Gay marriages....now what about siblings parents or animals?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

27 pages in and you post this?

Sry, if I didn't read thru the twenty seven pages but i'm pretty sure this has already been posted?

Yes. And thoroughly disputed afterwards. It was a fascinating conversation. You should check it out, and post again if you have something new to add to the debate.

[Dracoria]

OK,now what about people with genetic disabilities who have children, knowing full well that their children could likely have the same disability?

I've covered that earlier in my argument, stating it would be unethical and immoral to deny anyone the right to breed based off of genes they have no control over.

Being directly related is a genetic condition as well, and one not under the control of those born in the situation.

[Person012345]

I've covered that earlier in my argument, stating it would be unethical and immoral to deny anyone the right to breed based off of genes they have no control over.

Being directly related is a genetic condition as well, and one not under the control of those born in the situation.

Saying "you can't breed with HIM" is not the same as saying "you can't breed".

[Dracoria]

Being directly related is a genetic condition as well, and one not under the control of those born in the situation.

Saying "you can't breed with HIM" is not the same as saying "you can't breed".

The real question here isn't breeding, it's marriage. The breeding part is technically legal already. In this case, as odd as it seems, restricting who one can marry based on one's genes may actually tie the situation into the debate on homosexual marriage and...
...Oh God, I invoked the slippery slope.
...I also invoked God.

[Person012345]

Saying "you can't breed with HIM" is not the same as saying "you can't breed".

The real question here isn't breeding, it's marriage. The breeding part is technically legal already. In this case, as odd as it seems, restricting who one can marry based on one's genes may actually tie the situation into the debate on homosexual marriage and...
...Oh God, I invoked the slippery slope.
...I also invoked God.

I thought the conversation I was replying to was about breeding?

[Dracoria]

The real question here isn't breeding, it's marriage. The breeding part is technically legal already. In this case, as odd as it seems, restricting who one can marry based on one's genes may actually tie the situation into the debate on homosexual marriage and...
...Oh God, I invoked the slippery slope.
...I also invoked God.

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.

[Soufrika]

I shouldn't be so surprised, but seriously: the slippery-slope argument, again? Really?
Yeah, yeah. Gay marriage = end of civilization. Whatever.

[Liriena]

OP, you should be ashamed. I had assumed that, by this point, even the most homophobic users in NSG would have known better than to ask a question as inherently inane as "why not marry a dog".
Non-humans are not people. They can't get married to a human.

Now...siblings and parents? We could actually allow such a thing, but only if it is properly regulated, taking into account how such relationships often involve abuse.

[Dracoria]

OP, you should be ashamed. I had assumed that, by this point, even the most homophobic users in NSG would have known better than to ask a question as inherently inane as "why not marry a dog".
Non-humans are not people. They can't get married to a human.

Now...siblings and parents? We could actually allow such a thing, but only if it is properly regulated, taking into account how such relationships often involve abuse.

Oh come on. The next generation'll be more open to nonhuman marriages. In fact, Twilight takes us into a world of...Wait, is that interspecies relations or necrophilia?

[Screensaver]

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.

[Cannot think of a name]

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

By 'sooner or later' you mean 'all the fucking time'?

[Liriena]

OP, you should be ashamed. I had assumed that, by this point, even the most homophobic users in NSG would have known better than to ask a question as inherently inane as "why not marry a dog".
Non-humans are not people. They can't get married to a human.

Now...siblings and parents? We could actually allow such a thing, but only if it is properly regulated, taking into account how such relationships often involve abuse.

Oh come on. The next generation'll be more open to nonhuman marriages. In fact, Twilight takes us into a world of...Wait, is that interspecies relations or necrophilia?

Both...mixed in with pedophilia and weird paraphilias towards sparkling, cold, warmth and smells.

[Dracoria]

Am I the only one reading Screensaver's post about the strong grip on the LBGTs and movements and kind of hoping he posts more? I'm feeling a little frisky.

[The Democratic Republic of Davida]

Why is having sex with something a bigger issue then killing and eating it?

[Agymnum]

I'm fine with siblings/parents as long as both can provide legal consent (of legal age, basically).

Animals can't provide legal consent, so I'm not okay with them.

[Dracoria]

Oh come on. The next generation'll be more open to nonhuman marriages. In fact, Twilight takes us into a world of...Wait, is that interspecies relations or necrophilia?

Both...mixed in with pedophilia and weird paraphilias towards sparkling, cold, warmth and smells.

Yeah. I may joke about it sometimes, but I can't see a pale, emotionless corpse as sexy. But enough about Kristen Stewart's acting.

[Lamplight Caverns]

As long as both parties can consent, I don't see the issue.

[Liriena]

Both...mixed in with pedophilia and weird paraphilias towards sparkling, cold, warmth and smells.

Yeah. I may joke about it sometimes, but I can't see a pale, emotionless corpse as sexy. But enough about Kristen Stewart's acting.

Well, played.

[Agymnum]

Both...mixed in with pedophilia and weird paraphilias towards sparkling, cold, warmth and smells.

Yeah. I may joke about it sometimes, but I can't see a pale, emotionless corpse as sexy. But enough about Kristen Stewart's acting.

You, sir, win the internet forever.

[Conkerials]

People marrying animals won't be allowed because animals DO NOT HAVE LEGAL RIGHTS.

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

[Agymnum]

People marrying animals won't be allowed because animals DO NOT HAVE LEGAL RIGHTS.

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.

[Conkerials]

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.

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

[The Democratic Republic of Davida]

Would any heterosexual here stop having sex with people from the opposite sex because it was outlawed?

I know, the topic is supposed to be on marriage. But I feel the only thing that makes a marriage special or even 'sacred' is what happens in the specific marriage itself.

Marriage in general is not special to me. There are some marriages out there that are terrible. Abuse, it lasting only a week, no love, whatever. It is not like all marriages are that special right now. Or that there ever was a time in which they where.

I feel people should be free to do what they want as long as they don't harm anyone by doing it.

And no. Taking offense does not count as being harmed for me.

People can get offended by the silliest things.

[Agymnum]

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

I'm an ultra-liberal, if you can't tell by my political compass.

And so long as animals don't understand legal documentation and display sapience (which the closest we've come are dolphins and some great apes, who are still a long ways off) they don't have equal rights with humans. Trust me on this one.

[Dracoria]

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

I'm an ultra-liberal, if you can't tell by my political compass.

And so long as animals don't understand legal documentation and display sapience (which the closest we've come are dolphins and some great apes, who are still a long ways off) they don't have equal rights with humans. Trust me on this one.

Not all ultraliberals think alike. Some are a little less insane than others.
Really, look at some of the animal rights groups.