Objective Standard of Marriage: Includes mono-gender: Defend it from Polygamy...

[AllieBaba]

Glad you've calmed down, you little shit. Those anger managment classes must work after all.

 

[Article 15]

Glad you've calmed down, you little shit. Those anger managment classes must work after all.

and I'm the one who is angry ... lol

Here's a hint ... if you don't want to be mocked and laughed at don't bring up people bangin' animals in serious discussions.

 

[SW2SILVERQUASI]

Fathertime: I hate that kind of crap, make a clear post or blow me off. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Ignoring it doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense, either. I said one thing loud and clear : We ALL have the same rights". Enumerations are irrelevant. Just the facts, ma'am. Is there a way to get that fact through to some of you?

 

[AllieBaba]

A serious discussion about polygamy, marrying your daddy and homosexuality?

Are you kidding?

Lol.

 

[catzmeow]

Who needs standards? Somebody is sure to be offended by them. Standards, I mean. Any standards, like ones you don't hold. Gays are like blacks are like Illegal aliens are like...fill in the blank, then anyone can say they are like whatever and then they can do whatever the bloody hell they choose, and laws are restrictions and are discriminatory. Sorry, I am not GAY. Sorry. It's all my fault. I'm sorry I'm a Anglo-Saxon and not a illegal alien, either. Sorry I am not gay. Gays and blacks and illegal aliens ALL the have the same rights (GASP) EVERYONE else does. Ya know that , RAVI. The fact they wish to do ANYTHING and then parade around as a victim is outrageous. NOBODY can do ANYTHING they freekin' want, whenever they want, and claim it is a right or they are victims or pretend all things are the same. It insults the rest of us. Hell , If a bunch of gay polygamist cannibals " IMMIGRATED" illegally from New Guinea , I suppose that would be defensible one way or the other, too.

I am totally in favor of intelligence standards for people in order to post here, for the record. Please don't ever say I don't have any standards.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Having sex with animals isn't violating anyone else's rights. Unless of course, the animals belong to someone else....

Could be a great way to "prove" macroevolution.

Cause animals can consent to sex?

Huh... So where 'science' could show that animals can consent to sexual intercourse... you'd be fine with that?

And that question goes to the others who adhered to the position that the sexual orientation of beastiality lacks the legitimacy of the homo-sexual orientation because animals can't give their verbal consent...

Which of course goes to the same question regarding children.

The APA has issued a 'SCIENTIFIC study' which concludes that children who consent to sexual relationships with adults actually benefit from the experience and that children who are known to have been molested as children do not suffer long term psychological injury...

Do you believe that where 'science' can show that a child is able to give their consent, that an adult who engages in sexual activity with such a child are within their RIGHTS and should not be condemned of suffer any consequences as a result of that decision?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Who needs standards? Somebody is sure to be offended by them. Standards, I mean. Any standards, like ones you don't hold. Gays are like blacks are like Illegal aliens are like...fill in the blank, then anyone can say they are like whatever and then they can do whatever the bloody hell they choose, and laws are restrictions and are discriminatory. Sorry, I am not GAY. Sorry. It's all my fault. I'm sorry I'm a Anglo-Saxon and not a illegal alien, either. Sorry I am not gay. Gays and blacks and illegal aliens ALL the have the same rights (GASP) EVERYONE else does. Ya know that , RAVI. The fact they wish to do ANYTHING and then parade around as a victim is outrageous. NOBODY can do ANYTHING they freekin' want, whenever they want, and claim it is a right or they are victims or pretend all things are the same. It insults the rest of us. Hell , If a bunch of gay polygamist cannibals " IMMIGRATED" illegally from New Guinea , I suppose that would be defensible one way or the other, too.

I am totally in favor of intelligence standards for people in order to post here, for the record. Please don't ever say I don't have any standards.

ROFL... Well this would be a very quiet site if such were ever implemented... by my count, there'd be only four, maybe five contributors and one page of discussion on this thread alone.

 

[Father Time]

Well you have to question the intelligence of anyone who tries to debate politics on the internet, so if they try to implement standards either no one would be here or the standards would have to be so low as to be essentially non-existant.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well you have to question the intelligence of anyone who tries to debate politics on the internet, so if they try to implement standards either no one would be here or the standards would have to be so low as to be essentially non-existant.

FT... that is where we're at right now... There is absolutely NO minimum intelligence standard to participate in internet debate... if you doubt that at ALL... simply take a look at the abyss of idiocy locked in my Ignore Kennel.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Having sex with animals isn't violating anyone else's rights. Unless of course, the animals belong to someone else....

Could be a great way to "prove" macroevolution.

Cause animals can consent to sex?

Huh... So where 'science' could show that animals can consent to sexual intercourse... you'd be fine with that?

And that question goes to the others who adhered to the position that the sexual orientation of beastiality is lacks the legitimacy of the homo-sexual orientation because animals can't give their verbal consent...

Which of course goes to the same question regarding children.

The APA has issued a 'SCIENTIFIC study' which concludes that children who consent to sexual relationships with adults actually benefit from the experience and that children who are known to have been molested as children do not suffer long term psychological injury...

Do you believe that where 'science' can show that a child is able to give their consent, that an adult who engages in sexual activity with such a child are within their RIGHTS and should not be condemned of suffer any consequences as a result of that decision?

Well Nik? What is your answer here?

Do you or do you NOT believe that IF SCIENCE COULD provide the means for animals to CONSENT to Sexual intercourse... would you have any opposition to individuals engaging in Sexual intercourse with Animals?

Same is directed to the rest of you OPEN MINDED CENTRISTS...

Now you've all come to the all TOO "adult and libertarian" view that "CONSENT" is the key to normalizing deviancy... IF SCIENCE provided that Animals WERE able to consent... WOULD THAT PROVIDE ALL YOU NEED TO ENDORSE OR OTHERWISE ACCEPT THOSE WHO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH ANIMALS?

LOL... Come on Girls... it's almost over... You've so few moves left, why allow yourselves to entertain reticence at this point?

 

[Dr Grump]

Gay marriage and polygamy are fine by me, as long as everybody is an adult and consents..

 

[Nik]

Fathertime: I hate that kind of crap, make a clear post or blow me off. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Ignoring it doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense, either. I said one thing loud and clear : We ALL have the same rights". Enumerations are irrelevant. Just the facts, ma'am. Is there a way to get that fact through to some of you?

Really? So gays have the right to marry just as gays do? No. Incorrect.

 

[Ravi]

Hello Ravi, yer cute when yer pissed. Common, what right do I have that gays don't? Please. They want something more, something else and I go back to my first post on this thread, we are all held accountable to the same standards, some of us just don't like those standards. I am comfortable with the current paradigm of Heterosexual marriage. Why change it? I guess I am NOT empathetic. Sorry.

The right to choose their mates without governmental direction.

 

[Nik]

Having sex with animals isn't violating anyone else's rights. Unless of course, the animals belong to someone else....

Could be a great way to "prove" macroevolution.

Cause animals can consent to sex?

Huh... So where 'science' could show that animals can consent to sexual intercourse... you'd be fine with that?

And that question goes to the others who adhered to the position that the sexual orientation of beastiality lacks the legitimacy of the homo-sexual orientation because animals can't give their verbal consent...

Which of course goes to the same question regarding children.

The APA has issued a 'SCIENTIFIC study' which concludes that children who consent to sexual relationships with adults actually benefit from the experience and that children who are known to have been molested as children do not suffer long term psychological injury...

Do you believe that where 'science' can show that a child is able to give their consent, that an adult who engages in sexual activity with such a child are within their RIGHTS and should not be condemned of suffer any consequences as a result of that decision?

Yes, I'd be fine with it.

And you are lying about the APA study. I know several people who were molested as kids. All of them are still effected by it, even though it is years later.

 

[mattskramer]

Cause animals can consent to sex?

Huh... So where 'science' could show that animals can consent to sexual intercourse... you'd be fine with that?

And that question goes to the others who adhered to the position that the sexual orientation of beastiality is lacks the legitimacy of the homo-sexual orientation because animals can't give their verbal consent...

Which of course goes to the same question regarding children.

The APA has issued a 'SCIENTIFIC study' which concludes that children who consent to sexual relationships with adults actually benefit from the experience and that children who are known to have been molested as children do not suffer long term psychological injury...

Do you believe that where 'science' can show that a child is able to give their consent, that an adult who engages in sexual activity with such a child are within their RIGHTS and should not be condemned of suffer any consequences as a result of that decision?

Well Nik? What is your answer here?

Do you or do you NOT believe that IF SCIENCE COULD provide the means for animals to CONSENT to Sexual intercourse... would you have any opposition to individuals engaging in Sexual intercourse with Animals?

Same is directed to the rest of you OPEN MINDED CENTRISTS...

Now you've all come to the all TOO "adult and libertarian" view that "CONSENT" is the key to normalizing deviancy... IF SCIENCE provided that Animals WERE able to consent... WOULD THAT PROVIDE ALL YOU NEED TO ENDORSE OR OTHERWISE ACCEPT THOSE WHO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH ANIMALS?

LOL... Come on Girls... it's almost over... You've so few moves left, why allow yourselves to entertain reticence at this point?

Okay, girlie, I’ll reply. Practically everything is relative. Progress with issues of new freedoms will be tackled in due time. Bestiality was brought up. Animals can’t give consent anyway. They can’t say, “I give you permission to eat me” but we kill them and eat them anyway. That brings up another point. Why do we eat fish but not kittens? What is the difference? Why do we eat cows (beef) but not eat our pet dogs? We can kill animals to eat them but we can’t abuse them. Dog races are okay but bull fights are wrong. Would bull fights be allowed if we decided that bull meat was okay? There is no rhyme or reason. It all comes down to a societal matter of taste (pun included). Perhaps we should be allowed to have sex with animals. There just does not seem to be an outcry to legalize such an activity as there is for civil unions / gay marriage.

I still have not received an answer to my question about drugs. Where do you draw the line? If people are allowed to drink alcohol, then why are they not allowed to smoke marijuana?

 

[FreeXenon]

I have not read everything here, but I will throw my hat in the ring for support for SSM. Much of the arguments that are used for SSM also apply to polygamy/polyamory and are much the same civil rights issue, in my opinion. This should be a good start.


Traditional Marriage and the Unnaturalness of it all

As many opponents to SSM would like to say “We are trying to save traditional marriage.” meaning heterosexual monogamy.

Anthropological and historical fact, and even Biblical writings speak specifically to the invalidity of that phrase. “Traditional marriage” is a relatively new construct brought upon us by the Catholic Church following the Roman Emperor Constantine’s conversion, and the churches mad grab for money and land. My references below highlight the fact that what we consider “traditional marriage” is not really traditional at all and is quite new. The romanticization of marriage started in European writings in the early to mid 1800’s which strongly contributes to magical ’soul mate’ or ‘the one’ factor common in our culture and standards, and helped to cement heterosexual monogamy into our culture.

Marriage has taken very many forms over the years from matriarchal and patriarchal polygamy to monogamy, even within Christianity, but the first recorded case of homosexuality was 2400 B.C.E in Egypt, and homosexuality is found throughout 1500 species in the world. Both of these facts tend to point to homosexuality (and bisexuality by extension) being a natural permutation of sexual expression within living creatures far beyond our recorded history. Of course, homosexuality could not be the standard otherwise our species would die out, so in the interest of species perpetuation (and natural selection) heterosexuality has to be the majority.

Marriage and Sexual Intercourse is for Procreation Only

If you check the Traditional Marriage links below you will find distinctly that marriage has not historically been done with the primary reason of procreation - lust perhaps, but not specifically procreation. I have never looked a woman and thought "I think we would have great children." and then decided to pursue them solely based on that criteria. Marriage has been mostly about power, influence, land, or, more recently in humanity's history, about love and romance. Rarely has it been specifically about procreation. You could say that the existence of heterosexuality in humanity is for procreation and the perpetuation of the species. That I would believe.

Contrary to what some may say or think, but the act of sexual intercourse for most humans is not done solely for the intent of species perpetuation. Humans, as well as some primates and dolphins, if I remember correctly, are the primary species that engage in sexual play or intercourse for recreational purposes as well. Sex is not just for generating progeny. It is also for pleasure, bonding, and social interaction.

Equal Rights for Equal Commitment

This is a civil rights issue about the consensual choice that adults make to love and support one another and the government cannot control that. They just wish to love and support each other, and the government is willing to punish them for that even though their familial structure can be as stable or even more so than a hetero/mono marriage. (Have you seen the divorce rate lately?) It is happening and there is nothing wrong with it since no one is harmed, and they should be accorded the same rights for the exact same commitment as their hetero/mono counterparts. Albeit some conservative Christians will most likely argue that someone is harmed, in a Biblical sense referring to sin, but please remember that this is not applicable due to separation of church and in an interest of not legislating conservative Christian Morality.

Homosexuality is a Consensual Crime

Homosexuality/Sodomy is a consensual crime, and this is also key to many of todays civil rights movements such as prostitution and poly rights, drugs, and so on. Work towards the abolishment of the criminalization of consensual crimes may see a sort of a rennaisance in the coming decades or so as gay rights and polyamory/polygamy soldier on.

The book “Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do: The Absurdity Of Consensual Crimes In Free Society” covers this topic in great detail. While I do not agree with everything the book says about consensual crimes it is a great read and very applicable to this discussion.

Because Something is Illegal Does Not Mean It Is Wrong

There are so many laws that have been passed in our country’s (and others) history that have propagated gross civil rights violations and have been repealed because their unconstitutional nature has been recognized. Part of this is due to evolving cultural values and an increase in understanding in civil rights and the very nature of our humanity.

Just because something is currently illegal, does not mean that it should be. African American and women not having rights, interracial marriages and so on are all things that have been limited or illegal and in the face of cultural evolution and greater understanding of civil rights these gross violations have been corrected, but the historical damage done to those is these demographics still remain, as horrible vesitges of the past.

Slippery Slope Arguments

Slippery slope arguments are used that state that ‘The acceptance of SSM will bring on incest, bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia, and marrying houses and cats. All, except one, are unfounded and are a method of inciting Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) in the masses in the absence of a valid and objective argument. Unfortunately, many are greatly influenced by these arguments. Normally, I would ignore such arguments, but, sadly, I see these too much to not address them.

Pedophila and Child Marriage: In no court of law is a child is able to engage in contractual arrangement (unless emancipated) or able to give legal “consent”. Not only that, but due to the protection of a child’s physical and emotional well being will this never come to pass. We currently have laws to protect against sexual relations and they are there for a good reason.

Incest: Marital relations with first order relatives is similar to the above. These laws are in place to prevent genetic mutations as well as working with our natural tendencies toward mating outside the immediate familial unit, for much the same reason.

Bestiality and Animal Marriage: The marriage of animals is prevented by a lack of a precedent that allows any of these animals to consent or to sign a contractual agreement in the court of law.

Inanimate Object Marriage: This logic here is the same as above and it is about consent and legal recognition - not possible.

Polygamy/SSM/Polyamory: is about a consensual and contractual arrangement, namely called marriage that monogamous heterosexual couples have.

Polygamy/polamory is also a civil rights issue pretty much the same as SSM and should also be legalized. Now keep in mind there are serious issues with the contemporary implementations i.e. Mormon Fundemetalists, with which we have laws to protect against…. age of consent, statutory rape and so on. Polygamy is merely the state of having more than one spouse and that is it. It is the current societally acceptable and enforced implementations that are the issue.The Fundementalists have been ignored for too long and have been allowed such wrongs to gone undealt with, but now that is changing and the children, and hopefully women too, will all have a true choice.


Traditional Marriage Links
I will post the links later once, my post count is above 15. Ugggghhhhh!

 

[Tech_Esq]

Having sex with animals isn't violating anyone else's rights. Unless of course, the animals belong to someone else....

Could be a great way to "prove" macroevolution.

Cause animals can consent to sex?

Mary Grace O'Brien, Commonwealth's Attorney, was examining the defendant in a bestiality case on this exact point. She said, "And it's a fact that at no time did the sheep consent."

The witness said, "No, that's not true, she did consent."

Mary Grace: "Just how do you know that?" Sarcasm dripping.

Witness: "'Cuz she turned around an licked my hand."

Heard from the juror's box: "Yep, they'll do that!"

Mistrial

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Cause animals can consent to sex?

Huh... So where 'science' could show that animals can consent to sexual intercourse... you'd be fine with that?

And that question goes to the others who adhered to the position that the sexual orientation of beastiality lacks the legitimacy of the homo-sexual orientation because animals can't give their verbal consent...

Which of course goes to the same question regarding children.

The APA has issued a 'SCIENTIFIC study' which concludes that children who consent to sexual relationships with adults actually benefit from the experience and that children who are known to have been molested as children do not suffer long term psychological injury...

Do you believe that where 'science' can show that a child is able to give their consent, that an adult who engages in sexual activity with such a child are within their RIGHTS and should not be condemned of suffer any consequences as a result of that decision?

THE ADVOCACY OF THE NORMALIZATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY>>>>>Yes, I'd be fine with it.

And you are lying about the APA study. I know several people who were molested as kids. All of them are still effected by it, even though it is years later.

I am? Well let's see if that is TRUE...

Many lay persons and professionals believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm,regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. ...

http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf

Now Rind is a sychophant of the Kinsey Institute of Indiana University... Dr. Alfred Kinsey, a homosexual and LONG STANDING Advocate of Adult/child sex, began his infamous career upon his book which he published in 1948... "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" and such was cited as a guide for this 'study of child abuse.'

Now these "social scientists" claimed 317 to 2,045 children were induced into "weeping," "screaming," "fainting" and "convulsing" orgasm... one as yound as 2-months-old, and was said to have "derived definite pleasure" from oral, manual, and worse, in these 'tests' for harm to children that were brought to orgasm... by these "SCIENTISTS"... which is a facade these loathesome, dispicable, sub-human perves use to provide them the means to legally engage in and be paid for... practicing that which serves their own 'sexual orientation'...

And YOU would accept this...

Ladies and Gentlemen of the board...

What you've witnessed in the testimony of this member is the stark absence of reason... which conclusively establishes that the open-minded centrist has absolutely NO MORAL FOUNDATION on which to rest.

They have NO MEANS to recognize ANY line that provides ANY MEASURABLE STANDARD by which our culture can determine what is and is not acceptable in terms of human behavior.

This intellectual limitation provides that they will accept whatever 'science' tells them is 'right...' Without the means to reason, this member falls prey to the normalization, which would provide for the LEGALIZATION for adults to pursue sexual gratification in children... the same for the legalization for human beings to engage in sexual intercourse with ANIMALS.

What more do you need to realize that there is no means to negotiate in good faith with these people... BECAUSE THERE IS NO END TO THE DEPTHS WHICH THEY ARE WILLNG TO ACCEPT.

To negotiate with this ideology is to CONCEDE TO IT... to meet it halfway provides that it undermines the viability of our culture just that much FARTHER.

I began this debate by proposing that the advocates of Homosexuals being accepted as suitable for Marriage SIMPLY POST THE DEFENSE WHICH THEY WOULD USE TO DEFEND THE NEW STANDARD WHICH THEY CLAIM THEY ARE ASKING US TO ACCEPT...

Yet there is not a single post, from a single one of those advocates where such a defense has been offered.

Which stands as not merely conclusive evidence, but INDISPUTABLE evidence that their IMPLICATION THAT THEY SIMPLY WANT THE CULTURE TO ADJUST THE STANDARD IS A LIE! It is a deception of the damnable variety... as their goal is not to modify the standard of normalcy... BUT TO STRIP THE CULTURE OF ANY SENSE OF A STANDARD!... of any sense of 'normal'.

I knew when I offered that challenge that there would be no defense coming, because the evidence was already conclusive, in my mind, that they were not desirous of equality... that their belief was that any standard was UNFAIR... because that is the nature of standards... they will always prevent someone from doing something. Which is what I sought to prove... to expose the lie as such and to help the unwashed amongst us to realize what is at stake.

But I never imagined that I would get one of them to lose sight of the prize and admit to the whole... that inevitably, where the frame-work was established to provide for the rationalization; where the pseudo-science of 'sexuality' had 'determined' that such unspeakable debauchery was 'OK...' that they would EMBRACE IT... that they would complictly APPROVE IT.

Would anyone care to defend this member's position?

Would anyone else like to lend an open mind to the potential that 'somewhere down the road... where 'science says its OK..' that they would 'have no problem' with adults pursuing children and ANIMALS for sexual pleasure?

Anyone?
.
.
.
.
Anyone at all?

 

[KittenKoder]

Outlaw the sin of ALL marriage.

 

[Nik]

Having sex with animals isn't violating anyone else's rights. Unless of course, the animals belong to someone else....

Could be a great way to "prove" macroevolution.

Cause animals can consent to sex?

Mary Grace O'Brien, Commonwealth's Attorney, was examining the defendant in a bestiality case on this exact point. She said, "And it's a fact that at no time did the sheep consent."

The witness said, "No, that's not true, she did consent."

Mary Grace: "Just how do you know that?" Sarcasm dripping.

Witness: "'Cuz she turned around an licked my hand."

Heard from the juror's box: "Yep, they'll do that!"

Mistrial

Well...in a sense, it could be said that male animals can consent....