It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Syriusly]

Um, how in the fuck is banning interracial marriage a 'moral constraint'?

Certain Christians believed it was at the time because that is what their preacher told them. It was a different time. The immutable truth is, it's impossible to not have an interracial marriage, unless maybe you're a Jew. We're ALL mixed race. But there was no discrimination happening for Cherokee-Cubans marrying Asian-Scandinavians. It was a specific law intended to prevent blacks from marrying whites. This is why it was struck down, it violated the rights of black people. It didn't violate them because it didn't allow them to do what they wanted, it violated them because it discriminated against them on the basis of their race.

Again, you're making up an imaginary version of history. It was overturned as it violated the rights of a white man and a black woman. Richard and Mildred Loving.

With interracial marriage bans being the 'moral constraints' that you insist were knocked down. What possible 'moral constraint' is created by interracial marriage bans?

You didn't actually answer my question.

And of the lifting of 'moral constraints' like interracial marriage bans leads to incestuous marriage....

.....why didn't it? Its been half a century of contradiction of your assertion.

I did not say that interracial bans were moral constraints, you're putting words in my mouth. I explained how people of the time thought it was a moral issue, I didn't say I agreed with them or that the ruling shouldn't have ever been made. I guess those are your assumptions but I've not said that..

Just like you are now arguing that gay marriage bans are a moral issue.

So was Loving v. Virginia a good ruling or not?

 

[Syriusly]

Um, how in the fuck is banning interracial marriage a 'moral constraint'?

Certain Christians believed it was at the time because that is what their preacher told them. It was a different time. The immutable truth is, it's impossible to not have an interracial marriage, unless maybe you're a Jew. We're ALL mixed race. But there was no discrimination happening for Cherokee-Cubans marrying Asian-Scandinavians. It was a specific law intended to prevent blacks from marrying whites. This is why it was struck down, it violated the rights of black people. It didn't violate them because it didn't allow them to do what they wanted, it violated them because it discriminated against them on the basis of their race.

Again, you're making up an imaginary version of history. It was overturned as it violated the rights of a white man and a black woman. Richard and Mildred Loving.

With interracial marriage bans being the 'moral constraints' that you insist were knocked down. What possible 'moral constraint' is created by interracial marriage bans?

You didn't actually answer my question.

And of the lifting of 'moral constraints' like interracial marriage bans leads to incestuous marriage....

.....why didn't it? Its been half a century of contradiction of your assertion.

. Gay marriage is not a real thing, it's not something anyone was allowed to do. There is not a discrimination when you're not being allowed to do something no one else is allowed to do.

The State of Virginia actually declared that interracial marriage did not exist.

Really- legally the State of Virginia said that mixed race 'marriage' in another State legally never existed- because to Virginia- mixed race marriage was not a real thing.

And of course Virginia argued- just like you- that they were not discriminating against anyone.

 

[Boss]

No, mixed race marriage WAS a thing, virtually every marriage is mixed race. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, and that is a real thing. A homosexual relationship is also a real thing, it's just not a marriage. Homosexuality is not "practicing medicine" ...we can't start handing out Doctor's licenses to gay people because they think they deserve them by being gay. There is no such thing as "gay medicine" and we can't make it a thing because there would be severe consequences. Homosexuality is not "air traffic control" and we don't allow people to be air traffic controllers on the basis of them being gay. It's not discrimination... if someone wants to meet the criteria of being an air traffic controller and that person is gay, there is nothing prohibiting that and no law against it. But we don't have a thing called "gay air traffic control" where people are allowed to pretend they are air traffic controllers because they are gay.

 

[Boss]

Again you are just echoing exactly what the State of Virginia said.

It doesn't matter because the argument is different. Why are you not comprehending that? If you walk into court to defend yourself of a crime you didn't commit and you state to the judge that you are "not guilty" ...the judge doesn't accuse you of "echoing exactly what the last defended said!"

 

[EverCurious]

While I initially gravitate to the idea that incest leads to sick kids, my research finds that's not always the case. When one looks at the "science" of incest, the issue against it is mostly the health of any child they might have. This isn't /always/ the case, some siblings are genetically different enough to /not/ produce congenitally disordered children. Today we can scan blood and dna enough to pretty much /know/ if these siblings would be likely to have, or not have, that kind of health issue in a child due to mater/paternity - we could do the same with any couples child, and actually do on stuff like blood Ph incompatibilities and what not.

Now, my first thought, is okay we need to prevent folks from making kids that have congenital disorders, but then I think about people and it just falls apart...

Here is a list of things that are known to cause congenital disorders:

• Drinking while pregnant
• Smoking while pregnant (and that's by the mother OR the father btw - paternal smoking prior to conception has been linked to DNA mutations in the germ line)
• Toxic exposure (drugs, prescription meds, lead poisoning, supposedly healthy supplements, toxins in the water or in food, etc.)
• Bacterial Infections (both during pregnancy and in newborns as well)
• Lack of proper nutrients
• Physical restraint (this wuld be stuff like mom falling on her stomach, or even if mom has a "badly" shaped womb)
• Genetic mutation (while this does include incestual conception, it also includes spontaneous and unrelated mutations that occur for no known reason)
• Socioeconomic status (this ranges from race to money; aka if the mom gets prenatal care and so forth, even stress is attributed to fetal disorders)
• Radiation (Fall out is bad, too many x-rays are bad, too much sun is bad, etc.)
• Father's age (fathers contribute proportionally more DNA)
• Unknown (Approximately 65% of congenital disorders have no scientifically known cause)

I don't recall stopping any heterosexual marriages because of any of the above /known/ risk factors to their /potential/ offspring.

Pops is right, we cannot really justify stopping incest marriages anymore, though it's not because of the allowance of gay marriage, but because of the advance of medical science. If some sibling couple took their right to incest marriage to the supreme, then I wouldn't be at all surprised if they won, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it made head way toward having incest removed from being illegal. On the other hand, I don't see a huge rash of incest couples rushing the court house...

 

[Boss]

Virginia argued that there was no discrimination against black people- because they could marry any black person that they wanted.

But marriage remains the union of a man and woman, you're just denying the right to someone on the basis of race which is a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

 

[G.T.]

Virginia argued that there was no discrimination against black people- because they could marry any black person that they wanted.

But marriage remains the union of a man and woman, you're just denying the right to someone on the basis of race which is a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.

 

[Boss]

no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.

So, essentially, your argument is... we can arbitrarily change whatever any word means and make it mean whatever we need for it to mean in order to accommodate what we desire. I kind of think that general policy MIGHT pose a problem down the road somewhere. I also think... unless we've redefined what "free speech" means, I have the right to disagree with this policy and warn people that it's an idiotic idea.

 

[G.T.]

no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.

So, essentially, your argument is... we can arbitrarily change whatever any word means and make it mean whatever we need for it to mean in order to accommodate what we desire. I kind of think that general policy MIGHT pose a problem down the road somewhere. I also think... unless we've redefined what "free speech" means, I have the right to disagree with this policy and warn people that it's an idiotic idea.

words meant to accommodate theyre to communicate, and yes any word can be changed to match our updated levels of communication. pretty simple.

 

[Boss]

Virginia argued that there was no discrimination against black people- because they could marry any black person that they wanted.

But marriage remains the union of a man and woman, you're just denying the right to someone on the basis of race which is a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.

And for the record, you are quoting my response to someone arguing about the Loving ruling. I'm pointing out that the Loving ruling did not redefine what marriage is. It remained the union of a man and woman as it always had been, that didn't change. The only thing Loving changed was the ability to discriminate based on skin color.

Also... to correct your ignorant ass... WE are our OWN authority! We most certainly DO get to decide whatever the fuck we want to decide as a society who governs itself, that's part of the beauty of it. We're not ruled by an activist court. We don't live in homosexual kingdom. We're not obligated to follow whatever idiocy you dream up in your vacant little pinheads. You don't have the right to decide what constitutes an advancement of society or whether it has met that criteria.

 

[Boss]

no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.

So, essentially, your argument is... we can arbitrarily change whatever any word means and make it mean whatever we need for it to mean in order to accommodate what we desire. I kind of think that general policy MIGHT pose a problem down the road somewhere. I also think... unless we've redefined what "free speech" means, I have the right to disagree with this policy and warn people that it's an idiotic idea.

words meant to accommodate theyre to communicate, and yes any word can be changed to match our updated levels of communication. pretty simple.

No... fundamentally, words cannot be changed to fit our desires or all of civilization crumbles because... literally, nothing means anything anymore! --IDIOT!

 

[G.T.]

Virginia argued that there was no discrimination against black people- because they could marry any black person that they wanted.

But marriage remains the union of a man and woman, you're just denying the right to someone on the basis of race which is a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.

And for the record, you are quoting my response to someone arguing about the Loving ruling. I'm pointing out that the Loving ruling did not redefine what marriage is. It remained the union of a man and woman as it always had been, that didn't change. The only thing Loving changed was the ability to discriminate based on skin color.

Also... to correct your ignorant ass... WE are our OWN authority! We most certainly DO get to decide whatever the fuck we want to decide as a society who governs itself, that's part of the beauty of it. We're not ruled by an activist court. We don't live in homosexual kingdom. We're not obligated to follow whatever idiocy you dream up in your vacant little pinheads. You don't have the right to decide what constitutes an advancement of society or whether it has met that criteria.

your arbitrary decision to define the word whatever the fuck you want to define it as has no bearing on how society deems it.....and you're now old and in a few more years, venturing toward the prehistoric definition. awwww, should I have a sad for you?

 

[G.T.]

no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.

So, essentially, your argument is... we can arbitrarily change whatever any word means and make it mean whatever we need for it to mean in order to accommodate what we desire. I kind of think that general policy MIGHT pose a problem down the road somewhere. I also think... unless we've redefined what "free speech" means, I have the right to disagree with this policy and warn people that it's an idiotic idea.

words meant to accommodate theyre to communicate, and yes any word can be changed to match our updated levels of communication. pretty simple.

No... fundamentally, words cannot be changed to fit our desires or all of civilization crumbles because... literally, nothing means anything anymore! --IDIOT!

of course they mean something - they mean whatever the fuck theyre accepted to mean at the time you dummy.

fag = homosexual
fag = cigarette

get a clue

 

[G.T.]

Ignorant persons such as Boss are the reason we need Historians to interpret ancient books such as the bible. Much is misinterpreted by the literal translation - why? Because some words meant something completely different within the context of their respective societies at the time. Words' meanings are simple, arbitrary value judgments and they have ALWAYS changed throughout human history.....unless you're ignorant but - everyone reading this thread already sort of knew that of you.

 

[Boss]

your arbitrary decision to define the word whatever the fuck you want to define it as has no bearing on how society deems it.....and you're now old and in a few more years, venturing toward the prehistoric definition. awwww, should I have a sad for you?

I did not make an arbitrary decision and didn't define the word marriage. It was already defined and had been defined as the union of a man and woman for thousands of years. You are the one who wants to arbitrarily change that. It has no bearing on what society accepts.

 

[G.T.]

Well yea, it does. Legally, and socially. Again, too bad for ya. : (

 

[Boss]

of course they mean something - they mean whatever the fuck theyre accepted to mean at the time you dummy.

Obviously not true because marriage is still the union of a man and woman.

Do you realize what a fucking idiot you sound like here? Nothing can mean anything if we can change it to mean anything we want. You say "of course it can, it means what we say at the time" but it doesn't have to mean that and we don't all say it means the same thing at the same time... so it can't really mean anything... nothing can. We can just change whatever it means, or some of us can. There is no escaping your absence of logic here.

But then again... here we go with the debate about the concept of "Consent" and what it means... GT believes that "Consent" is simply a word we can attribute whatever meaning we please at the time... it doesn't have to mean what it means. He is making that argument better than I would ever dare to try.

Some of you might think it's ridiculous anyone would ever redefine what consent means but here is GT professing that is exactly what we can do if we don't like what it means and want to change it. If you disagree with him, you're old and out of touch and it doesn't really matter anyway because you'll soon be dead. Frankly, I am glad that I'll be dead and won't have to watch society collapse into abject idiocy.

 

[Pop23]

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

Such a simplistic view.

Of course, it comes from a simpleton, so there Ya go

And note- you couldn't even manage to deny the truth of my post

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

How is two same sex hetro sisters marrying an incestuous relationship?

I've asked you this many times. Still no answer

It has been answered........more than once.

So let's try again. How are two heterosexual sisters, wishing to marry so they can better raise their children a societal harm?

And it has been answered over and over......obviously you are unable to read.

There is no societal harm as far as I'm concerned, but it is against the law. It has been told to you that if you want to change the law, you have to do whatever you have to do to convince others and/or write your Congressman. Do you really want me to go hunt the posts where that was told to you?

You are now just deflecting......you have painted yourself into a corner and the only thing you can do is repeat your asinine question over and over and ignore the responses.

If that isn't the definition of insanity, I don't know what is.

You realize laws change, since you and I agree that there would be no societal harm, then with the recent change in the law, an unjust law exists.

 

[Pop23]

Nope, didn't, but then again, you're perspective is suspect, so Ya got that goin for ya

So you're denying saying this?

Oh, just like it accepted slavery and women as chattal.

Laughing....why deny it? Its not like your post magically disappears because its now inconvenient to your argument.

And just FYI.....homosexuality isn't slavery. Or incest.

I said that, of course, but it speaks of how the courts have changed existing law, not that slavery and homosexuality are the same.

You cited slavery when we were speaking of homosexuality. Your false analogy was ludicrious and you know it. Just as your homosexuality to incest equivalence is.

You're trolling. And you'll be treated as troll. As you should be.

I once mentioned a Red bus in the same sentence as PBR. That does not mean that the Red Bus was a cheap beer.

It wasn't the same sentence. It was a reply with those lovely words 'just like' where you equated homosexuality with slavery.

Newflash: Society has accepted homosexuality in the US as was proven with the Supreme Court legalizing ssm.

Oh, just like it accepted slavery and women as chattal.

But keep backpedalling. It makes me giggle.

I gave examples of laws that were overturned you simpleton.

 

[Seawytch]

No, mixed race marriage WAS a thing, virtually every marriage is mixed race. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, and that is a real thing. A homosexual relationship is also a real thing, it's just not a marriage. Homosexuality is not "practicing medicine" ...we can't start handing out Doctor's licenses to gay people because they think they deserve them by being gay. There is no such thing as "gay medicine" and we can't make it a thing because there would be severe consequences. Homosexuality is not "air traffic control" and we don't allow people to be air traffic controllers on the basis of them being gay. It's not discrimination... if someone wants to meet the criteria of being an air traffic controller and that person is gay, there is nothing prohibiting that and no law against it. But we don't have a thing called "gay air traffic control" where people are allowed to pretend they are air traffic controllers because they are gay.

What makes my marriage any less "real" than yours (if you're married that is)?