It's ok
I understand why you need to try and help out the dude who mangled his SSM argument.

In Australia the ACT territory is doing the same thing. They are arguing that their same sex "marriage" legislation doesn't conflict with Federal (heterosexual) marriage law because they say national, heterosexual marriage laws only apply to straight people.

...and their law is totally different and unique because it ONLY applies to gay folk - whose relationships aren't the "same".

"...The ACT attempted to create a distinct and separate type of marriage that could sit alongside the federal laws."

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news...z2mn4jPISC

(December 7, 2013 at 8:14 am)Lion IRC Wrote: It's ok
I understand why you need to try and help out the dude who mangled his SSM argument.

No, you mangled it in your desperate rush to create the most dishonest strawman possible. Do you think that people can't go back a few pages and see what Jacob's actual argument was? Is it that you believe your pathetic distortion is the only thing left on the forums?

Jacob argued, as I did in brief, that one must take each case as its own debate, and so pretending that gay marriage naturally leads into a requirement to allow bestiality doesn't make any sense. The argument was that these were separate debates to be had in their own time, and that allowing one thing doesn't require allowing another, because the other issue will come with its own set of contentions to debate.

You, as you so often do, decided to take the lowest road you could, and crowed "aha! So gay marriage isn't really marriage!" which was not at all what was said.

For a guy who bitches so shrilly about people supposedly strawmanning you, you certainly have no issues doing it to others.

(December 7, 2013 at 7:34 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote:

(December 5, 2013 at 9:22 pm)Chad32 Wrote: You know I've always wondered what anyone expects to really accomplish by holding their breath. At least with screaming, some parents will give them something to make the noise stop. Holding your breath isn't really doing anything.

You can pass out if you're really determined. You don't die.

That's kind of what I thought. Worst case scenario, you pass out and start breathing again.


No, GodsRevolt, this isn't a joke thread. There have been more people for letting relatives get together than I thought there might be, but I asked the question seriously when I started this.

(December 7, 2013 at 10:13 am)Chad32 Wrote: No, GodsRevolt, this isn't a joke thread. There have been more people for letting relatives get together than I thought there might be, but I asked the question seriously when I started this.

With regard to the original question, I guess what it really comes down to for me is that personal distaste isn't a sufficient justification for dictating what anyone other than I can or cannot do. That's a simple one.

And as a practitioner of polyamory in the past, I've never been against polygamy, so long as it's not locked to any one gender. Granted, the laws involved would be complex things- especially around divorce, children and so on- but it can work if one is willing to put in the effort. And for those who aren't... well, is that really any different to the frivolous monogamous marriages we see today?

I remember a couple in Mexico who were very much in love. They were too cute and happy. They decided to get married and began the process for the wedding. The court sent them to get medical routine exams in order to go through with it. Turns out they were siblings. They wanted to die. They never knew.

I found out years later that they moved in together after a period of breaking up and getting back together.

My point? Nada. This is just the first time this story fits in well enough to share it

Incest: yes or no? I say yes, because it's their life to share with whoever they want.

(December 7, 2013 at 10:33 am)Ivy Wrote: I remember a couple in Mexico who were very much in love. They were too cute and happy. They decided to get married and began the process for the wedding. The court sent them to get medical routine exams in order to go through with it. Turns out they were siblings. They wanted to die. They never knew.

That's the weird thing. Close relatives that weren't raised together and then meet frequently have a strong attraction to one another. Whereas if they did grow up together they aren't.

There was a case just earlier this year where a mom found her son that she had given up for adoption as a baby and they were arrested for having a sexual affair. I think the son was still a minor at that.

I've read tons of stories about lost siblings hooking up without knowing they were related.

In Iceland there are only like 300,000 people that are all descended from a group of Vikings that colonized the island a thousand years ago or something. They even developed an app so they could keep from hooking up with close relatives that they didn't realize they were closely related to.

Well that goes back to the westermark effect. We're wired to be less attracted to people we grew up with. Some long lost relative might turn us on, but that person that lives across the street that's not a relative is overlooked for being too familiar.

(December 7, 2013 at 10:54 am)Chad32 Wrote: Well that goes back to the westermark effect. We're wired to be less attracted to people we grew up with. Some long lost relative might turn us on, but that person that lives across the street that's not a relative is overlooked for being too familiar.

I think I read somewhere about a royal lineage that almost died out completely because they kept raising their arranged to be married future regents in close proximity from childhood, so when it came time to further the family line, many couldn't bring themselves to do it, due to just that effect.

(December 7, 2013 at 8:50 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(December 7, 2013 at 8:14 am)Lion IRC Wrote: It's ok
I understand why you need to try and help out the dude who mangled his SSM argument.

No, you mangled it in your desperate rush to create the most dishonest strawman possible. Do you think that people can't go back a few pages and see what Jacob's actual argument was? Is it that you believe your pathetic distortion is the only thing left on the forums?

The Marriage Equality lobby says homosexuals are entitled to exactly the same marriage as heterosexuals.

Is it exactly the same or not?

Quote:...Jacob argued, as I did in brief, that one must take each case as its own debate, and so pretending that gay marriage naturally leads into a requirement to allow bestiality doesn't make any sense.

Relax! Dont be scared. There won't be any requirement for people to be allowed marry their sisters, fathers, pet dog. If you find that yucky you can lead the morality campaign to stop it.

...because as everybody knows, THAT'S NOT REAL MARRIAGE.

Quote:...The argument was that these were separate debates to be had in their own time...

What, now you are saying that if people want a certain unique form of marriage they have to wait their turn?

Quote:...and that allowing one thing doesn't require allowing another, because the other issue will come with its own set of contentions to debate.

"the issue"? "It's own set of contentions"?


You completely misunderstand the concept of marriage equality.

People accuse me of slippery slope reasoning, but if gay 'marriage' campaigners help eliminate intolerance and bigotry that's supposed to be a good thing - especially for bisexual people who are discriminated against because they can only marry one gender at a time.

How sad for them that bigotry and intolerance means they have to pick only one person/gender.

Quote:For a guy who bitches so shrilly about people supposedly strawmanning you, you certainly have no issues doing it to others.

If you dont think two men getting married is 'exactly the same' as one man and one woman getting married then I haven't strawmanned you.

If you think SSM can't be compared to heterosexual marriage then I haven't strawmanned you.

If you think your/his clumsy 'own-goal' about this type of marriage versus that type of marriage (inequality) needs to be reworded, that's your problem. But a strawman argument is not what's going on here.

I propose that Christians should not be allowed to marry, because it is disgusting and immoral and demonstrably harmful to children. If we continue to allow Christians to marry, we'll have to allow people to marry horses and dogs.