Political Crossfire Forums

[SavannahMan]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: SavannahMan wrote: Would you also support any of the following....

A. Two biological brothers getting married

B. A mother marrying her 24 year old son

C. Three women all marrying each other

A. No - incestual

B. No - incestual

C. No - polygamous

ok i'll bite

A & B should not be allowed to marry because incest is unhealthy psychologically and can be physically (any offspring produced from an incestual relationship would likely have physical problems and is almost guranteed to have psychological ones). i know where you are going with this, that homosexuality is also an unhealthy lifestyle (in your eyes), but i disagree. numerous studies on gay parenting have shown that children raised in gay households are no different than ones raised in straight households. show me a study that says the same thing about a child raised in an incestual environment. incest involves sexual activity from within the family environment, and that in itself is psychologically damaging. homosexual families do not involve sexual activity within the family environment, therefore that psychological damage is not there.

and as for the incestual couple themselves, they should still not be allowed to marry because in order to do so the goverment would have to allow incestual marriages, basically saying that incestual relationships are a healthy form of relationship, when they are clearly not.

and AIDS or STDs would not qualify as an arguement for why gay relationships are "unhealthy" because it only applies to those who have contracted the disease, just like in the heterosexual community (straight people with AIDS can still get married ya know). the arguement only works if you generalize and assume all gays either have STDs or will get them in the future, neither of which you can apply to the entire gay community. there are many gay couples who do not have STDs, have never had one, and will likely never have one just the same as a normal heterosexual couples. like you said in another post, this is simply an issue of personal responsibility, just as it is in the heterosexual community.

as for polygamy, i see no reason why the goverment should extend benefits to multiple spouses. there is simply no incentive for them to do so. if everyone in this country can marry one person they choose, regardless of gender or race, then there is no denial of equal opportunity and therefore no incentive for the government to hand out endless benefits to whoever jumps on the polygamous bandwagon. it would become a far too easy way to "milk" the system and provide benefits to roomates, immigrants, or whoever you wanted. when you take away the fact that marriage is a bond between two people, you are cheapening the purpose of a marriage to begin with. the bond means nothing if it can be extended to an unlimited amount of spouses.

all of this is JMO of course but there you have it

Somehow I missed this post -

First off - those urban myths you heard about incest causing birth defects are based on science from like the 1600's - there is no evidence that such peversions result in more deformities or disabilities than regular births.

Secondly - the example was two brothers - clearly they would be incapable of impregnating each other ;)

So all that is left to your objection seems to be that it is not a "healthy relationship" as you define one...forget for a minute that the definition of a healthy relationship is pretty subjective and that many would call a same-sex realtionship unhealthy also...and let's talk about these healthy same-sex relationships.

1. Depression and other mental disorders higher for homosexuals
2. Suicide higher for homosexuals
3. Domestic abuse higher amoung same-sex partners
4. Shorter durations for same-sex partners
5. Less monogamy for same-sex partners

the list could continue but I think that makes the point. NOT ALL - but many homosexual relationships seem to not be healthy ones either.

Finally your assertion that there are studies that show children raised in homosexual households are no different from children raised in traditional households is just plain false. A different can of worms perhpas best suited for a new thread though.

[StrangerWitCandy]

SavannahMan wrote:
Somehow I missed this post -

First off - those urban myths you heard about incest causing birth defects are based on science from like the 1600's - there is no evidence that such peversions result in more deformities or disabilities than regular births.

Secondly - the example was two brothers - clearly they would be incapable of impregnating each other ;)

So all that is left to your objection seems to be that it is not a "healthy relationship" as you define one...forget for a minute that the definition of a healthy relationship is pretty subjective and that many would call a same-sex realtionship unhealthy also...and let's talk about these healthy same-sex relationships.

1. Depression and other mental disorders higher for homosexuals
2. Suicide higher for homosexuals
3. Domestic abuse higher amoung same-sex partners
4. Shorter durations for same-sex partners
5. Less monogamy for same-sex partners

the list could continue but I think that makes the point. NOT ALL - but many homosexual relationships seem to not be healthy ones either.

Finally your assertion that there are studies that show children raised in homosexual households are no different from children raised in traditional households is just plain false. A different can of worms perhpas best suited for a new thread though.

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

numerous studies have shown children raised in gay households are no different than those raised in straight ones. and yes, incestual relationships are still psychologically unhealthy. those things you listed may be true for many gays, but like you said it does not apply to a large amount of gays. the things you listed also apply to a fair portion of the heterosexual community so i don't see it as a basis to deny homosexuals the same opportunity heterosexuals currently have when some of them are guilty of the same things some of homosexuals are. i've provided you a study on gay parenting, now show me a study showing that children raised in incestual households are psychologically healthy or that the incestual couples themselves are. until then there is no reason why the government should recognize incestual relationships as okay and therefore no reason to allow them to marry.

[SavannahMan]

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,29901,00.html

We arent talking about children in incestual relationships and quite frankly I doubt the data exists since the practice in this country is now so rare.

If you dont see the hypocrisy you exhibit when you say that two brothers shouldnt be allowed to marry because its an "unhealthy relationship" in your opinion - and yet you think you and your partner SHOULD be allowed to get married when the VAST MAJORITY of our society considers YOURS an "unhealthy relationship" then you need to sit down and think about it friend.

I can provide study after study showing how the homosexual lifestyle results in signifigantly more incidences of mental disorder, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, disease...show me one that says the incestuous relationships you want to ban does any of that.

[d357r0y3r]

Why do you all discount marriage to a toaster, or an animal? Who are YOU to say what I can love and not love, and therefore get married to it? What if I'm interested in marrying a woman that's hairy, walks on all fours, can't talk, and can't hold a job? Not much different from an animal, so I don't see the problem.

It's not as silly of an argument as you want it to be - if you want government out of marriage, then you would agree that once this is accomplished, I can marry anyone or anything I want.

[Melchior]

d357r0y3r wrote: It's not as silly of an argument as you want it to be - if you want government out of marriage, then you would agree that once this is accomplished, I can marry anyone or anything I want.

No, a dog or a toaster do not have unlimited right to contract nor are they consenting adults. Think...

[ToonArmyIsComing]

soldierofchrist wrote: SavannahMan wrote: Would you also support any of the following....

A. Two biological brothers getting married

B. A mother marrying her 24 year old son

C. Three women all marrying each other
How about this, get the state out of marriage, and leave it up to the churches to decide if they want to recognize gay marriage, incest, etc. If individual churches/denominations choose to, that's between them and God to sort out.

Well, the church has no jurisdiction over me, but I have no problem with them deciding for their own flock.

Meanwhile, I will get married and the state (and the Church for that matter) has no right whatsoever to tell me who to marry (as long as it is consensual).

[StrangerWitCandy]

SavannahMan wrote: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,29901,00.html

We arent talking about children in incestual relationships and quite frankly I doubt the data exists since the practice in this country is now so rare.

If you dont see the hypocrisy you exhibit when you say that two brothers shouldnt be allowed to marry because its an "unhealthy relationship" in your opinion - and yet you think you and your partner SHOULD be allowed to get married when the VAST MAJORITY of our society considers YOURS an "unhealthy relationship" then you need to sit down and think about it friend.

I can provide study after study showing how the homosexual lifestyle results in signifigantly more incidences of mental disorder, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, disease...show me one that says the incestuous relationships you want to ban does any of that.

okay that foxnews article, even if completely accurate, means very little. did you see the "differences" that were "covered up" apparently in the research? they were totally insignificant. so more people who grew up in a lesbian household ended up experimenting with the same sex, who cares? obviously that would happen because they would have been brought up to see nothing wrong with that, because there isn't. show me some negative effects, some actual damage to children because they were raised by homosexuals.

and children in incestual relationships ARE relevant because they would certainly eventually arise from allowing incestual marriages, therefore would have to be taken into consideration when debating whether or not to allow such marriages. but you admit the practice hardly even exists in this country and that demand for incestual marriages is almost non-existent, so the slippery slope theory is just a bunch of paranoia.

and why don't you show me some of these studies you speak of on gay monogamous couples being unhealthy. and how moreso than in the heterosexual community? because those are the ones trying to get married, the monogamous couples who plan to live their lives together, not the junkies at an orgy.

i'm not being hypocritical at all. incestual relationships are inter-family relationships which causes significant psychological problems for everyone involved. this does not apply to gay couples.

[SavannahMan]

soldierofchrist wrote: SavannahMan wrote: Would you also support any of the following....

A. Two biological brothers getting married

B. A mother marrying her 24 year old son

C. Three women all marrying each other
How about this, get the state out of marriage, and leave it up to the churches to decide if they want to recognize gay marriage, incest, etc. If individual churches/denominations choose to, that's between them and God to sort out.

Well since you have the Constitution Party in your siggy lets look at their Party Platform

The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

Now I understand this is something the Libretarians consider to be a solution - but honestly the chances of this happening are even less than same-sex marriage being accepted.

We have heard the Libertarians solution - no need to keep repeating it over and over ad naseum. Why not focus on things that might happen instead of the Libertarion wet dream?

[StrangerWitCandy]

d357r0y3r wrote: Why do you all discount marriage to a toaster, or an animal? Who are YOU to say what I can love and not love, and therefore get married to it? What if I'm interested in marrying a woman that's hairy, walks on all fours, can't talk, and can't hold a job? Not much different from an animal, so I don't see the problem.

It's not as silly of an argument as you want it to be - if you want government out of marriage, then you would agree that once this is accomplished, I can marry anyone or anything I want.

can any of the mentioned above sign a marriage certificate or say "I do"? basically, consent? didn't think so. next...

[Jay2014]

SavannahMan wrote: Would you also support any of the following....

A. Two biological brothers getting married

B. A mother marrying her 24 year old son

C. Three women all marrying each other

A.Support, no, but not governments right to restrict
B.See above.
C. See above.

the only thing that matters is whetjer or not A.it is consentual, and B. both parties are capable of engaging in a contract (of sound mind, old enough, etc.)

[SavannahMan]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: and why don't you show me some of these studies you speak of on gay monogamous couples being unhealthy. and how moreso than in the heterosexual community?

Oh you now only want studies including only monogamous gay couples?????

I am afraid the researchers might have a hard time finding enough participants.....

[StrangerWitCandy]

SavannahMan wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: and why don't you show me some of these studies you speak of on gay monogamous couples being unhealthy. and how moreso than in the heterosexual community?

Oh you now only want studies including monogamous gay couples?????

I am afraid the researchers might have a hard time finding enough participants.....

my point is there are many, many gays out there like myself who are not the things you listed, and there are many heterosexuals that actually are. so your point is moot as it doesn't apply specifically to gay people and actually has little to do with those intending to marry

[d357r0y3r]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: d357r0y3r wrote: Why do you all discount marriage to a toaster, or an animal? Who are YOU to say what I can love and not love, and therefore get married to it? What if I'm interested in marrying a woman that's hairy, walks on all fours, can't talk, and can't hold a job? Not much different from an animal, so I don't see the problem.

It's not as silly of an argument as you want it to be - if you want government out of marriage, then you would agree that once this is accomplished, I can marry anyone or anything I want.

can any of the mentioned above sign a marriage certificate or say "I do"? basically, consent? didn't think so. next...

So now you're telling me what is and isn't communication? When my dogs wags his tail, that's telling me something. And you can't prove he doesn't know english.

[StrangerWitCandy]

d357r0y3r wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: d357r0y3r wrote: Why do you all discount marriage to a toaster, or an animal? Who are YOU to say what I can love and not love, and therefore get married to it? What if I'm interested in marrying a woman that's hairy, walks on all fours, can't talk, and can't hold a job? Not much different from an animal, so I don't see the problem.

It's not as silly of an argument as you want it to be - if you want government out of marriage, then you would agree that once this is accomplished, I can marry anyone or anything I want.

can any of the mentioned above sign a marriage certificate or say "I do"? basically, consent? didn't think so. next...

So now you're telling me what is and isn't communication? When my dogs wags his tail, that's telling me something. And you can't prove he doesn't know english.

:lol: unless you ask him to say something and he can't

[Anjire2]

SavannahMan wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: SavannahMan wrote: Would you also support any of the following....

A. Two biological brothers getting married

B. A mother marrying her 24 year old son

C. Three women all marrying each other

A. No - incestual

B. No - incestual

C. No - polygamous

ok i'll bite

A & B should not be allowed to marry because incest is unhealthy psychologically and can be physically (any offspring produced from an incestual relationship would likely have physical problems and is almost guranteed to have psychological ones). i know where you are going with this, that homosexuality is also an unhealthy lifestyle (in your eyes), but i disagree. numerous studies on gay parenting have shown that children raised in gay households are no different than ones raised in straight households. show me a study that says the same thing about a child raised in an incestual environment. incest involves sexual activity from within the family environment, and that in itself is psychologically damaging. homosexual families do not involve sexual activity within the family environment, therefore that psychological damage is not there.

and as for the incestual couple themselves, they should still not be allowed to marry because in order to do so the goverment would have to allow incestual marriages, basically saying that incestual relationships are a healthy form of relationship, when they are clearly not.

and AIDS or STDs would not qualify as an arguement for why gay relationships are "unhealthy" because it only applies to those who have contracted the disease, just like in the heterosexual community (straight people with AIDS can still get married ya know). the arguement only works if you generalize and assume all gays either have STDs or will get them in the future, neither of which you can apply to the entire gay community. there are many gay couples who do not have STDs, have never had one, and will likely never have one just the same as a normal heterosexual couples. like you said in another post, this is simply an issue of personal responsibility, just as it is in the heterosexual community.

as for polygamy, i see no reason why the goverment should extend benefits to multiple spouses. there is simply no incentive for them to do so. if everyone in this country can marry one person they choose, regardless of gender or race, then there is no denial of equal opportunity and therefore no incentive for the government to hand out endless benefits to whoever jumps on the polygamous bandwagon. it would become a far too easy way to "milk" the system and provide benefits to roomates, immigrants, or whoever you wanted. when you take away the fact that marriage is a bond between two people, you are cheapening the purpose of a marriage to begin with. the bond means nothing if it can be extended to an unlimited amount of spouses.

all of this is JMO of course but there you have it

Somehow I missed this post -

First off - those urban myths you heard about incest causing birth defects are based on science from like the 1600's - there is no evidence that such peversions result in more deformities or disabilities than regular births.

Secondly - the example was two brothers - clearly they would be incapable of impregnating each other ;)

So all that is left to your objection seems to be that it is not a "healthy relationship" as you define one...forget for a minute that the definition of a healthy relationship is pretty subjective and that many would call a same-sex realtionship unhealthy also...and let's talk about these healthy same-sex relationships.

1. Depression and other mental disorders higher for homosexuals
2. Suicide higher for homosexuals
3. Domestic abuse higher amoung same-sex partners
4. Shorter durations for same-sex partners
5. Less monogamy for same-sex partners

the list could continue but I think that makes the point. NOT ALL - but many homosexual relationships seem to not be healthy ones either.

Finally your assertion that there are studies that show children raised in homosexual households are no different from children raised in traditional households is just plain false. A different can of worms perhpas best suited for a new thread though.


First, you missed my responses as well.

Second, please provide links to these "credible studies."

Third, you can't include your reason #4,#5, unless you compare the monogamous behavior of homosexuals to the monogamous behavior of unmarried heterosexual couples. Don't you agree? After all, homosexuals don't have any incentives(legally or monetarily) to stay "married" and a ton of discriminatory reasons not to.

Fourth, #1, #2, #3 - What was the depression, suicide rate, mental disorder, and domestic abuse ratio for colored couples between the 1890's and 1950's as compared to healthy undiscriminated against heterosexual caucasian couples? How about a similar comparison for interracial couples before they were allowed legal recognition of their "marriage" and how or if the ratio changed after legal recognition of their marriage was granted?

Finally, Do you feel Government is right to grant special rights/privileges to "married" couples? What about all the single parents, or just single people out there? Should they be penalized for not "marrying?"

[StrangerWitCandy]

soldierofchrist wrote: Now, are they against gay marriage? Yes. Am I? Yes. But they realize that a Constitutional amendment isn't the right way to go. It should be left a states right's issue, although it shouldn't be left to the state at all......

except for the "against gay marriage" part, I completely agree. of course if government had nothing to do with marriage, i would be against that as well.

[Jay2014]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: Now, are they against gay marriage? Yes. Am I? Yes. But they realize that a Constitutional amendment isn't the right way to go. It should be left a states right's issue, although it shouldn't be left to the state at all......

except for the "against gay marriage" part, I completely agree. of course if government had nothing to do with marriage, i would be against that as well.

why? it is a religious institution and a contract between two individuals, where does government need to be involved? i see it as something between two adults and whatever god they believe in, no one else.

[KatieKate]

Jay2014 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: Now, are they against gay marriage? Yes. Am I? Yes. But they realize that a Constitutional amendment isn't the right way to go. It should be left a states right's issue, although it shouldn't be left to the state at all......

except for the "against gay marriage" part, I completely agree. of course if government had nothing to do with marriage, i would be against that as well.

why? it is a religious institution and a contract between two individuals, where does government need to be involved? i see it as something between two adults and whatever god they believe in, no one else.

Jay,
You took the words right out of my mouth.

[Soldier of Humanity]

ill humor u
dont know about a or b
but c is yes

[revolution_reversal]

A -yes there will be no reproductive issues here.

B- yes unless they decide to reproducethat could lead to helath risks for the child

C- yes.