boundaries, poses power issues, psychological issues, etc.... (Out of sheer curiosity, do animals do that? People here bring up animal behavior all the time when proving morality doesn't need to come with religion. Animals are moral. Do animals do this. I really am curious, though mildly disturbed by my newfound curiosity in this subject.)
I question raising genetics and the threat to offspring as the reason to deny it.
As I asked last night ....
If we go down that path, are we also going to say that people who, in all likelihood, will have children who are genetically challenged can't marry? To heck with incestuous relationships, which likely happen rarely, with any luck at all.
What about two people with Downs? What about two people whose combined IQ's won't even come close to equally the average? Etc....
Further, ....
cHriS has been arguing that marriage is about the children. I've told him it isn't ... for various reasons.
Are we know, in this instance, going to make marriage be about the children?
If it's going to be about anything, I think it needs to be about ... morality. Doesn't it?
But, I suppose that has implications in and of itself.
Do we want marriage to be about morality? By whose standards?
Thoughts?
I don't think grandparents, parents, children and/or siblings should marry. Cousins also seem sketchy to me. Why? Who the heck does that? Well, people. The ancient Egyptians and on down the line. I find it abhorrent to the nth degree. It goes against the mores of the society in which I was raised. I think it crosses boundaries, poses power issues, psychological issues, etc.... (Out of sheer curiosity, do animals do that? People here bring up animal behavior all the time when proving morality doesn't need to come with religion. Animals are moral. Do animals do this. I really am curious, though mildly disturbed by my newfound curiosity in this subject.)
I question raising genetics and the threat to offspring as the reason to deny it.
As I asked last night ....
If we go down that path, are we also going to say that people who, in all likelihood, will have children who are genetically challenged can't marry? To heck with incestuous relationships, which likely happen rarely, with any luck at all.
What about two people with Downs? What about two people whose combined IQ's won't even come close to equally the average? Etc....
Further, ....
cHriS has been arguing that marriage is about the children. I've told him it isn't ... for various reasons.
Are we know, in this instance, going to make marriage be about the children?
If it's going to be about anything, I think it needs to be about ... morality. Doesn't it?
But, I suppose that has implications in and of itself.
Do we want marriage to be about morality? By whose standards?
Thoughts?
cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "as it's a well known fact that atheists don't fart."Interesting tidbit. Will be filing that away in my memory bank. ;)"
I must not be a "real" atheist then. Farts..."
Keep talking like that an the world atheist federation is going to take away your secret decoder ring.
cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: Guessing you don't have thoughts to share on rights and Gessen. True?."Oh yes......... she makes a good point, maybe she s a bit radical, but so are a lot of people with valid poin..."
three out of eleven...yeah, that disproves the religion vs gay marriage argument...well, actually, no it doesn't.
It's just a vague couple of numbers with no further info to put it in context.
It's not even good Vegas odds, let alone being used as an 'Ah-ha!' revelation.
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "That and I don't see gay marriage as a multi-tasking issue."
It's an issue if it's about rights.
If the reason to grant gay marriage and the rights within marriage ..."
Oh, have mercy....
Please, please, please tell me this is not a set up for ...
I'm sorry, Shannon. With others chiming in, once again, we all need to say we're sorry to Shannon. That's all she wants. For people to tell her they're sorry.
Not sure I could take that again so soon.
First, you don't need to tell me you're sorry, Travis. Since that post is to me, I'm guessing your comment is directed to me.
Second, ....
When you see something odd or wrong or disconcerting, does it always follow that you're offended?
Can't you see something being off, realize it, and say, "Wow. That's off," without it's being about your being offended?
Hey, I'll admit it. There are things that tick me off to all heck. Dishonesty is right up there ... after discrimination, abuse, rape, etc.... Hey, pretty sure I heard the Saudi embassy or the Saudi royal's compound in DC was "raided" today for human trafficking. In DC? Or, did I dream it? That stuff offends me ... that and the fact that we bow to them for all sorts of reasons (oil) and will continue to do so.
This ... didn't really offend me, frankly, and there's no need to apologize. At all.
I just find it all sorts of freaky weird. To go on and on about rights and families and how wrong it is to say some people's families don't count when ....
Well, shoot!
Here we are fighting for some people's rights and some people's families but we're not even discussing whether or not we should be talking about and fighting for the rights of all families.
That's all.
Seems off ... to me at least. I also find it somewhat fascinating. The things we're willing to discuss and take a stance on and the things we'd just soon never came up.
It's an issue if it's about rights.
If the reason to grant gay marriage and the rights within marriage ..."
Oh, have mercy....
Please, please, please tell me this is not a set up for ...
I'm sorry, Shannon. With others chiming in, once again, we all need to say we're sorry to Shannon. That's all she wants. For people to tell her they're sorry.
Not sure I could take that again so soon.
First, you don't need to tell me you're sorry, Travis. Since that post is to me, I'm guessing your comment is directed to me.
Second, ....
When you see something odd or wrong or disconcerting, does it always follow that you're offended?
Can't you see something being off, realize it, and say, "Wow. That's off," without it's being about your being offended?
Hey, I'll admit it. There are things that tick me off to all heck. Dishonesty is right up there ... after discrimination, abuse, rape, etc.... Hey, pretty sure I heard the Saudi embassy or the Saudi royal's compound in DC was "raided" today for human trafficking. In DC? Or, did I dream it? That stuff offends me ... that and the fact that we bow to them for all sorts of reasons (oil) and will continue to do so.
This ... didn't really offend me, frankly, and there's no need to apologize. At all.
I just find it all sorts of freaky weird. To go on and on about rights and families and how wrong it is to say some people's families don't count when ....
Well, shoot!
Here we are fighting for some people's rights and some people's families but we're not even discussing whether or not we should be talking about and fighting for the rights of all families.
That's all.
Seems off ... to me at least. I also find it somewhat fascinating. The things we're willing to discuss and take a stance on and the things we'd just soon never came up.
Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "But it is senseless to say we cannot discuss one issue of rights without having to either genericise it so much that we just speak about "all rights", or that we make it so cumberso..."I'm unclear on what you are saying....Are you saying that if I am to argue in favour of same-sex marriage, I should also be arguing for every other single rights issue which affects people, or for every other marriage related rights issue? As Travis has mentioned, I am not aware of a call for multiple marriage rights, or for loosening the restrictions of marrying family members. If that comes up, I will (and have) express my opinion on it. But on this thread the discussion in hand is same-sex marriage, so that is what I address my points to. By saying it is a rights issue, as I would say it is, does not mean that I am expressing an opinion on any other marriage related rights issue. If someone brings other related issues up, then fine, it's part of the discussion, and as I have said I have commented, but it seems that what you're asking is that if I express an opinion on same-sex marriage as a rights issue, and in the same breath don't also express an opinion on all other variants of marriage/rights, that I am being somehow underhanded, or duplicitous in my support of same-sex marriage.
Shannon wrote: "Are we know, in this instance, going to make marriage be about the children?"Yes, the difference being when it is used as a reason against same-sex marriage it is unsupported by any evidence.
You do make a valid point though, if two adults capable of giving informed consent decide to have offspring with a higher than normal probability of birth abnormalities, should that be allowed? I think it makes your examples of Downs syndrome couples a little more complex as you need to consider the informed consent side of things, but is more directly relevant to the family members argument. For me the genetic aspect certainly makes the discussion about same-family marriage more complex than same-sex marriage, which as I have stated before I have not yet seen a convincing argument for, only variations on the "I don't like it" statement.
Travis wrote: "Keep talking like that an the world atheist federation is going to take away your secret decoder ring. "Considering where I hide it, I doubt they'd want it...
cerebus wrote: "I am being somehow underhanded, or duplicitous in my support of same-sex marriage."
I don't think it's underhanded and duplicitous. I think it's odd. I think it's odd that, we none of us, talk about it or consider it. And, yes, I think it's odd that, if we're going to say it's about rights, that we wouldn't deal with marriage rights in general.
I don't really need there to be a group that's lobbying for the rights of people to enter into polygamous marriages in order to sit back and say, "Huh.... What's up with this? I'm standing up for gay marriage rights, but I've never really taken the time to think about this. Should I?" I don't need to know people and be friends with people who are in polygamous relationships to entertain the notion. It doesn't need to touch me or my life in some way in order for it to matter.
For me, ....
It became part of a puzzle. You guys were vociferous about rights for several days straight. Good for you, by the way. Seriously. But, it made me start thinking. Wait a minute. Then, the email popped up and I researched it, since it was suspect, and .... Why aren't we, universal we, having a broader and more open and honest conversation about these things?
Further, it's challenging to my way of thinking and my comfort level. I consider those things to be good. That's why I take part in this thread. Isn't it worthwhile to contemplate such topics, even if they don't directly involve us or have an organization backing them? Especially if we're talking rights?
Clearly, you and Travis disagree. That's your prerogative. I find it somewhat fascinating ... in that ... it seems it's another thing to add to the list ... almost quasi-Godwin's ... but not quite.
If I were to be brutally honest, ....
This goes to liberals in general ... not necessarily you ... and, frankly, goes to me ... not a liberal, but I've taken stands for gay marriage ....
It strikes me that we're somewhat self-centered. Is that the phrase? Short-sighted and self-centered. Though, that might be too judgmental. Honestly. But, here we are, fighting for something, for years, some of us ... and ....
We're fighting for something that touches us, that means something to us. We have friends or family members or .... We have co-workers .... We see it every day, the struggles of the gay people around us. It's there. In our faces. We want our friends and family to be safe and happy. Protected. Some people who have taken part here have actually been gay and had a direct tie. But, dang, as much as we got all kinds of indignant about the rights of our gay friends and family members, it never occurred to us, I include me here, to think about rights in general. What the heck is up with that?
And, yes, I stressed my liberal friends because ... I know them and know they've studied the issue, far more than I, ... I'd think, especially given how strongly they've felt and fought, that they'd be a bit more ... global in their outlook. Wouldn't just see what was in front of them and what touched them personally.
But, as often seems the case, that's not something that happens.
We tend to, sometimes, assign our motives to other people. I have a thing about rights, which I've disclosed five ways to Sunday. I sometimes assume all people have the same views, especially people who have a lot to say about rights. I assume it is important in and of itself. It doesn't have to be about us and it doesn't have to be about someone we know. It only has to be about another human being. That's it. That's enough. I think that's because that's where I'm coming from, a different type of self-centeredness.
It always strikes me when that's not the case. But, it doesn't mean there's duplicity involved.
If I had to guess, I'd say it might have more to do with an ick factor ... a level of discomfort.
I don't think it's underhanded and duplicitous. I think it's odd. I think it's odd that, we none of us, talk about it or consider it. And, yes, I think it's odd that, if we're going to say it's about rights, that we wouldn't deal with marriage rights in general.
I don't really need there to be a group that's lobbying for the rights of people to enter into polygamous marriages in order to sit back and say, "Huh.... What's up with this? I'm standing up for gay marriage rights, but I've never really taken the time to think about this. Should I?" I don't need to know people and be friends with people who are in polygamous relationships to entertain the notion. It doesn't need to touch me or my life in some way in order for it to matter.
For me, ....
It became part of a puzzle. You guys were vociferous about rights for several days straight. Good for you, by the way. Seriously. But, it made me start thinking. Wait a minute. Then, the email popped up and I researched it, since it was suspect, and .... Why aren't we, universal we, having a broader and more open and honest conversation about these things?
Further, it's challenging to my way of thinking and my comfort level. I consider those things to be good. That's why I take part in this thread. Isn't it worthwhile to contemplate such topics, even if they don't directly involve us or have an organization backing them? Especially if we're talking rights?
Clearly, you and Travis disagree. That's your prerogative. I find it somewhat fascinating ... in that ... it seems it's another thing to add to the list ... almost quasi-Godwin's ... but not quite.
If I were to be brutally honest, ....
This goes to liberals in general ... not necessarily you ... and, frankly, goes to me ... not a liberal, but I've taken stands for gay marriage ....
It strikes me that we're somewhat self-centered. Is that the phrase? Short-sighted and self-centered. Though, that might be too judgmental. Honestly. But, here we are, fighting for something, for years, some of us ... and ....
We're fighting for something that touches us, that means something to us. We have friends or family members or .... We have co-workers .... We see it every day, the struggles of the gay people around us. It's there. In our faces. We want our friends and family to be safe and happy. Protected. Some people who have taken part here have actually been gay and had a direct tie. But, dang, as much as we got all kinds of indignant about the rights of our gay friends and family members, it never occurred to us, I include me here, to think about rights in general. What the heck is up with that?
And, yes, I stressed my liberal friends because ... I know them and know they've studied the issue, far more than I, ... I'd think, especially given how strongly they've felt and fought, that they'd be a bit more ... global in their outlook. Wouldn't just see what was in front of them and what touched them personally.
But, as often seems the case, that's not something that happens.
We tend to, sometimes, assign our motives to other people. I have a thing about rights, which I've disclosed five ways to Sunday. I sometimes assume all people have the same views, especially people who have a lot to say about rights. I assume it is important in and of itself. It doesn't have to be about us and it doesn't have to be about someone we know. It only has to be about another human being. That's it. That's enough. I think that's because that's where I'm coming from, a different type of self-centeredness.
It always strikes me when that's not the case. But, it doesn't mean there's duplicity involved.
If I had to guess, I'd say it might have more to do with an ick factor ... a level of discomfort.
Without religion, there will be no God at the same time; with that, if there's no God, where can you have technology since God is the master-scientist. >.< Not worth arguing/debating.
cerebus wrote: "I think it makes your examples of Downs syndrome couples a little more complex as you need to consider the informed consent side of things"
Are people with Downs not able to give consent? Are they not allowed to marry? I honestly don't know the answer to that question.
There are other genetic issues out there, as well....
Are people with Downs not able to give consent? Are they not allowed to marry? I honestly don't know the answer to that question.
There are other genetic issues out there, as well....
Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "I think it makes your examples of Downs syndrome couples a little more complex as you need to consider the informed consent side of things"Are people with Downs not able to give c..."
I just read an article on people with Downs, and yes, they can get married and have sex; however, they may need more support from family than most couples. Parents of the couple are, however, encouraged to discourage the couple from having children because of financial and genetic issues as well as the fact that the couple may not be able to properly care for a special needs child. It's all right here:
http://www.downs-syndrome.org.uk/comp...
Shannon wrote: "I don't really need there to be a group that's lobbying for the rights of people to enter into polygamous marriages in order to sit back and say, "Huh.... What's up with this? I'm standing up for gay marriage rights, but I've never really taken the time to think about this. Should I?" I don't need to know people and be friends with people who are in polygamous relationships to entertain the notion. It doesn't need to touch me or my life in some way in order for it to matter."But I have used the issue of same-sex marriage because it is such a high visibility issue, and one which is objected to for less than what I would consider valid reasons. Again I would maintain that by discussing same-sex marriage it does not imply a position on any other subject, nor does it mean I'm trying to hide from it because of any feelings on it. I honestly struggle to see how the "days straight" of discussing same-sex marriage implies a lack of interest or any position on the issue of plural marriage. Where plural marriage came into the discussion was with the comments about "slippery slope arguments", at which point the discussion shifted to those elements. I applaud your degree of fairness and desire for total transparency, but I think it may be expecting a bit too much...not to expect fairness, but to expect that in a discussion that was about same-sex marriage to expect that we then explicitly argue for every other form of rights. When plural marriage came up as a normal part of the conversation it has been discussed, I haven't seen anyone shying away from it. But, as I said before, it appears what you are saying is that when I say "I support same-sex marriage", that must always be accompanied by "And I also support plural marriage (if anyone wants it), have to consider further close relations marrying, am totally against child marriages, am in favour of reducing the import duty on craft beer imported from the US, am totally against the imposition of Justin Bieber on an unsuspecting public, am in favour of....."
Clive wrote: "Without religion, there will be no God at the same time; with that, if there's no God, where can you have technology since God is the master-scientist. >.< Not worth arguing/debating."That is possibly the most circular argument I have seen yet. And the most meaningless.
Shannon wrote: "Are people with Downs not able to give consent? Are they not allowed to marry? I honestly don't know the answer to that question."I am also unclear on where the issue of informed consent lies in cases such as this, so I would need to do more research before I formed a position.
Shannon wrote: "There are other genetic issues out there, as well.... "
There are, many of them undiscovered (as to the exact causes), or at the very least unknown to potential marriage partners, so it makes it even more complex...if you are unaware you carry a particular genetic issue which when passed onto children will cause problems, how can you make an "informed" decision on whether to have children or not. If you are aware of it, and for example are guaranteed if you have children they will be faced with a particular disability, does your informed consent to proceed with having children outweigh the fact that the resulting child was not consulted? I never claimed all rights issues were clear-cut and easy to resolve. When discussing same-sex marriage however, and specifically asking for reasons that people object, I have not seen a cogent reason given yet.
cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Are people with Downs not able to give consent? Are they not allowed to marry? I honestly don't know the answer to that question."I am also unclear on where the issue of informed c..."
This is true. Right now there are campaigns in New Zealand going on telling people with any disorder, whether it's Asperger's Syndrome or depression, not to reproduce.
Personally I think it's going a bit far, but that's just me. I know I have a higher than average chance of having a child with autism, but I also know that I want to wait to have kids until I am emotionally capable of caring for another life form that isn't covered in fur or green and leafy, especially since I could easily produce a nonverbal child.
Heather wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Are people with Downs not able to give consent? Are they not allowed to marry? I honestly don't know the answer to that question."I am also unclear on where the iss..."
For a second I was wondering what genetic condition you had that would produce furry, green and leafy children....then I read it again a bit more carefully...
Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Why consider polygamy, if you want to go that way, go for polyamory. Polygamy is one man with many wives, but polyamory is a group of consenting adults, both male and female, who are ..."Polygamy is one man with many wives, thats the actual meaning of the word, one woman with many husbands is polyandry, and then there's polyamory as I described above.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
You'd think people who believe in god would want to take better care of the planet.
They know the owner and what he's capable of when he gets ticked off.