NationStates

Agymnum wrote:

Conkerials wrote:Neither did gays or blacks..... This is how it all begins.

Gays and blacks are sapient. Animals are not, to our knowledge.

If they were, and capable of signing legal contracts and understanding them, I don't see the issue.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Agymnum wrote:
Gays and blacks are sapient. Animals are not, to our knowledge.

If they were, and capable of signing legal contracts and understanding them, I don't see the issue.

Sapient? That is not an NSG term.

Agymnum wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Sapient? That is not an NSG term.

If we start talking sentience, even plants could arguably get in on the whole equal rights shit.

I prefer sapience.

The Broken Imperial Sector wrote:I wouldn't doubt, it when the real sickos ask to be allowed to marry their dogs and cats or brothers and sisters.

Conkerials wrote:

Agymnum wrote:
Gays and blacks are sapient. Animals are not, to our knowledge.

If they were, and capable of signing legal contracts and understanding them, I don't see the issue.

I'm sure someone would find a way to get animals to get civil rights, in way, to get them to be able to make their own decisions some how. I personally find liberalism* disgusting in that sense, some people take it too far. When I say 'take it too far' I am not referring to blacks or gays... More so to bestiality or incest.

*I really mean Ultra-liberalism

Screensaver wrote:This one of the reasons I oppose liberalism. I am in favor of same-sex marriage and LGBT rights but that is a single issue which will no longer exist when equality is fully implemented. Liberalism on the other hand is a dangerous ideology (just as dangerous as conservatism). It moves like a glacier down a slippery slope. There are already some movements (which sadly seem to be growing) in liberalism that support things such as legalizing bestiality, pedophilic relationships, and other sick things. As long as the liberals maintain their grip on the LGBT community there will be no stopping this slippery slope. The only way to stop it is to sever the liberal movement's grip on LGBT rights by getting more and more non-liberals to prominently support LGBT rights. However this is easier said than done.

Indira wrote:Maybe I'm missing something here, but how the hell do you go from gay marriage to incest/bestiality etc?

Lyassa and Nairoa wrote:Well, that´s just the way it is now. It´s a Pandora´s Box called liberalism and "the right to do whatever you want as long as it doesn´t harm anyone else, even if it´s wrong by all the well founded values that suddenly mean nothing".

Tsuntion wrote:

Ailiailia wrote:I'm with you up to living/dead.

<snipped for space>

Interesting way of putting it; I had heard such a proposition before, but realising it is just meat makes me more okay with someone having sex with a dead person under those conditions. However, a dead person still can't enter into marriage.

Lyassa and Nairoa wrote:

Indira wrote:Maybe I'm missing something here, but how the hell do you go from gay marriage to incest/bestiality etc?

Well, that´s just the way it is now. It´s a Pandora´s Box called liberalism and "the right to do whatever you want as long as it doesn´t harm anyone else, even if it´s wrong by all the well founded values that suddenly mean nothing".
A sign of the times. Freedom and consent to do the most abominable things. We should start learning to live with it.

Solmakia wrote:I feel like It's going to come up sooner or later.

As far as I can tell, Liberals are pushing for more and more civil liberties (which isn't necessarily a good or bad thing) and eventually, this is going to come up. Years ago, inter racial marriages were unacceptable, and I'm sure gay marriage was just...unthinkable at the point. Now, we have inter racial marriage, and gay marriage is starting to rise in most of the world except for a few nations that are refusing to let go.

But what next? What about a man and his dog? Should they get married? Or what about a man and his son? Or a brother and sister? When is it too much? How far are people going to be allowed? What should be allowed? I'm personally undecided on the issue of what a marriage really means, but what do you guys think about sibling, inter special or other kinds of bizarre civil unions?

Samuraikoku wrote:The problem is when people try to impose their arbitrary set of values to everybody else.

Ailiailia wrote:That is sort of what people do when they argue with each other. If that's a problem, then maybe NSG should not exist?

Person012345 wrote:

Lyassa and Nairoa wrote:
Well, that´s just the way it is now. It´s a Pandora´s Box called liberalism and "the right to do whatever you want as long as it doesn´t harm anyone else, even if it´s wrong by all the well founded values that suddenly mean nothing".
A sign of the times. Freedom and consent to do the most abominable things. We should start learning to live with it.

HURR MY INVISIBLE FRIEND SAYS HE DOESN'T LIKE IT WHEN YOU DO CERTAIN THINGS SO I MUST STOP YOU FROM DOING THEM.

Noone gives a fuck about your dumbass definition of "abominable".

Gauthier wrote:

Foraiteo wrote:(Image)

hooray for incest.

"Virginia is for Lovers, Brothers, Sisters or All of the Above."

Code of Virginia wrote: § 20-38.1. Certain marriages prohibited.

(a) The following marriages are prohibited:

(1) A marriage entered into prior to the dissolution of an earlier marriage of one of the parties;

(2) A marriage between an ancestor and descendant, or between a brother and a sister, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood or by adoption;

(3) A marriage between an uncle and a niece or between an aunt and a nephew, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood.

Samuraikoku wrote:

Ailiailia wrote:That is sort of what people do when they argue with each other. If that's a problem, then maybe NSG should not exist?

I do not see according legislation on NSG.

Ailiailia wrote:Ah, so imposing one's values on someone else is only bad when implemented with the power of the state?

(I'm very drunk and being a dick, but frankly you do need a few slaps to the head debate-wise.)

Tekania wrote:

Gauthier wrote:
"Virginia is for Lovers, Brothers, Sisters or All of the Above."

Incorrect

Code of Virginia wrote: § 20-38.1. Certain marriages prohibited.

(a) The following marriages are prohibited:

(1) A marriage entered into prior to the dissolution of an earlier marriage of one of the parties;

(2) A marriage between an ancestor and descendant, or between a brother and a sister, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood or by adoption;

(3) A marriage between an uncle and a niece or between an aunt and a nephew, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood.

Ailiailia wrote:Yes. Virginia was a progressive state two centuries ago, but now it's the opposite.

What is the opposite of Progressive anyway? Retardative?

Samuraikoku wrote:

Ailiailia wrote:Ah, so imposing one's values on someone else is only bad when implemented with the power of the state?

(I'm very drunk and being a dick, but frankly you do need a few slaps to the head debate-wise.)

Given that points of view rarely change on NSG, I don't see any "imposition".

Samuraikoku wrote:

Ailiailia wrote:Yes. Virginia was a progressive state two centuries ago, but now it's the opposite.

What is the opposite of Progressive anyway? Retardative?

Regressive?

Ailiailia wrote:You overlook the ganging-up which makes it terribly difficult for a single poster with unpopular views to defend their views against all of the criticism thrown their way. Their pain and humiliation when they fail against such impossible odds.

Ailiailia wrote:Sure, the law under which they live in real life doesn't change. But should we care about that? I don't give a damn if you work at your daddy's company, repeatedly missing deadlines with no penalty other than a downgrade of your company car from a Merc to a Ford. I judge you only by your opinions, so far as I can determine them from your written words.

Ailiailia wrote:You seem a nice enough chap. Nobody's hero though.

Ailiailia wrote:

Tsuntion wrote:

Interesting way of putting it; I had heard such a proposition before, but realising it is just meat makes me more okay with someone having sex with a dead person under those conditions. However, a dead person still can't enter into marriage.

Exactly. It would be like a person marrying a leg of lamb. Or a mushroom. It is even more absurd than marrying a gold bar or a piece of antique furniture, because the dead thing will quickly change its nature.

Unless it was kept in the freezer.

Officer Flatfoot: "Good evening Mr Tess-un-err. Good evening sir. Is your wife at home?"
Tsuntion: "Yes she is. May I ask what this is about?"
Officer Flatfoot: "We have recieved reports about a possible crime committed against your wife, and wish to interview her with a view to--"
Tsuntion: "Sure. Come on in."
Officer Flatfoot: "Thank you, mister er, sir."
Tsuntion: "No problem. She's just through here."
[Officer Flatfoot follows Tsuntion to the cellar]
Officer Flatfoot: "Pardon me sir, but is your wife present here? This seems to be a storage area."
Tsuntion: "She's just over there, in the deep freeze. To keep her from rotting."
Officer Flatfoot: "I never wanted to be a cop. I wanted to be a lumberjack! Well I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK! I sleep all night and I work all day!!"

Dracoria wrote:

Person012345 wrote:I thought the conversation I was replying to was about breeding?

Only partially. The main issue of the entire topic is marriage; breeding is only seemingly a concern for incestuous relations, though (as homosexual and zoophilic breeding attempts won't accomplish anything). However, if you read up you will find that in most western nations, the breeding isn't restricted anyway as long as it is voluntary and of the appropriate age; it is the marriage that is legally restricted.

Either way though, banning marriage based on one's genes kind of plays into the hands of those who would use the same to restrict homosexual relations (no XX-XX and XY-XY coupling!). Kiind of plays into the hands of those who talk about the slippery slope, too. One of the reasons I say eh, just let people do as they'll do, and try to adjust the legal code to keep up with the odd inheritance issues that may result.

As it takes a number of generations of repeated inbreeding for issues to pop up, I really don't see the issue in such marriages and relationships aside from the whole 'EEEWWWWWW' factor which we shouldn't use to determine who can get together anyway.