Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Australian Judge: "Incest, paedophilia 'like being gay'"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Nonsense, where does the law say that the sole purpose of marriage is to create a new family unit?
    You're putting words into my mouth. I never said it's the SOLE purpose. But it IS a major purpose, and I'd also say ultimately the main purpose. After all, that's what ultimately happens when a marriage occurs.

    So again, why do you want to deny the brother and sister equal rights?
    Stop playing dumb.


    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    The royals of the 17 and 18th century were all related by blood. They were allowed to marry.
    As a way of preserving authority and continuing the royal line. Doesn't really apply to today's situations.

    Many societies allowed marriage between close relatives..
    But hardly any societies ever allowed marriage between direct relatives. It appears to be a universal taboo.

    The main point of marriage has always been to raise children in a home with their mother and father.
    So infertile couples or couples who simply don't wish to have children aren't truly married?


    Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
    Out of curiosity, what are you basing the "point" of marriage on?
    Is that not empirically a main reason that people marry?


    Originally posted by Jesse View Post
    Demonstrably false belief? Would you like to show me any scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic? And no I don't mean propaganda studies churned out by the gay community. I mean actual peer reviewed papers showing a homosexual or pedophilia discovered gene. You won't find any because there are none.
    There doesn't need to be a gene. Homosexuality theoretically could be caused by prenatal developments, for instance. Or it could be a learned behavior that nevertheless is generally unchangeable (as imprinting appears to be--at least based on what's been observed among ducklings). Whatever the case, it's clear that the cause is not a conscious, deliberate choice.
    Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

    I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by square_peg View Post
      Stop playing dumb.
      That's it? That's the extent of your rebuttal?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Shadow Templar View Post
        That's it? That's the extent of your rebuttal?
        Given the extent of his "argument," I responded with what it deserved.
        Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

        I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by square_peg View Post
          Given the extent of his "argument," I responded with what it deserved.
          No, you dodged it because the original point you made was stupid.
          "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

          There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by square_peg View Post
            Given the extent of his "argument," I responded with what it deserved.
            You do realize that the argument is identical to the one supporting homosexual marriage? I'm glad you realize it's not much of an argument...

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by tabitito
              In historical references, it would seem that homosexuality was frequently considered acceptable in militarily focused societies.
              In extremely recent events around the world, it would seem that homosexuality is frequently considered acceptable in extremely dysfunctional societies where the military provides the only order around. It's also considered acceptable in places without much of a culture to call its own.

              So yes, broken, corrupted people and societies requiring imposed order will encourage, or at least not discourage, broken, corrupted people and broken lifestyles. What exactly makes you think that institutionalizing the broken lifestyles will make things any better?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                As a way of preserving authority and continuing the royal line. Doesn't really apply to today's situations.
                But it still expected marriage within the same close family.


                But hardly any societies ever allowed marriage between direct relatives. It appears to be a universal taboo.
                Not true. One only need look at their myths to see that marrying of siblings was considered as well beyond acceptable. Zeus married his sister Hera. Osiris married his sister Isis. The Inca god Manco Capac married his sister too. The same goes for a long list of gods from across the world. And the kings and rulers in each society emulated their gods. For instance, Tutankhamun married his half-sister Ankhesenamun. Numerous papyri and the Roman census declarations attest to many husbands and wives being brother and sister, of the same father and mother. Greek law allowed marriage between a brother and sister if they had different mothers. For example, some accounts say that Elpinice was for a time married to her half-brother Cimon. The Inca ruler Huayna Capac was the son of Topa Inca Yupanqui and the Inca's sister and wife. In Japan, Emperor Bidatsu and his half-sister Empress Suiko were married. Half-sister of Korean Goryeo Dynasty monarch Gwangjong became his wife in the 10th century. Her name was Daemok.


                So infertile couples or couples who simply don't wish to have children aren't truly married?
                They are exceptions to the main point - the former requires knowledge of medical records (violating HIPAA privacy laws) while the latter may change their minds and fulfill the main point later.
                That's what
                - She

                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                Stephen R. Donaldson

                Comment


                • #53
                  [QUOTE=Epoetker;77589]In extremely recent events around the world, it would seem that homosexuality is frequently considered acceptable in extremely dysfunctional societies where the military provides the only order around. It's also considered acceptable in places without much of a culture to call its own.
                  You will find on the contrary that a number of militaristic and dysfunctional societies condemn and prohibit homosexual relationships. In Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, the UAE, and Yemen, homosexual activity carries the death penalty, and of course North Korea is unaccepting of Homosexual relationships.
                  And to what does the article in your link attribute the high number of homosexual male relationships in Iran? In part at least, the risks associated with heterosexual relationships.

                  So yes, broken, corrupted people and societies requiring imposed order will encourage, or at least not discourage, broken, corrupted people and broken lifestyles. What exactly makes you think that institutionalizing the broken lifestyles will make things any better?
                  What exactly makes you think I should respond to inappropriate and unfounded assertions about what I think?
                  1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    You will find on the contrary that a number of militaristic and dysfunctional societies condemn and prohibit homosexual relationships. In Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, the UAE, and Yemen, homosexual activity carries the death penalty
                    "Homosexual activity" is a very overloaded term, if you're encouraging or looking away from employers sodomizing their employees and older teenagers sodomizing younger boys, as the GNXP article detailed, then nationally prohibiting open homosexual relationships is merely the last-ditch effort to prevent other nations writing you off as the depraved hypocrites that you are. They have the death penalty for homosexuality precisely because it's such a recurring and widespread problem that they can't avoid dealing with it any longer.

                    And to what does the article in your link attribute the high number of homosexual male relationships in Iran? In part at least, the risks associated with heterosexual relationships.
                    The risks associated with heterosexual relationships in the civilized world today are nearly all related to the female empowerment movement and its ability to use the present legal and social system, particularly the family courts, for punitive asset forfeiture, with little to no repercussions for bad behavior. If you haven't heard about this, you really haven't been paying attention.

                    What exactly makes you think I should respond to inappropriate and unfounded assertions about what I think?
                    You should not respond except to request further information, for you, being a liberal, are a poor judge of human nature and cause and effect. Until such time as you have a rudimentary understanding of how they work, you should post less and listen more. The mere fact of your being utterly confused about things doesn't mean that we have to start treating prison rape as true love.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are pretty much Gay Nirvana. That they have nominal laws against it doesn't change reality.
                      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        The risks associated with heterosexual relationships in the civilized world today are nearly all related to the female empowerment movement and its ability to use the present legal and social system, particularly the family courts, for punitive asset forfeiture, with little to no repercussions for bad behavior. If you haven't heard about this, you really haven't been paying attention.
                        And how does this relate to the perceived risks of heterosexual relationships in Iran - which I cited as being part of the drive to homosexual male relationships in Iran?
                        You should not respond except to request further information, for you, being a liberal, are a poor judge of human nature and cause and effect.
                        You think a good judge of human nature would term me a liberal? ROTFL.
                        1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          You think a good judge of human nature would term me a liberal? ROTFL.
                          Yep. Most people are liberals, including the average conservative. It's not until the veil is lifted that you realize how liberal you truly are.
                          "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                          There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            I don't really care whether I'm liberal or not but given the source, the allegation and the claim to be qualified to make the call was priceless. If he was right, it would only be by mistake.
                            Last edited by tabibito; 07-12-2014, 03:15 PM.
                            1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Shadow Templar View Post
                              You do realize that the argument is identical to the one supporting homosexual marriage?
                              No it's not. The fundamental inequality that same-sex couples face (in comparison to straight couples) is that unless they live in certain states, they aren't allowed to start a family with a person whom they romantically love. However, people who are already in the same family by definition can't create a family with each other. Furthermore, incest isn't the result of a particular orientation. People who commit it could theoretically develop romantic relationships with non-relatives and marry them. Gay people can't do that, because they're attracted to only members of the same sex.
                              Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                              I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                                No it's not. The fundamental inequality that same-sex couples face (in comparison to straight couples) is that unless they live in certain states, they aren't allowed to start a family with a person whom they romantically love. However, people who are already in the same family by definition can't create a family with each other.
                                Except you don't need a government marriage license to start a family. You are also being disingenuous, because starting a family built around a couple is not the same as having a family where you are related by blood. Plus, it's not actually illegal to marry your stepsibling, even though according to you they already form a family. Your argument is full of holes, mostly because you are looking for differences (any differences, no matter how inane or irrelevant they are) to desperately defend your hypocrisy.
                                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 01:20 PM
                                9 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:16 AM
                                15 responses
                                101 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:15 AM
                                3 responses
                                34 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:02 AM
                                32 responses
                                223 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post KingsGambit  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 08:51 AM
                                3 responses
                                27 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X