gay marriage bill passed in ny .... wonderful

[timcity2000]

one thing to keep in mind... polygamy, incest, pedophilia and (i suppose) even bestiality could be either heterosexual or homosexual.

so doesn't this same question also exist?: "if we allow heterosexuals to marry, why shouldn't we allow polygamy and incest?"

see how ridiculous that sounds?

(btw... i left the bestiality and pedophilia arguments out of the question. those clearly have no merit. if anything, they describe acts and not relationships... and people of ALL sexual orientations generally agree that these are immoral. not to mention the lack of consent.)

 

[timcity2000]

one thing to keep in mind... polygamy, incest, pedophilia and (i suppose) even bestiality could be either heterosexual or homosexual.

so doesn't this same question also exist?: "if we allow heterosexuals to marry, why shouldn't we allow polygamy and incest?"

see how ridiculous that sounds?

(btw... i left the bestiality and pedophilia arguments out of the question. those clearly have no merit. if anything, they describe acts and not relationships... and people of ALL sexual orientations generally agree that these are immoral. not to mention the lack of consent.)

 

[rko2004]

Originally Posted by James Earl Zones

Originally Posted by 0 Xm 0

lotta !**@@ on the train acting straight disrespectful to everyone around them. get in my face your gonna get more equal rights than your looking for.

How did this thread become about incest? Mr. Fantastics.

What's the info behind this?

 

[rko2004]

Originally Posted by James Earl Zones

Originally Posted by 0 Xm 0

lotta !**@@ on the train acting straight disrespectful to everyone around them. get in my face your gonna get more equal rights than your looking for.

How did this thread become about incest? Mr. Fantastics.

What's the info behind this?

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by Nako XL

It's VERY likely lol.  EVERY bad gene that runs in your family that normally gets passed over in reproduction becomes doubly as likely to become prevalent.

Two people who happen to have the same disease having a baby is no where near as bad as two siblings with the same disease mating.  While it true in both that disease would be just as likely to manifest, you're ignoring all the other repeating genes that you wouldn't share with a non relative.

So then your argument becomes the amount of potential genetic diseases that can arise should determine whether a couple can get married.

idk. i'm tired of arguing with you.

carry on.

 

[ilpadrino9]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by ilpadrino9

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

I've addressed this several times. NO ONE is allowed to marry a closely related individual and NO ONE is allowed to marry multiple people at the same time. Therefore, the issue of gay marriage is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the issues of incest and polygamy. In the case of marriage, anyone can get married except for homosexual couples which is why it's an issue of equal rights.

By that rational, gay people aren't denied the right to marry. They can marry any person of the opposite sex that they want. The argument the gay community makes is that they can't marry the person they want to. Under that premise, my argument is valid. 

They are being denied the right to marry someone of the same sex which is discrimination based on the fact that they are a same sex couple. The law, as it stands now, explicitly states that marriage is between and man and a woman which discriminates against marriage between a man and another man and marriage between a woman and another woman. You're trying to compare one situation where only one specific group is denied the same right that is granted to everyone else and two others situations where no one is granted that right. That is why they are separate issues and also why your argument is not valid.

No one is (was) granted the right to marry the same sex and only a specific group (polygamists, those who wish to marry a relative) are denied the right (now that gay marriage is legal) that is granted to everyone else (the right to marry the person of their choice). 

 

[ilpadrino9]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by ilpadrino9

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

I've addressed this several times. NO ONE is allowed to marry a closely related individual and NO ONE is allowed to marry multiple people at the same time. Therefore, the issue of gay marriage is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the issues of incest and polygamy. In the case of marriage, anyone can get married except for homosexual couples which is why it's an issue of equal rights.

By that rational, gay people aren't denied the right to marry. They can marry any person of the opposite sex that they want. The argument the gay community makes is that they can't marry the person they want to. Under that premise, my argument is valid. 

They are being denied the right to marry someone of the same sex which is discrimination based on the fact that they are a same sex couple. The law, as it stands now, explicitly states that marriage is between and man and a woman which discriminates against marriage between a man and another man and marriage between a woman and another woman. You're trying to compare one situation where only one specific group is denied the same right that is granted to everyone else and two others situations where no one is granted that right. That is why they are separate issues and also why your argument is not valid.

No one is (was) granted the right to marry the same sex and only a specific group (polygamists, those who wish to marry a relative) are denied the right (now that gay marriage is legal) that is granted to everyone else (the right to marry the person of their choice). 

 

[anotherprodigy]

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

Originally Posted by anotherprodigy

Originally Posted by ilpadrino9

SO now that gay marriage is allowed, why aren't cousins/siblings allowed to marry? or why is polygamy illegal? If it is between consenting adults with no harm to anyone, then why deny them? In the latter cases, there is a law specifically preventing marriage. Talk about inequality and second class status...

I've been wondering what the argument would be. If homosexuals are permitted equal rights, then shouldn't incest and polygamy be permissible and legalized?

incest is one that actually would hurt other people (the baby) if they were to get pregnant

Keyword is "if" they impregnate. If, they decide to not re-create, as homosexual couples are unable to do, should there be laws to restrain them from intertwining and marrying? Also, is it illegal for women to do drugs or drink alcohol while pregnant? Serious question. If not, I see little difference in them having the freedom to wreak havoc with their genes and any mutations caused by incest.

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by Nako XL

It's VERY likely lol.  EVERY bad gene that runs in your family that normally gets passed over in reproduction becomes doubly as likely to become prevalent.

Two people who happen to have the same disease having a baby is no where near as bad as two siblings with the same disease mating.  While it true in both that disease would be just as likely to manifest, you're ignoring all the other repeating genes that you wouldn't share with a non relative.

So then your argument becomes the amount of potential genetic diseases that can arise should determine whether a couple can get married.

idk. i'm tired of arguing with you.

carry on.

 

[anotherprodigy]

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

Originally Posted by anotherprodigy

Originally Posted by ilpadrino9

SO now that gay marriage is allowed, why aren't cousins/siblings allowed to marry? or why is polygamy illegal? If it is between consenting adults with no harm to anyone, then why deny them? In the latter cases, there is a law specifically preventing marriage. Talk about inequality and second class status...

I've been wondering what the argument would be. If homosexuals are permitted equal rights, then shouldn't incest and polygamy be permissible and legalized?

incest is one that actually would hurt other people (the baby) if they were to get pregnant

Keyword is "if" they impregnate. If, they decide to not re-create, as homosexual couples are unable to do, should there be laws to restrain them from intertwining and marrying? Also, is it illegal for women to do drugs or drink alcohol while pregnant? Serious question. If not, I see little difference in them having the freedom to wreak havoc with their genes and any mutations caused by incest.

 

[tennhouse2]

Originally Posted by anotherprodigy

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

Originally Posted by anotherprodigy

I've been wondering what the argument would be. If homosexuals are permitted equal rights, then shouldn't incest and polygamy be permissible and legalized?

incest is one that actually would hurt other people (the baby) if they were to get pregnant

Keyword is "if" they impregnate. If, they decide to not re-create, as homosexual couples are unable to do, should there be laws to restrain them from intertwining and marrying? Also, is it illegal for women to do drugs or drink alcohol while pregnant? Serious question. If not, I see little difference in them having the freedom to wreak havoc with their genes and any mutations caused by incest.

how would you decide not to re-create while having sex? no form of birth control is 100% except for not having sex. so that wouldnt work unless you think the government should force abortions. and yes i believe drinking and doing drugs while pregnant is illegal and will get your child taken away

 

[tennhouse2]

Originally Posted by anotherprodigy

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

Originally Posted by anotherprodigy

I've been wondering what the argument would be. If homosexuals are permitted equal rights, then shouldn't incest and polygamy be permissible and legalized?

incest is one that actually would hurt other people (the baby) if they were to get pregnant

Keyword is "if" they impregnate. If, they decide to not re-create, as homosexual couples are unable to do, should there be laws to restrain them from intertwining and marrying? Also, is it illegal for women to do drugs or drink alcohol while pregnant? Serious question. If not, I see little difference in them having the freedom to wreak havoc with their genes and any mutations caused by incest.

how would you decide not to re-create while having sex? no form of birth control is 100% except for not having sex. so that wouldnt work unless you think the government should force abortions. and yes i believe drinking and doing drugs while pregnant is illegal and will get your child taken away

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by Nako XL

idk. i'm tired of arguing with you.

carry on.

Uh, okay. I was actually just trying to discuss the topic with you.

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by Nako XL

idk. i'm tired of arguing with you.

carry on.

Uh, okay. I was actually just trying to discuss the topic with you.

 

[james earl zones]

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Originally Posted by James Earl Zones

Originally Posted by 0 Xm 0

lotta !**@@ on the train acting straight disrespectful to everyone around them. get in my face your gonna get more equal rights than your looking for.

How did this thread become about incest? Mr. Fantastics.

What's the info behind this?

I've been trying to find out, I damn near died laughing when I saw it yesterday

all I can think of when I see it is "its a party, its a party, its a partyyy".

 

[james earl zones]

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Originally Posted by James Earl Zones

Originally Posted by 0 Xm 0

lotta !**@@ on the train acting straight disrespectful to everyone around them. get in my face your gonna get more equal rights than your looking for.

How did this thread become about incest? Mr. Fantastics.

What's the info behind this?

I've been trying to find out, I damn near died laughing when I saw it yesterday

all I can think of when I see it is "its a party, its a party, its a partyyy".

 

[anotherprodigy]

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

Originally Posted by anotherprodigy

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

incest is one that actually would hurt other people (the baby) if they were to get pregnant

Keyword is "if" they impregnate. If, they decide to not re-create, as homosexual couples are unable to do, should there be laws to restrain them from intertwining and marrying? Also, is it illegal for women to do drugs or drink alcohol while pregnant? Serious question. If not, I see little difference in them having the freedom to wreak havoc with their genes and any mutations caused by incest.

how would you decide not to re-create while having sex? no form of birth control is 100% except for not having sex. so that wouldnt work unless you think the government should force abortions. and yes i believe drinking and doing drugs while pregnant is illegal and will get your child taken away

I hope it is an illegal act, but I'm too lazy to research right now

I don't know what the solution would be. However, we have guidelines for people engaging in sexual intercourse with HIV, there has to be a solution to this quandary. Also, would it be a problem if they got married, but agreed not to engage in incest?

 

[anotherprodigy]

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

Originally Posted by anotherprodigy

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

incest is one that actually would hurt other people (the baby) if they were to get pregnant

Keyword is "if" they impregnate. If, they decide to not re-create, as homosexual couples are unable to do, should there be laws to restrain them from intertwining and marrying? Also, is it illegal for women to do drugs or drink alcohol while pregnant? Serious question. If not, I see little difference in them having the freedom to wreak havoc with their genes and any mutations caused by incest.

how would you decide not to re-create while having sex? no form of birth control is 100% except for not having sex. so that wouldnt work unless you think the government should force abortions. and yes i believe drinking and doing drugs while pregnant is illegal and will get your child taken away

I hope it is an illegal act, but I'm too lazy to research right now

I don't know what the solution would be. However, we have guidelines for people engaging in sexual intercourse with HIV, there has to be a solution to this quandary. Also, would it be a problem if they got married, but agreed not to engage in incest?

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by ilpadrino9

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by ilpadrino9


By that rational, gay people aren't denied the right to marry. They can marry any person of the opposite sex that they want. The argument the gay community makes is that they can't marry the person they want to. Under that premise, my argument is valid. 

They are being denied the right to marry someone of the same sex which is discrimination based on the fact that they are a same sex couple. The law, as it stands now, explicitly states that marriage is between and man and a woman which discriminates against marriage between a man and another man and marriage between a woman and another woman. You're trying to compare one situation where only one specific group is denied the same right that is granted to everyone else and two others situations where no one is granted that right. That is why they are separate issues and also why your argument is not valid.

No one is (was) granted the right to marry the same sex and only a specific group (polygamists, those who wish to marry a relative) are denied the right (now that gay marriage is legal) that is granted to everyone else (the right to marry the person of their choice). 

The issue isn't the right to marry the person of your choice. It's having equal rights. Heterosexual couples can get married, homosexual couples can enter into civil unions. It is not considered a marriage because they are a homosexual couple. That is the issue.

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by ilpadrino9

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by ilpadrino9


By that rational, gay people aren't denied the right to marry. They can marry any person of the opposite sex that they want. The argument the gay community makes is that they can't marry the person they want to. Under that premise, my argument is valid. 

They are being denied the right to marry someone of the same sex which is discrimination based on the fact that they are a same sex couple. The law, as it stands now, explicitly states that marriage is between and man and a woman which discriminates against marriage between a man and another man and marriage between a woman and another woman. You're trying to compare one situation where only one specific group is denied the same right that is granted to everyone else and two others situations where no one is granted that right. That is why they are separate issues and also why your argument is not valid.

No one is (was) granted the right to marry the same sex and only a specific group (polygamists, those who wish to marry a relative) are denied the right (now that gay marriage is legal) that is granted to everyone else (the right to marry the person of their choice). 

The issue isn't the right to marry the person of your choice. It's having equal rights. Heterosexual couples can get married, homosexual couples can enter into civil unions. It is not considered a marriage because they are a homosexual couple. That is the issue.

 

[anotherprodigy]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by ilpadrino9

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

They are being denied the right to marry someone of the same sex which is discrimination based on the fact that they are a same sex couple. The law, as it stands now, explicitly states that marriage is between and man and a woman which discriminates against marriage between a man and another man and marriage between a woman and another woman. You're trying to compare one situation where only one specific group is denied the same right that is granted to everyone else and two others situations where no one is granted that right. That is why they are separate issues and also why your argument is not valid.

No one is (was) granted the right to marry the same sex and only a specific group (polygamists, those who wish to marry a relative) are denied the right (now that gay marriage is legal) that is granted to everyone else (the right to marry the person of their choice). 

The issue isn't the right to marry the person of your choice. It's having equal rights. Heterosexual couples can get married, homosexual couples can enter into civil unions. It is not considered a marriage because they are a homosexual couple. That is the issue.

But, he is saying that polygamist are not enjoying equal rights. I feel as if we can make an exception for homosexuals and abolish the original meaning of marriage then we can redefine it to include polygamy. What other reason is there to exclude them if we can redefine the term to include man and man, or woman and woman? It can easily be husband and multiple wives, or wife married to multiple husbands. It is legal to have children with multiple women, so that cannot be the deterrent.

 

[anotherprodigy]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by ilpadrino9

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

They are being denied the right to marry someone of the same sex which is discrimination based on the fact that they are a same sex couple. The law, as it stands now, explicitly states that marriage is between and man and a woman which discriminates against marriage between a man and another man and marriage between a woman and another woman. You're trying to compare one situation where only one specific group is denied the same right that is granted to everyone else and two others situations where no one is granted that right. That is why they are separate issues and also why your argument is not valid.

No one is (was) granted the right to marry the same sex and only a specific group (polygamists, those who wish to marry a relative) are denied the right (now that gay marriage is legal) that is granted to everyone else (the right to marry the person of their choice). 

The issue isn't the right to marry the person of your choice. It's having equal rights. Heterosexual couples can get married, homosexual couples can enter into civil unions. It is not considered a marriage because they are a homosexual couple. That is the issue.

But, he is saying that polygamist are not enjoying equal rights. I feel as if we can make an exception for homosexuals and abolish the original meaning of marriage then we can redefine it to include polygamy. What other reason is there to exclude them if we can redefine the term to include man and man, or woman and woman? It can easily be husband and multiple wives, or wife married to multiple husbands. It is legal to have children with multiple women, so that cannot be the deterrent.

 

[tony montana]

The end of the world coming and my city the proof.

 

[tony montana]

The end of the world coming and my city the proof.

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by Nako XL

idk. i'm tired of arguing with you.

carry on.

Uh, okay. I was actually just trying to discuss the topic with you.

no i know. and no offense intended, i just felt like i was repeating the same thing to you and the others.