100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Another win for consenting adults | |
|---|---|
|
|
  msharmony, I would expect better from you! Love your posts but is it a slow news day or something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol
nope, this was one of the news articles when I first opened my Yahoo page that day, so I commented on it I'm no supporter of same sex marriage or incestuous marriage,, I was just noting that they both can be supported with the same arguments,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol nope, this was one of the news articles when I first opened my Yahoo page that day, so I commented on it I'm no supporter of same sex marriage or incestuous marriage,, I was just noting that they both can be supported with the same arguments,,,, guess you can support anything if you reach far enough! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol nope, this was one of the news articles when I first opened my Yahoo page that day, so I commented on it I'm no supporter of same sex marriage or incestuous marriage,, I was just noting that they both can be supported with the same arguments,,,, guess you can support anything if you reach far enough! agreed, I call it serpenting like the Serpent in the bible,, minimalizing and rationalizing away rules and regulations and customs and values,, and about anything else we really want to do |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony, I would expect better from you! Love your posts but is it a slow news day or something? Just shows, people do post unintelligent things,,, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony, I would expect better from you! Love your posts but is it a slow news day or something? Just shows, people do post unintelligent things,,, I post unintelligent things all the time, doesn't necessarily negate my intelligence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Are these two Melmacians? Don't you be blaming such Humans on us Melmacians. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
DavidCommaGeek
on
Sun 01/18/15 12:39 PM
|
|
yes, and once people would have said its another man/woman,, its WRONG, plain and simple ... PERIOD. I'm no supporter of same sex marriage or incestuous marriage,, I was just noting that they both can be supported with the same arguments,,,, Except for the part where homosexuality doesn't lead to demented/disfigured/genetically unstable offspring. A homosexual pair in and of themselves cannot even have children - they either have to adopt or get involved with donors and fertility science. Incest - sex and conception involving members of blood relations - does lead to exactly that kind of offspring. Even "watered-down" incest, like that which occurred between royal families of Europe for centuries, leads to noticeable (and sometimes serious) problems. George III (the king of England during the American Revolutionary War) was half-insane. (Completely insane at the end of his life.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III_of_the_United_Kingdom#Later_life Philip IV of Spain had a jaw so big and malformed that he had trouble speaking and eating. http://www.antiquesatoz.com/habsburg/habsburg-jaw.htm Royalty of many nations suffered from haemophilia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemophilia_in_European_royalty -------- You can "serpentize" all you like (also, I think, called "playing devil's advocate", or "cognitive dissonance"), but any sensible person should be able to see that incest is not a good idea. Hence the need for a psychological evaluation. In my opinion, incest isn't one of those things that you should have to debate over. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 01/18/15 12:52 PM
|
|
no, but it does lead to HIV
whats that you say,, ? there is no guarantee that it will lead to HIV? HIV occurs across demographic lines? there is also no guarantee inbred children will be deformed and deformed children also occurs across demographic lines the controversy is in how much more LIKELY the undesired outcome is for inbreeding, They are MORE LIKELY to be deformed and , quiet as its kept, in male on male sexual relations , it is much more LIKELY to lead to HIV and the equalizer is in the choice of every adult to be 'responsible' which means using protection, which greatly reduces the disparity in how LIKELY any of the above is, if adults are being 'responsible' we should have much less to worry about regarding whether there will be children produced or stds passed on,,,, or maybe we can circumvent the concern by requiring incestuous marriages to have at least one partner 'fixed',,? ,, but it can be supported with sound 'civil' arguments,,,the concerns can be minimalized with focusing on 'responsible' choices and the desires can be rationalized with the presence of 'love' and 'consent ,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony, you have an interesting idea.
You and I should talk about it over dinner. I'll bring the cat ...     ... sup.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unfortunately, I doubt the cat would be considered a consenting party,,,,
oh,, I would say I don't eat cat,, but I'm sure that could be turned into all kinds of naughty chat,,lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unfortunately, I doubt the cat would be considered a consenting party,,,, oh,, I would say I don't eat cat,, but I'm sure that could be turned into all kinds of naughty chat,,lol  Catsup isn't made out of cat. What is naughty about putting catsup on one's food? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh,,, catsup
got it 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh,,, catsup got it You didn't completely read my first post mentioning catsup, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
DavidCommaGeek
on
Sun 01/18/15 03:51 PM
|
|
The "rational" argument (which of course is any argument if it's an actual argument, as set down by the "rational" arguers. See how that works?) only supports the prohibition of incest. It is not "responsible" to increase the likelihood of deformation/dementation/genetic instability in your own children. (And again, the problem is not only the immediate children, but the children for generations to come.) Even if one or both parties are infertile or "fixed", there is still the problem of having a romantic relationship with a member of your own family - as opposed to someone outside your family. This reduces outside social bonds and makes the pair emotionally incestuous in addition to physically incestuous. That's not healthy psychologically, either - that's the Oedipus complex on a whole other level.
Then there are issues of dependence and attachment. In a normal relationship, you have a platonic relationship with your parents and siblings; you have a romantic relationship with an outside partner; you have a filial relationship with your children. However, in such an incestuous relationship, you have platonic, romantic, and filial love with your own familymember. And then what happens when that family member dies or breaks up with you? (Because the person being your father/mother/son/daughter is still no guarantee that they won't cheat on you, divorce you, etc.) You suffer the emotional loss of all three kinds of love at once. If any of you have suffered the death of a close family member, or been broken up with, triple the pain and grief you felt. That cannot be psychologically healthy, either. Taking for granted that being physically and psychologically healthy is the good, "rational" thing to be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yooooz tooooz going out for supper or what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "rational" argument (which of course is any argument if it's an actual argument, as set down by the "rational" arguers. See how that works?) only supports the prohibition of incest. It is not "responsible" to increase the likelihood of deformation/dementation/genetic instability in your own children. (And again, the problem is not only the immediate children, but the children for generations to come.) Even if one or both parties are infertile or "fixed", there is still the problem of having a romantic relationship with a member of your own family - as opposed to someone outside your family. This reduces outside social bonds and makes the pair emotionally incestuous in addition to physically incestuous. That's not healthy psychologically, either - that's the Oedipus complex on a whole other level. Then there are issues of dependence and attachment. In a normal relationship, you have a platonic relationship with your parents and siblings; you have a romantic relationship with an outside partner; you have a filial relationship with your children. However, in such an incestuous relationship, you have platonic, romantic, and filial love with your own familymember. And then what happens when that family member dies or breaks up with you? (Because the person being your father/mother/son/daughter is still no guarantee that they won't cheat on you, divorce you, etc.) You suffer the emotional loss of all three kinds of love at once. If any of you have suffered the death of a close family member, or been broken up with, triple the pain and grief you felt. That cannot be psychologically healthy, either. Taking for granted that being physically and psychologically healthy is the good, "rational" thing to be. it is also not 'rational' to increase the odds of people catching HIV but being that RESPONSIBLE sex is an option that all but eliminates those odds,, the argument favoring caution is moot caution comes in being responsible in the first place,, which is the choice we give all adults, including homosexuals who may be greatly increasing the odds of acquireing and spreading aids by having UNPROTECTED sex with males |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i think the whole argument the gays were making for SSM is that 2 people love each other should be able to marry... well, doesn't this apply under that argument? all you people that were saying how nothing wrong with SSM, now you should be able to see the argument that me and MH were trying to say... you got your wish, 2 people that love each other want to get married, don't cry now and say how wrong it is...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to get super-rational about it, the most cautious, then the safest avenue is to not have sex at all. Do not share any bodily fluids with anybody else. Ever. Even if they say they're virgins and "clean".
"Responsible" sex does not "all but eliminate those odds". They reduce the odds. There are plenty of flaws that mean the risk is still there. A condom has a hole torn in it. You perform oral sex instead of genital sex, and some slips. You share a needle that was dunked in alcohol for about half a second, and it didn't clean the whole thing through. With our current methods of safe sex, there are no guarantees. The only way you can guarantee that something doesn't occur is to not do it in the first place - and most people in the world don't accept that as a valid option. Even that is not a solid guarantee, for someone in your family history could have contracted an STD in the past. Those little buggers wait for YEARS to show noticeable effects, and by then it's typically too late. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to get super-rational about it, the most cautious, then the safest avenue is to not have sex at all. Do not share any bodily fluids with anybody else. Ever. Even if they say they're virgins and "clean".
I agree, abstinence is safest yes, responsible sex GREATLY reduces the risks of both HIV and pregnancy(and by extension genetic mutations during pregnancy) yes, most americans don't accept abstinence as a valid option abstinence is a guarantee of not picking up aids, as it is a sexually transmitted disease,, the only other way it would be passed on is THROUGH birth,,, I agree and understand it all but to be non discriminatory, we cant really refuse the 'right' of marriage to people based upon what could happen if they are IRRESPONSIBLE or else same sex marriage between men would not be legal the argument there was simply what moe states, if two adults love each other they should have the right to be married,,,, |
|
|
|
|
