Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:Byblos, I don't see any other way but this leading to legal polygamy. If under state law, the definition of marriage can be changed to accommodate same sex unions, then how could the state then say consenting polygamists can't " marry"?

I agree fully. I'm slightly tired and busy at the moment, so I'll come back at the arguments presented as a response to my post later.

I want to marry my dog. I'm no stinkin' homo, my dog's a girl. I think it is very unjust that I can't marry the girl I love because of social prejudice.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I want to marry my dog. I'm no stinkin' homo, my dog's a girl. I think it is very unjust that I can't marry the girl I love because of social prejudice.

FL

FL, move to the US then. Pretty soon you'll be able to "marry" anyone, or anything you desire. We're going to be known as the land of the discrimination free, and the home of anything goes, as long as there's consent involved. In US law, I believe your dog licking you, is legal grounds for her consent. The only question I have for you, is if your dog is a French Poodle, or are you planning an interracial, as well as interspecies marriage?

I want to marry my Sister, we are both of legal consent age, or maybe I might marry both my Sister and Daughter.

Dan

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/three-daddies-cal ... ealth.html

If 2 men or 2 women can marry, why not 3 of them or 4 or an X number of combinations? I see this heading towards a legal contract type of relationship between multiple parties. You want total separation of church and state then this is the ultimate solution. Forget about the federal or state and local governments calling it marriage, it's a legally binding contract between parties that spells out exactly the terms and responsibilities including those of taxation, child rearing and custody, inheritance, division of assets upon contract termination or nullification, etc. etc. The government will have no role other than to standardize the contract language, so as to ensure individual rights, most notably those of the children's, nothing else and nothing more. Marriage will be strictly a religious ceremony that has no impact whatsoever on social rights. Welcome to the future.

Byblos, I don't see any other way but this leading to legal polygamy. If under state law, the definition of marriage can be changed to accommodate same sex unions, then how could the state then say consenting polygamists can't " marry"? That would be the same discrimination that same sex couples are so much against.

The issue arises in the division of rights and responsibilities. When they are divided among multiple individuals, they may lose meaning or cause inequality. I'm not really against polygamy, but it's certainly hard to approach responsibly. It's always curious when this is brought up as some unnacveptable slippery slope to me. It's still a fallacious step, but it's not even frightening.

However, I must say, while I am one to remain respectful when I'm able, allegory towards legalization of beastislity, necrophilia, incest, etc. as valid marriages is quite stupid. You all should be better than such ignorant remarks.

How is it ignorant, why shouldn't they be afforded the same rights if they are all consenting adults.

Talk about discrimination.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:How is it ignorant, why shouldn't they be afforded the same rights if they are all consenting adults.

Talk about discrimination.

Because they cause demonstrable harm to the involved parties either through lack of informed consent (rape) or physical harm (psychological trauma due to the westmark perhaps). Easy stuff to understand.

How is it ignorant?

Bestiality: No consent on the part of the animal, demonstrable health hazard for both parties.
Incest: Very real genetic problems can arise from incestuous relationships.

However, I must say, while I am one to remain respectful when I'm able, allegory towards legalization of beastislity, necrophilia, incest, etc. as valid marriages is quite stupid. You all should be better than such ignorant remarks.

Beany,
I can only speak for myself. Any beasteality references are in jest. But, Daniel's reference to marrying his sister or daughter, while probably a joke from him(I say probably, because I don't know Australian laws) may be a real issue. Why should the government be able to discriminate against someone wanting to marry his sister or daughter, as long as they are consenting adults?
The point here, is once the definition of marriage is changed to mean something other than one man and one woman, it opens up a whole can of worms. Since the govt. can change the definition of marriage, to allow two men, or two women, then how can they possibly discriminate against polygamists, or incestual "marriages"? Since the argument was made that procreation has no bearing on marriage, then incest is now valid.


*****edit*****

Since incestuous sex can lead to problems, maybe we can all agree to incestual marriage, as long as the woman(if marrying a man), is post-menopausal. Other than that, father-son, mother- daughter, grandson-grandfather, etc. Would be good. After all, it has been argued here, that sex gives a special bond between those involved. Why not a special bond between immediate family? Haven't you heard the old saying, "the family that sleeps together, stays together."?

The issues with incest are a little trickier - same-sex incest causes no genetic defects. The issue arises when we evaluate likelihood of manipulation or foul play. A father trying to marry his son, consenting or no, leaves open possibilities of manipulation using the power of an authority figure. This is why teachers can't have relationships with students. There's other examples too. The other reason concerns psychological harm related to the westmark effect. We're all related, every relationship is incestuous on some level - we just need to make sure to maintain healthy relationships. People you've grown up with within your household, especially authority figures, should remain off limits. Sexual orientation doesn't involve preference towards close relatives or authority figures - you can always just date someone else.

Beanybag wrote:
However, I must say, while I am one to remain respectful when I'm able, allegory towards legalization of beastislity, necrophilia, incest, etc. as valid marriages is quite stupid. You all should be better than such ignorant remarks.

I was listening to a radio program where the sexologist moderator, a woman, took a call from a man who wanted to marry his horse. I thought, ''Surely, she's going to tell him he's lost his mind!'' Well, she didn't. She listened to his lament and felt his pain and his love for his horse.

So, Beanybag, wake up. The door has been opened to same-sex marriage; and polygamy is tolerated if you don't shout it from the rooftop. If you think man/animal ''relationships'' can't happen, you are a poor, senseless man because beastiality already happens.

FL a repugnant cartoon of a wife beater! God&Science should be ashamed! ASHAMED!

As you can see, RickD, some people take the rhetoric rather seriously.

Ivellious wrote:How is it ignorant?

Bestiality: No consent on the part of the animal, demonstrable health hazard for both parties.
Incest: Very real genetic problems can arise from incestuous relationships.

How do you know the animal doesn't give its consent? Do you speak an animal language? As for incest, babies resulting from incestuous relationships are quite healthy. Do a little research and find out for yourself.

Now, homosexuality is completely inoccuous and great for society, everybody knows that. Ditto for polygamy because great cultures practice it with no ill effect. Wife-swapping is OK between consenting adults. NAMBLA (NAtional Man-Boy Love Association) is unfairly discriminated against. Pornography? BRING IT ON! it's great entertainment!

I could go on and on...continue destroying yourself from the inside, USA! Happy Fourth of July!

FL

PS: You wanna know what the real problem is? God. Get rid of that guy! Oh...you're already onto that, USA. Good work!

People you've grown up with within your household, especially authority figures, should remain off limits. Sexual orientation doesn't involve preference towards close relatives or authority figures - you can always just date someone else.

Just because our culture frowns upon this, that doesn't mean it's wrong. Remember, if there is no absolute morality, then morality is subjectively determined by societies. If enough people want to marry their brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers, then incest may be en vogue. Just because you say incest is wrong, remember, there's no absolute morality. So, if the definition of marriage is changed once, it can, and has to be changed again, as not to discriminate.

As you can see, RickD, some people take the rhetoric rather seriously.

Beany,
I think FL gets his point across quite eloquently.

Ultimately, with no absolute morality, anything can be morally permissive. To each his own.

But it can't. I suppose I will try to quell this fallacy that 'secular ethics are subjective and therefore arbitrary, just an opinion, can be whatever you want, etc'. It isn't true. What's harmful is harmful regardless of whether we want it to be. We can't just choose to suddenly not be harmed by things - if we could, however, then yes, the thing would be permissible. As an example, homosexuality was thought to be a harmful me tal disorder with all kinds of false attributes associated with it. Now we know better. That's more of an example of new knowledge leading to better morals, but the pint stands. Just because people can subjectively evaluate what is harmful doesn't mean there isn't objective facts to be said. If this were true, psychology, medicine, and language would all be a farce. I'll make a more detailed explanation when I have time.

Meanwhile, I can assure you that he does not have a point at all.