Originally posted by Nephthys
Speaking for anyone's what? Their dicks? I don't speak for anyone's dicks DS. That just doesn't make any sense.Try not to just jumble words together and hope they make sense. Thats just a stupid way to post.
Ah yes the "I know you are but what am I" comeback. That's the beauty of arguing with intellectually devoid teens.
And TJ, this is what I could find thus far.
1995). In an earlier
study employing a similar method, Bevc (1988) found that ‘‘Respondents with sibling
sexual experiences tend to come from a lower socioeconomic class.
Originally posted by Slash_KMC
DS, are you going to give a rational argument to deny same sex marriages, or not?
I'll eventually do it when Nai points out what I asked him to since he also likes to make things up, and when we're no longer on the topic of incest. I'll tell you what I'm a big fan of though. Marriage. The idea of marriage between a man and a woman. That's a neat concept. Also, I would love rational arguments to allow same sex marriages. I don't think claiming that they're equal to heterosexual marriages will work.
Here Slash, I'll do you one better. If our governing bodies determine that the word "marriage" is defined as being a specialized partnership between a man and a woman, then they have both legal and rational standing to ban same sex marriages. If they deem marriage as the specialized partnership between 2 people, then they'll allow same sex marriages and I won't lose a day of sleep over it.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I'll eventually do it when Nai points out what I asked him to since he also likes to make things up, and when we're no longer on the topic of incest. I'll tell you what I'm a big fan of though. Marriage. The idea of marriage between a man and a woman. That's a neat concept. Also, I would love rational arguments to allow same sex marriages. I don't think claiming that they're equal to heterosexual marriages will work.
Why do I have to wait until someone else answers your question? I can wait though if you'd rather go on about incest first... Just tell me when you're ready to give a rational argument.
There is no logical reason to deny it and there are plenty of gay people who want to get married. So the question remains, why not? You're right about the fact that it's an idea (subjective and not objective) that keeps a lot of people against same sex marriage.
Also, why aren't they equal to heterosexual marriages? And if you just say 2 guys or 2 girls =/= 1 guy and 1 girl, then I'd be very disappointed.
Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Why do I have to wait until someone else answers your question? I can wait though if you'd rather go on about incest first... Just tell me when you're ready to give a rational argument.There is no logical reason to deny it and there are plenty of gay people who want to get married. So the question remains, why not? You're right about the fact that it's an idea (subjective and not objective) that keeps a lot of people against same sex marriage.
Also, why aren't they equal to heterosexual marriages? And if you just say 2 guys or 2 girls =/= 1 guy and 1 girl, then I'd be very disappointed. [/B]
Because you have a man and a woman, physically designed for one another with certain factors that are shared by the man and others by the woman. How is that comparable to 2 men or 2 women in a relationship? How is that at ALL comparable? The humor in this is the same people who argue for same sex marriages tend to not use distinctions, unless they need it for an argument against race or income inequality, etc.. But seriously, I have no wish to debate the validity of same sex marriages with you if your only reasoning is "why not?"
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Here Slash, I'll do you one better. If our governing bodies determine that the word "marriage" is defined as being a specialized partnership between a man and a woman, then they have both legal and rational standing to ban same sex marriages. If they deem marriage as the specialized partnership between 2 people, then they'll allow same sex marriages and I won't lose a day of sleep over it.
Our governing bodies determine that the word "human" is defined as "a white and anglo-saxon person."
Human rights only apply to humans, therefore, people of dark skin color do not have any rights because they are not human. At best, they may qualify for basic animal rights.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Here Slash, I'll do you one better. If our governing bodies determine that the word "marriage" is defined as being a specialized partnership between a man and a woman, then they have both legal and rational standing to ban same sex marriages. If they deem marriage as the specialized partnership between 2 people, then they'll allow same sex marriages and I won't lose a day of sleep over it.
So wait, because the government says that marriage is between a man and a woman, then they MUST have a rational standing to ban same sex marriages? Even if there are places where the local government allows same sex marriage and that the rules set by a government constantly change...
Originally posted by Lucius
Our governing bodies determine that the word "human" is defined as "a white and anglo-saxon person."Human rights only apply to humans, therefore, people of dark skin color do not have any rights because they are not human. At best they may qualify for basic animal rights.
I'd like to see proof of this veneficus.
Originally posted by Slash_KMC
So wait, because the government says that marriage is between a man and a woman, then they MUST have a rational standing to ban same sex marriages? Even if there are places where the local government allows same sex marriage and that the rules set by a government constantly change...
No, because the government defines marriage as such, they HAVE a rational and legal standing to ban it. Just like if they decided that same marriage was for "people" and not "man and woman", they'd have legal and rational backing. At the end of the day, this isn't a topic that I'm passionate about, so if same sex marriages are eventually legalized, I won't lose sleep over it.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Wait, your only rational argument is... Why not? Oh my
Wait, did you not read what I wrote? There is a great amount of people that would like to have a same sex marriage to gain the same rights as people in a heterosexual marriage. There is no reason why it shouldn't be allowed.
Now if you know a logical reason against it, give it or admit you have none.
Because you have a man and a woman, physically designed for one another with certain factors that are shared by the man and others by the woman. How is that comparable to 2 men or 2 women in a relationship? How is that at ALL comparable? The humor in this is the same people who argue for same sex marriages tend to not use distinctions, unless they need it for an argument against race or income inequality, etc.. But seriously, I have no wish to debate the validity of same sex marriages with you if your only reasoning is "why not?"
So because two males or two females can't reproduce, they aren't allowed to get married? How is this logical in any way?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
No, because the government defines marriage as such, they HAVE a rational and legal standing to ban it. Just like if they decided that same marriage was for "people" and not "man and woman", they'd have legal and rational backing. At the end of the day, this isn't a topic that I'm passionate about, so if same sex marriages are eventually legalized, I won't lose sleep over it.
The government defined marriage as such because when they defined it people were terrified to admit being homosexual and religion trumped logic. People accepting homosexuals in society is known as progress. Same sex marriage is progress.
I don't care about same sex marriages either, but I'd just like to hear a good argument against it that doesn't toss in words like "tradition" or "religion".
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
And TJ, this is what I could find thus far.
hmmm, i couldn't find the actual BevC report that this had footnoted. I guess they didn't put everything online in 1988. Pity.
In my opinion, the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage. Its a religious institution. If gays can find a church that will marry them, go for it. The government has nothing to do with it.
Same goes for incest. There is no argument supporting homosexual marriage that doesn't ALSO support incestual marriage. If they are from the lower class, well, i'm not a person who holds someone's economic situation against them.