For what it's worth, the subject of incestuous marriage is relevant to the topic at hand.
It exposes the hypocrisy of those who would support gay marriage yet are "offended" by the thought of an incestuous marriage...
One must support equal rights for ALL or one must admit they wish to impose their own restrictions.
.

(January 18, 2013 at 1:35 pm)catfish Wrote: For what it's worth, the subject of incestuous marriage is relevant to the topic at hand.
It exposes the hypocrisy of those who would support gay marriage yet are "offended" by the thought of an incestuous marriage...
One must support equal rights for ALL or one must admit they wish to impose their own restrictions.
.

For the record I don't give a damn who's fucking who assuming they are able to consent. Although closely related people should be aware of the risks.

(January 18, 2013 at 1:41 pm)Insanity x Wrote:

(January 18, 2013 at 1:35 pm)catfish Wrote: For what it's worth, the subject of incestuous marriage is relevant to the topic at hand.
It exposes the hypocrisy of those who would support gay marriage yet are "offended" by the thought of an incestuous marriage...
One must support equal rights for ALL or one must admit they wish to impose their own restrictions.
.

For the record I don't give a damn who's fucking who assuming they are able to consent. Although closely related people should be aware of the risks.

I agree to a point...
From your answer above, do you not support the rights of the mentally handicapped to marry? What about the rights of a 14 year old to marry who they chose?
.

(January 18, 2013 at 1:50 pm)catfish Wrote: I agree to a point...
From your answer above, do you not support the rights of the mentally handicapped to marry? What about the rights of a 14 year old to marry who they chose?
.

I see what you are getting at but it is a matter of where you draw the line of who can and can't consent. To be honest I don't know where they should be drawn. The whole idea behind consent is to protect vulnerable people in society. The whole idea of marriage is daft anyway.

(January 18, 2013 at 1:50 pm)catfish Wrote:

(January 18, 2013 at 1:41 pm)Insanity x Wrote: For the record I don't give a damn who's fucking who assuming they are able to consent. Although closely related people should be aware of the risks.

I agree to a point...
From your answer above, do you not support the rights of the mentally handicapped to marry? What about the rights of a 14 year old to marry who they chose?
.

Do you support the right of a 14 year old to fly a 747 if they want to?

Then your rather stupid equivocation is invalid.

And this all rather beside the point since I was calling Daniel on his hypocritical statement that he doesn't treat gays differently when he clearly does.

(January 18, 2013 at 10:16 pm)Zen Badger Wrote:

(January 18, 2013 at 1:50 pm)catfish Wrote: I agree to a point...
From your answer above, do you not support the rights of the mentally handicapped to marry? What about the rights of a 14 year old to marry who they chose?
.

Do you support the right of a 14 year old to fly a 747 if they want to?

Then your rather stupid equivocation is invalid.

And this all rather beside the point since I was calling Daniel on his hypocritical statement that he doesn't treat gays differently when he clearly does.

The stupid equivocation is yours by bringing up piloting a 747 in a discussion of marriage between varying peoples...
.

(January 18, 2013 at 10:16 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: Do you support the right of a 14 year old to fly a 747 if they want to?

I used to do that on flight simulator all the time. My only problem was when it started making beeping sounds and saying "Stall, stall, stall!" then I would just mess with all the switches until it shut up. Of course that would occasionally send me into a nosedive but that was only every now and then. Come to think of it I'm not sure if I ever successfully landed on that game..

(January 18, 2013 at 10:16 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: And this all rather beside the point since I was calling Daniel on his hypocritical statement that he doesn't treat gays differently when he clearly does.

OK, based on your responses, where you CLEARLY equated consensual incestuous relationships with paedophilia, bestiality and gang rape of your own free accord (you were not coerced into this), I have the following comments.

In the late 1960's as you well know, Denmark became the first country to completely legalize pornography.

From 1970 to 1979 Denmark produced every type of pornography imaginable. Including bestiality and child pornography. If you were to get your hands on a copy of a "CC" magazine today, you would not know whether the boys and girls having sex are over 18 or under 18 because it made no difference at the time legally. You also had depictions of children as young as 8 or 9 having sex. Where is the social outrage Zen?

It was a product of its times wasn't it? Society didn't care. Okay fast forward to today. Do you call all of the Danish consumers paedophiles because they faped off to child porn?

Now let's assume for the sake of argument, let's assume, that you're right that incestuous relationships are as horrible, vile, and disgusting as child molestation. How would you feel if you lived in a society where it was not just common-place, but also readily accepted?

Perhaps I jest?

How do you feel about prostitution?

You can give me the intellectual answer, but then what if your daughter became a prostitute, what then, would you be hurt for her - surely what parent, if they are a good parent, wouldn't be hurt by this?



In Africa it is culturally acceptable for men to have sex with prostituted while their wives are away, or while they are away from home.

Let's imagine that you Zen, live in a place where this culture exists, and that you as a well-cultured man, feel compelled to experience the culture while your wife is away.

Shall we say it's all the same? By no means!

Has another man's wife ever approached you for sex? Do you have a sense of morality, or would you believe that morality is irrelevant when two people consent to having sex? The "sanctity of Marriage" be damned!



I take it your answer is, clearly, that you treat incestuous people differently, yes?

(January 19, 2013 at 5:37 am)Aractus Wrote: OK, based on your responses, where you CLEARLY equated consensual incestuous relationships with paedophilia, bestiality and gang rape of your own free accord (you were not coerced into this), I have the following comments.

Uh, I think he was actually pointing out that the "are you in favor of incestuous marriages too?" is a pretty standard homophobic canard used in the gay marriage argument, just as- yes- beastiality, pedophilia and gang rape are. And like the incest point, none of them have anything to do with the argument at hand.

Your other questions are... interesting. Most of the early ones can be answered simply by pointing out that even an atheist "subjective" morality isn't based on public opinion. The others are just... well, I have some free-minded attitudes toward sex, so I don't really see a lot of them as issues, so long as everything is ethical.

But then, I don't think you really care about that.

(January 19, 2013 at 5:37 am)Aractus Wrote:

(January 18, 2013 at 10:16 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: And this all rather beside the point since I was calling Daniel on his hypocritical statement that he doesn't treat gays differently when he clearly does.

OK, based on your responses, where you CLEARLY equated consensual incestuous relationships with paedophilia, bestiality and gang rape of your own free accord (you were not coerced into this), I have the following comments.

---

(January 18, 2013 at 9:49 am)Zen Badger Wrote: So you equate homosexuality with incest do you?

What about beastialty? or pedophilia? or even gang rape?

Because all of those have as much relevance to the topic at hand as incest does.

---

In the late 1960's as you well know, Denmark became the first country to completely legalize pornography.

From 1970 to 1979 Denmark produced every type of pornography imaginable. Including bestiality and child pornography. If you were to get your hands on a copy of a "CC" magazine today, you would not know whether the boys and girls having sex are over 18 or under 18 because it made no difference at the time legally. You also had depictions of children as young as 8 or 9 having sex. Where is the social outrage Zen?

It was a product of its times wasn't it? Society didn't care. Okay fast forward to today. Do you call all of the Danish consumers paedophiles because they faped off to child porn?

Now let's assume for the sake of argument, let's assume, that you're right that incestuous relationships are as horrible, vile, and disgusting as child molestation. How would you feel if you lived in a society where it was not just common-place, but also readily accepted?

Perhaps I jest?

How do you feel about prostitution?

You can give me the intellectual answer, but then what if your daughter became a prostitute, what then, would you be hurt for her - surely what parent, if they are a good parent, wouldn't be hurt by this?



In Africa it is culturally acceptable for men to have sex with prostituted while their wives are away, or while they are away from home.

Let's imagine that you Zen, live in a place where this culture exists, and that you as a well-cultured man, feel compelled to experience the culture while your wife is away.

Shall we say it's all the same? By no means!

Has another man's wife ever approached you for sex? Do you have a sense of morality, or would you believe that morality is irrelevant when two people consent to having sex? The "sanctity of Marriage" be damned!



I take it your answer is, clearly, that you treat incestuous people differently, yes?

You sir are a two faced hypocrite. And you can chop and change the direction of the thread as much as you like but the fact remains that you said you treat gays the same as other people and since you would deny them marriage you do not.

Now... since your pathetic attempts to derail the conversation with incest etc have failed what are you going to try now?

---

(January 18, 2013 at 10:21 pm)catfish Wrote:

(January 18, 2013 at 10:16 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: Do you support the right of a 14 year old to fly a 747 if they want to?

Then your rather stupid equivocation is invalid.

And this all rather beside the point since I was calling Daniel on his hypocritical statement that he doesn't treat gays differently when he clearly does.

The stupid equivocation is yours by bringing up piloting a 747 in a discussion of marriage between varying peoples...
.

It is as stupid as bringing who a 14yo can marry into a conversation about consenting adults.