Warren: An Excellent Choice for the Invocation

He he, this makes me giggle. Here we have skeptics making the same argument that woos make that "X years ago biology/physics/psychology/science said Y, which we know now to be false, so whatever it says now shouldn't be listened to either."

In same sex marriage, the issue is gender, and that is all. It does not deal with changing blood relation rules.

If the pro-incest lobby wants to make their case, they can do that. But just because one makes a single change to an institution does not mean that every change becomes equally valid.

The race portion of the definition of marriage was removed, and that didn't automatically mean that the gender part was rendered meaningless.

Incest involves many issues including (but not limited to) the issue of actually destabilizing the family, unlike same-sex marriage. For example, let's say a father marries his daughter. Would the daughter's brothers be her brothers or her step-sons? And if they have a child together, is the child the son of the father, or the grandson? Are the brothers the child's brothers, or uncles? Are the fathers siblings the child's aunts and uncles, or... whatever they would be if the father was considered the grandfather? And so on and so forth.

With gay marriage, none of that is an issue. It makes a family just the way a normal relationship would.

And, for some odd reason, I still think that science gives us the best fit models with the knowledge we have now, just like it always has. If one wants to ignore it for incest by saying it has changed before and may do so again in the future, then one must also accept this view to ignore what science says with all other issues as well.

(And maybe others should start by reading what psychology and the social sciences say about incest instead of presuming that it is the same as what it said about homosexuality. I thought we liked our laws being based on science.)
 
Last edited:
boloboffin said:
I was molested. However, my admission to being irrational about this was sarcastic.
Click to expand...

Well don't I look stupid.

I find myself unable to communicate to people who can find no rational reason to ban incestuous marriage on their own. Consider that a flaw of mine, if you prefer. I consider it a blessing.
Click to expand...

Well? What is your rational reason? I'm listening.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
If the pro-incest lobby...
Click to expand...

Not pro-incest. Don't-give-a-crap-how-people-structure-relationships.

Incest involves many issues including (but not limited to) the issue of actually destabilizing the family, unlike same-sex marriage. For example, let's say a father marries his daughter. Would the daughter's brothers be her brothers or her step-sons? And if they have a child together, is the child the son of the father, or the grandson? Are the brothers the child's brothers, or uncles? Are the fathers siblings the child's aunts and uncles, or... whatever they would be if the father was considered the grandfather? And so on and so forth.
Click to expand...

(Thank you for trying a rational argument that isn't based on childbirth.)

This doesn't seem that hard to figure out. It is just a simple matter of picking which relationships are which. Hardly a major inconvenience.

(And maybe others should start by reading what psychology and the social sciences say about incest instead of presuming that it is the same as what it said about homosexuality. I thought we liked our laws being based on science.)
Click to expand...

I don't like the idea of the government deciding which relationships are healthy. I'm not a big fan of state-recognized marriage anyway but if we have it, apply it equally to everyone.
 
Last edited:
Rika said:
I await, with interest, Skeptic's proof about how homosexual people are largely psychotic and unhappy.
Click to expand...

Did you read and unbderstand what the original statement was?
3). Moving on to psychology, we then claim -- as it was done with homoseuxality -- that the ONLY reason incestual couples are often pathological and unhappy is society's unjust, evil rejection of their alternative way of life. Again, as with homosexuality, this dogma need not have the slightest connextion to the truth.
Click to expand...

No where did skeptic say homosexuals are largely psychotic and unhappy. It was said society used to claim similar things about homosexuals.
 
Because that is where I draw the arbitrary line. Which is all that it is, an arbitrary line.
Click to expand...

If you admit that your objection to incest being recognized as marriage is "an arbitrary line", then I think no further comment from me on how gay marriage would lead to incestual marriage is needed.

The problem is that the pro-gay-marriage folks ARE attacking marriage itself. You can't listen to most of them for 30 seconds without them claiming that marriage (and esp. marriage laws) are merely a social construct the government has no business intervening in; that everybody has the right to marry whomever they wish; that a "loving relationship" is the be-all and end-all of marriage, and any other consideration as to what constitutes marriage is "discrimination"; and so on.

Don't believe me? Just look at this thread: in the interest of appearing "broad minded" and "not bigoted", at least two or three of the pro-gay marriage posters admitted that, yes, the laws against incest -- I repeat, incest -- are purely conventional, an arbitrary line that in reality none of our business, that the government shouldn't be in the business of telling a mother and son not to get married, that it's just the "ick factor" that stops us from allowing it, etc., etc.

In other words, the pro-gay-marriage crowd is determined to get gay marriage passed even if, as seems to be inevitable based on the views expressed in this thread, they must use arguments in favor of gay marriage that imply, and indeed are and will be used, to promote the recognition of polygamy, incest, etc., etc. as marriage as well.

It is therefore no exagerration to say that the pro-gay marriage folks ARE, quite knowingly, working towards any and all relationships being defined as "marriage", and that everybody has a "right" to marry absolutely anyone else -- including someone who marries both is father and his grandfather in a three-way polygamous homosexual incestual "marriage". (Gives a whole new meaning to the biblical phrase "and he lay with his forefathers", come to think of it...)
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
In other words, the pro-gay-marriage crowd is determined to get gay marriage passed come hell or high water. Even if, as seems to be inevitable based on the views expressed in this thread, they must use arguments in favor of gay marriage that imply, and indeed will be used to promote, the recognition of polygamy, incest, etc. as marriage as well -- and with it the collapse of the whole institution of marriage.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but how does this cause a collapse of the "whole institution of marriage?" Are you claiming that the current US institution of marriage (one man, one woman in loving relationship) is the only model? Currently in the world we have societies where arranged marriages are the norm, where polygamy is practiced, and where gay marriages are allowed without the institution crumbling. Not to mention countries where divorce is allowed or forbidden and countries where mistresses, if not explicitly allowed, are condoned. Based on US laws, there are even countries where incest is allowed, as in some cultures marriage of first cousins is allowed whereas in much of the US it is not.

Marriage has evolved over time, and continues to evolve quite rapidly. I fail to see how laws allowing more people to marry weakens the institution. What weakens the institution of marriage are laws allowing for divorce and cultural changes that have removed the stigma from out of wedlock births.
 
Last edited:
recognition of polygamy
Click to expand...

the Tora is recognising Polygamy. and afaik did that evolve into Monogamy, and it didnt lead to a collapse, or did it?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
the Tora is recognising Polygamy. and afaik did that evolve into Monogamy, and it didnt lead to a collapse, or did it?
Click to expand...

Not only polygamy, but mandatory polygamy. Weren't you required to take your brother's widow as your wife?
 
eeyore1954 said:
Maybe I am wrong but I do not see it at least not in that paragraph. Can you point it out to me?
Click to expand...
Well, you could ask Skeptic, he's right here.

However, I read what he wrote as parallel to such a paragraph as: "Moving on to evolutionary biology, we then claim -- as it was done with mushrooms -- that the only reason flowers are often purple and smell of carrion is the operation of natural forces. Again, as with mushrooms, this dogma need not have the slightest connextion to the truth."

It's a horribly written paragraph, but then so is the original. That's what you get when you try to express muddled thinking.

In summary, he is not attacking the proposition that people in incestuous and homosexual relationships are "often pathological and unhappy", which apparently he believes, but rather the explanation for it.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
the Tora is recognising Polygamy. and afaik did that evolve into Monogamy, and it didnt lead to a collapse, or did it?
Click to expand...
Obviously redefining marriage as between one man and one woman destroyed the institution of marriage. That's why it doesn't exist any more. Those filthy monogamous perverts destroyed it.

Did you know that people in monogamous relationships are often pathological and unhappy?
 
Skeptic said:
The problem is that the pro-gay-marriage folks ARE attacking marriage itself. You can't listen to most of them for 30 seconds without them claiming that marriage (and esp. marriage laws) are merely a social construct the government has no business intervening in; that everybody has the right to marry whomever they wish; that a "loving relationship" is the be-all and end-all of marriage, and any other consideration as to what constitutes marriage is "discrimination"; and so on.
Click to expand...
The real thin end of the wedge was when they legalized miscegenation using the same old marriage-destroying arguments.

It's not God's way, is it?

In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab ... And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves.​

Ah for the good old days.
 
Skeptic said:
In other words, the pro-gay-marriage crowd is determined to get gay marriage passed even if, as seems to be inevitable based on the views expressed in this thread, they must use arguments in favor of gay marriage that imply, and indeed are and will be used, to promote the recognition of polygamy, incest, etc., etc. as marriage as
Click to expand...

Ah....no.

It's much more simple than that. In places where gay marriage is legal there has been no demand for the legalization of polygamy, incest, etc.

If I start smoking on Monday that doesn't mean I'll be selling crack to third graders by Friday. Your slippery slope logic doesn't stand up to real life.
 
Skeptic said:
If you admit that your objection to incest being recognized as marriage is "an arbitrary line", then I think no further comment from me on how gay marriage would lead to incestual marriage is needed.

The problem is that the pro-gay-marriage folks ARE attacking marriage itself. You can't listen to most of them for 30 seconds without them claiming that marriage (and esp. marriage laws) are merely a social construct the government has no business intervening in; that everybody has the right to marry whomever they wish; that a "loving relationship" is the be-all and end-all of marriage, and any other consideration as to what constitutes marriage is "discrimination"; and so on.
Click to expand...

Without recourse to the religious language of two becoming one, etc, marriage is nothing but a social construct. Government has a right to intervene in marriage because it is government, ultimately, that establishes marriage, and if a society can recognize, as many gay and straight people have, that a gay relationship is no more threatening to society than a straight one, there is no reason why that society's government should not recognize both as marriage. This is not attacking marriage at all.

What other consideration about marriage would you have us consider? It's a funny thing to consider this fight an attack on marriage, realizing how hard and for how long gay people have fought to get marriage rights. In societies where gay marriage is already legal, marriage (and society and government) seems to have survived just fine.

Don't believe me? Just look at this thread: in the interest of appearing "broad minded" and "not bigoted", at least two or three of the pro-gay marriage posters admitted that, yes, the laws against incest -- I repeat, incest -- are purely conventional, an arbitrary line that in reality none of our business, that the government shouldn't be in the business of telling a mother and son not to get married, that it's just the "ick factor" that stops us from allowing it, etc., etc.
Click to expand...

What we have said and what you have heard are clearly two different things.

In other words, the pro-gay-marriage crowd is determined to get gay marriage passed even if, as seems to be inevitable based on the views expressed in this thread, they must use arguments in favor of gay marriage that imply, and indeed are and will be used, to promote the recognition of polygamy, incest, etc., etc. as marriage as well.
Click to expand...

As Dr. Adequate has pointed out, these arguments were first used to get the races intermingled against God's will and to the shame of society. So please blame the randy Negroes and the slutty white women first.

It is therefore no exagerration to say that the pro-gay marriage folks ARE, quite knowingly, working towards any and all relationships being defined as "marriage", and that everybody has a "right" to marry absolutely anyone else -- including someone who marries both is father and his grandfather in a three-way polygamous homosexual incestual "marriage". (Gives a whole new meaning to the biblical phrase "and he lay with his forefathers", come to think of it...)
Click to expand...

Maybe you should tune in to Ahmadinejad's message on Channel 4. You've got more in common than you think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom