| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Many people believe in same-sex marriage for various reasons. I believe in same sex marriage myself because I believe in freedom. I believe people should have the right to do what the want as long as it makes them happy and doesn't cause harm to others.
For those who believe the same I believe their thinking is inconsistant. Many people believe gays should be allowed to adobt or have kids and raise them in a gay household. I also agree with this.
What is missed is other sexual deviants that have been denied the right to marriage also. The Mormons were discriminated agianst for practicing and accepting polygamy in the past. Hillbillies are looked down upon for practicing and accepting incest.
No matter how you look at it homosexuality is sexual deviancy. It goes against the norm which is non-incestous heterosexuality. Marriage has customarily been for two-people that are not related and are from opposite sexes. How can we accept same-sex marriage without accepting polygamy or polyandry marragies, or even incestous marraiges?
How can we pick and choose what sexual deviancy is acceptable? Why isn't it all or nothing? A man that marries 5 woman is hurting no one (but himself, I can barely handle one wife). And if it makes him and all 5 of the women happy, why not? If a wman and 5 men would be happiest joining together in a bond of marriage, why deny them that happiness? The aren't hurting anyone.
If a brother and sister love each other, why should they not be allowed to expresss that love and comitment to each other through marraige? Isn't this an outdated taboo? Who are they harming? No one. They are discriminated against.
People say that incestious love creates deformed babies, but it doesn't. It just keeps the negitives aspects of the current genes and sometimes acebruates them. Mixed genes are always superior, but if our goal is to have superior children then we should force different races to interbread. Whites can't marry whites but must marry blacks or orientals. Same for blacks and orientals. (The only truley different genetic make up found in different races come from being either cacasiod, negroid, or mongoliod.)
Plus we accept gay marriage that can never lead to procreation. Gays must adopt or in the case of lesbians recieve sperm from an outside source.
Sp obviosly the sexual deviants are interlinked. Their causes are the same. But people that accept one do not accept the rest. That is hypocrassy. At least the gay marriage bashers are consistant. They accept no sexual deviant marraiges. But the rest of you pick and choose like you are God. This is all or nothing. You choose to discriminate or you choose to accept marriage as something that should be available to everyone as long as they are happy and free and not hurting anyone else.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
Wed May 12, 2004 6:08 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
While I agree with much of the above, I want to stress that you can't simply demand that people take all or nothing, demanding that people choose between black or white when everything is shades of gray.
You can go to further extremes and ask:
Should people be able to marry animals?
And:
quote:
If a brother and sister love each other, why should they not be allowed to expresss that love and comitment to each other through marraige? Isn't this an outdated taboo? Who are they harming? No one. They are discriminated against.
People say that incestious love creates deformed babies, but it doesn't. It just keeps the negitives aspects of the current genes and sometimes acebruates them. Mixed genes are always superior, but if our goal is to have superior children then we should force different races to interbread. Whites can't marry whites but must marry blacks or orientals. Same for blacks and orientals. (The only truley different genetic make up found in different races come from being either cacasiod, negroid, or mongoliod.)
Incest gives the offspring a high chance to either die or to be born with high deficiencies. It isn't something that should be encouraged.
But if a brother/sister and a brother/sister want to live together, then I can't object to letting them.
And, there is no such thing as different human 'races'. This is mainly due to the fact that humans haven't stayed in one place long enough for an extensive genetic change. |
|
Wed May 12, 2004 7:38 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
When it comes to freedom it can be all or nothing. Either you can or can't. Being semi free is not free. I also do not think it is black and white, it is consistent or nonconsistant: hypocracy or not. People cannot pick and choose what sexual deviancy they find acceptable in a "free" society. Being free isn't about being right or wrong. These quotes says it best in my opinion:
"The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty." -- Former Lord Chief Justice Halisham
"Once governments are given the authority to restrict the liberty of some sane adults for what it considers their physical or moral welfare, there is no principled stopping point in terms of what governments will have the authority to prohibit. The consequence will be that virtually anything which anyone holds of most value may become prohibited to them on grounds of its being judged immoral or dangerous to them. There are practically no forms of activity in which sane adults like to engage that others are not able to find reasons to condemn as morally or physically bad for those who engage in them. This ranges from drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco, to eating certain types of food, to not taking exercise, to taking too much, engaging in dangerous sports, practising certain religions, not practising any religion, reading books on science, etc. Unless government draws the line at only prohibiting conduct that harms others against their will, no member of society can be secure in being able to do or have anything they most want and value." --David Conway
BTW, Where is your proof that incest causes birth defects or death? Is that just public perception or is it fact?
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Wed May 12, 2004 8:26 pm |
|
|
Chekote
Where’s my Banana?!?!
Joined: 08 Mar 2002
Posts: 1540
Location: Dont know, looks kind of green |
@ Hexy:
An unusualy calm, collected & non-aggressive reply. You must have taken up meditation. Either that or laid off the coffee 
_________________
IMHO my opinion is humble |
|
Wed May 12, 2004 9:24 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
First, let me say that I am against same-sex marriage.
With that said, let's be honest about what the same-sex marriage issue is about by reminding ourselves of some obvious facts.
1. Marriage implies legitmacy.
2. Homosexuals in the U.S. and most countries in Europe are already free to practice homosexuality.
What proponents of Same-sex marriage want is for mainstream society to AGREE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT SEXUALLY DEVIANT. People (at least people in the United States) are already free to live with, have sex with, share property with, leave their property to, and share all their time with a person of the same sex. What these people want is for society in general to approve of their behavior by giving them the status/label of "MARRIED PERSONS."
Marriage is a necessary institution to facilitate a nuclear family. The term "Nuclear family" here is defined as a Father, Mother and children who are the offspring of BOTH parents. In the real world people OFTEN do not live in a perfect nuclear family, but this is the type of environment in which people are the strongest. Furthermore, the closer an imperfect (for lack of a better word) family is to this model the stronger and healthier will be the people in that family.
That is why behaviors that harm the family are frowned upon. That is why certain behaviors are call sexually-deviant. That is why all societies look down of people who have sex but are not married. That is why all societies look down on married people having sex outside of that marriage. These behaviors attack the nuclear family and cause suffering for all the people who live in that family, for both parents and children.
If followed properly a traditional nuclear family is the safest and healthiest environment for all people. People must understand and strive for this model. Therefore marriage must be protected. Allowing clearly sexually deviant couples to call themselves married blurs view of this reality and will cause much pain and suffering to people of that society in the short run (within one or two generations from that faulty marriage).
Adoption policies should be designed to place children in a family as close to this model as possible. Such a family is where the children will grow to become strongest. And as far as the concept of discrimination in adoption policies, it is a fictious concept because...
People have a right to raise their OWN CHILDREN, NOT SOMEONE ELSE'S CHILDREN.
If children are not with their natural family, they should be placed where they will grow to be strongest. They would not naturally be born to a homesexual couple. There is a reason they would not be born there. The children should not be placed in a family where nature would NEVER put any child. |
|
Wed May 12, 2004 9:55 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Nature would place a child in an incestous family, as well as a family practicing polygamy, polyandry.
I think your post was well writen but kind of ethnocentric. Your ideas of what a family should be follow sociology instead of reasoning and dismisses a lot of cultures that have gone against this line of thought without problems.
Japanese males could be married and have affiars however they chose in the past.
Polyandry is practiced in Tibet, and China will be forced to practice polyandry in the future due to the girl/boy birthrate.
Greece had blatant homosexuality and did pretty well. As did Japan.
What do you mean by "strong" family? Is strong succesful? If so, and if success is rated by money, most of the most "strong" families in the US are anything but nuclear.
For me, I agree that the nuclear family should be strived for, but I do not agree with restricting rights. Freedom is freedom. Freedom does not strive for the nuclear family, freedom doesn't care about right or wrong, morals and ethics, or what is best for society. Freedom strives for choice and choice only. Freedom is I can. If you can't you are not free. Taking moral choices away from people will not make them more moral, it takes away their freedom to make moral choices.
This is not a moral or ethical question, it is a question of freedom and consistency. If you do not believe in gay marriage, that is fine and you have the freedom to believe that. But maybe gays believe in marriage, same as incestous sick-o's.
But if we allow non-nuclear families even though they are not as strong as nuclear families, why put limits on it? Woman can be a single mother, men can be a single father, an 18 year old boy can marry a 90 year old lady that has 40 year old grand kids, and great grandkids his age. That is legal but goes against a strong nuclear family. So either we allow only nuclear families, or we allow non-nuclear families including the gays, incest loving hillbillies, and polygamy/polyandry families. Consistancy, not hypocracy should rule "freedom."
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Wed May 12, 2004 11:02 pm |
|
|
Korplem
Swashbuckler
Joined: 23 Dec 2002
Posts: 853
Location: Pearl Harbor, HI |
| Re: Sexual Deviant Marraiges |
|
Roqua, are you trying to tell us that you want to take your sister as your second wife? JUST KIDDING! 
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
When it comes to freedom it can be all or nothing. Either you can or can't. Being semi free is not free.
Then we must not be free because this is only a semi free country. Are you free to walk into a bank and demand money? Do you think that you should be able to? Are you free to murder somebody? Do you think that you should be able to? Would you really want somebody else to have the freedom to kill you?
_________________
If soot stains your tunic, dye it black. This is vengeance.
-The Prince of Nothing |
|
Wed May 12, 2004 11:31 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I haven't hooked up with my sister yet, but I'm such a good kisser I know I could...my father told me so.
I believe in freedom in its traditional sense, i.e. "your right to swing your arm ends where my nose beggins."
No one should have the right to cause harm to others (besides the children who are fun to beat.)
Now harm is ambigous. Can a gay couple serving as parents harm a child's development? Probably, but so can having two parents that work non stop and put no time into being parents. Thats what parents do...they harm children in the process of raising them. No one I know had a perfect life. No parents made no mistakes. And if the people are born gay and not "turned" then what harm could having gay parents have besides giving kids a differnt kind of warped perspective?
Who has the correct perspective? Me? You? Them? No one does. They all stink. All we can strive for is consistency in our wrong thinking.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Thu May 13, 2004 12:15 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
When it comes to freedom it can be all or nothing. Either you can or can't. Being semi free is not free. I also do not think it is black and white, it is consistent or nonconsistant: hypocracy or not. People cannot pick and choose what sexual deviancy they find acceptable in a "free" society. Being free isn't about being right or wrong. These quotes says it best in my opinion:
In the end, freedom is just another word for anarchy. If you are ALL for freedom, you do not wish to have any laws or society at all? Also, marriage itself is an restriction as its binding someone to someone else.
quote:
If followed properly a traditional nuclear family is the safest and healthiest environment for all people. People must understand and strive for this model. Therefore marriage must be protected. Allowing clearly sexually deviant couples to call themselves married blurs view of this reality and will cause much pain and suffering to people of that society in the short run (within one or two generations from that faulty marriage).
Yet, there are problems with the nuclear families, such as overpopulation and well, given birth to children who cannot be cared for, and thus are sent to some overcrowded orphanage.
There are several societies that allow homo-marriages, and none have experienced massive suffering as a result.
Marriage is a joining of two or more people. Not a word that also implies family.
quote:
An unusualy calm, collected & non-aggressive reply. You must have taken up meditation. Either that or laid off the coffee
I am the Zen.
EDIT:
quote:
BTW, Where is your proof that incest causes birth defects or death? Is that just public perception or is it fact?
That is what has been observed, yes. For example; old royal families of Europe who practiced this got deficient children. Isolated tribes that practiced it got the same results.
Biologically, this is true for most other species, and that is why there are several built in genetic traits to hinder inbreeding. Evolution isn't endorsing inbreeding.
Lions, monkeys, swans etc. drive their young away at puberty from their territory. |
|
Thu May 13, 2004 4:40 am |
|
|
Scribelus
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 08 Apr 2004
Posts: 46
|
Hee hee you guys are such a crack up. "Sexual deviant" - I didn't know anyone ever used that phrase in real life. You don't know much about genetics - mixing black/white genes is no different from white/white in terms of mutation, unlike brother and sister. Racial similarities are tiny, family similarities are very great.
Sounds like you are rehashing the Santorum "man on dog" debate from one year ago. Try this column from conservative Republican Andrew Sullivan. There was much ink spilt on this topic back then.
It's true that a lot of "it's normal" and "it's natural" arguments are completely bogus, just aimed at putting people in boxes. The best thing is to look at it case by case - sane gay people will raise better kids than insane straight people. In terms of public policy, attitudes are fluid, and the best guide is the ballot box.
But due to human instinct against incest, my personal feeling is that brothers and sisters who fall in sexual love are very likely to have serious psychological issues. Probably they would be in love because it was "forbidden", not because their sibling just happened to be their perfect match that they could find nowhere else. |
|
Thu May 13, 2004 12:17 pm |
|
|
Northchild
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 232
Location: New York, USA |
@ Roqua - what do you feel defines us as human beings? |
|
Thu May 13, 2004 3:32 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Hexy, freedom is another word for choice. (Or nothing left to lose)
I do not mean total lawless freedom. I mean freedom to do what others think is wrong, but does not infringe on other's rights. And making it consistant. Stealing is a consistant law. Only parents and the Government can steal. Obviosly if we had no laws we would have no society. Allowing gay and other sexually deviant marriages would not lead to people killing each other in the street and looting. All three sexually deviant marriages are wrong to me, and I do not believe in them personally, but that doesn't mean I believe they should not have the freedom of marriage.
Hexy and SCribulous, I do not know all the facts about incest and mixed breeding but from what a biology prof taught me a couple semesters ago what I'm saying is correct. If the royal family you talk about is the russian family with the blood problem then that is just a dominant flaw that showedn up due to no outside genes ebtering the mix. Mixing genes brings outside genes into the pool and increases the chance of gene flaws not showing up. He said there is no scientific proof inbreeding causes genetic flaws, it just makes the existing ones dominant.
As to races. There are three divisions that have evolved differently. Caucasiod, mongaloid, and negroid. The skull shape is distinctly different for each group. All three are subject to different ailments due to genetics and not lifestyle culture. We all started off black, loosing melanin to adapt to colder environments is not adaptation? Black people have a different lung capacity than white people. The genes are different and removed.
The farther removed the genes, the better. Two Mexicans having a kid will look like a Mexican. A Mexican and a white Canandian having a kid will look like neither and be superior to both do to having a broader scope of genes. (I am calling them genes because I forgot the name of everything I learned in Bio except the Calvin-Benson cycle, the father donates 23 and the mother 23, I think it is 23?).
And scribulous, what term would you use to group all three? Sexually perverted? Sick-o's?
When did I ever say mutation? I said it makes a suprior person due to mixing genes from a broader pool. Unlike racial interbreeding or incest. If you know so much about genetics, please share. The column you link to only has two paragraphs shown. But it is good to know that you are Jesus like in your grasp of all subjects. Your opinion is the truth and fact.
I could agrue that any man that looks at another man's hairy ass and gets turned on is not sane. Since gays are by far a minority (what is the gay population? 2% of the overall?) their thinking is deviant and not sane. You are talking philosophy and opinion, and not with consistancy or reason.
Your agruement against incest could be used agianst homosexuality.
Northchild, an opposable thumb and the ability to argue.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Thu May 13, 2004 4:21 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
I do not mean total lawless freedom. I mean freedom to do what others think is wrong, but does not infringe on other's rights. And making it consistant. Stealing is a consistant law. Only parents and the Government can steal. Obviosly if we had no laws we would have no society. Allowing gay and other sexually deviant marriages would not lead to people killing each other in the street and looting. All three sexually deviant marriages are wrong to me, and I do not believe in them personally, but that doesn't mean I believe they should not have the freedom of marriage.
Oh no, don't try that trick. Either you're ALL for freedom or not. There is no between. Remember, everything is black or white. Either the strong do as they please, or you want rules. Rights are human concepts and rules.
quote:
Hexy and SCribulous, I do not know all the facts about incest and mixed breeding but from what a biology prof taught me a couple semesters ago what I'm saying is correct. If the royal family you talk about is the russian family with the blood problem then that is just a dominant flaw that showedn up due to no outside genes ebtering the mix. Mixing genes brings outside genes into the pool and increases the chance of gene flaws not showing up. He said there is no scientific proof inbreeding causes genetic flaws, it just makes the existing ones dominant.
French, Brittish, German. You pick. Haemophilia ran rampart in those families.
There is proof in the form of observations. And, the mere fact that inbreeding makes deficient genes more dominant is a proof in itself.
quote:
As to races. There are three divisions that have evolved differently. Caucasiod, mongaloid, and negroid. The skull shape is distinctly different for each group. All three are subject to different ailments due to genetics and not lifestyle culture. We all started off black, loosing melanin to adapt to colder environments is not adaptation? Black people have a different lung capacity than white people. The genes are different and removed.
A race is a subdivision of a species that will evolve into a new species after enough time in one place. Or by controlled breeding. Humans have not experienced any of this. Human genetic differenced occur slightly over a long time, and could as easily be reverted. As far as I know, variations between humans are less than between subspecies of chimpanzees.
Skull thinkness varies greatly within populations, and far more between men and female. Tanning and lung capacity are signs of ACCLIMATIZATION, not adaptation. Adaptational traits har more to do with Sickle Cell traits. |
|
Thu May 13, 2004 6:21 pm |
|
|
Korplem
Swashbuckler
Joined: 23 Dec 2002
Posts: 853
Location: Pearl Harbor, HI |
It's been a while since I've had a biology class but are you thinking of chromosomes, Roqua?
_________________
If soot stains your tunic, dye it black. This is vengeance.
-The Prince of Nothing |
|
Thu May 13, 2004 7:09 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:43 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
