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

[The Black Forrest]

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.

Sapient? That is not an NSG term.

[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.

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 Black Forrest]

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.

I think you can find endless examples of people who are not sapient.

Animal wise the aregument tends to go for being self-aware.

Legal contracts are not really a measurement. If there isn't a need for them for example.....

[Tsuntion]

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

I'm sure your siblings, if you have any, will be pleased to know that you think them of equal intelligence, capacity, and value to dogs or cats.

[Myrensis]

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 think you'll find a lot of people are disgusted by you considering gays and blacks to be no better than animals.

Man, this discussion is bringing all sorts of interesting people out of the woodwork.

[Person012345]

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.

Opposing liberalism on the grounds that it's liberalism is JUST as ideological.

What you should do is, support liberalism in as far as it supports you. When it tries to go further, work against it. This blind knee-jerk reactionism against "liberal" is moronic. And if you're only supporting LGBT so that you can "break dem ebil liberals grip on LGBT" then you're an idiot.

[Lyassa and Nairoa]

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.

[Samuraikoku]

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".

As many sets of values as people in the world. Some have different value than others depending on the person.

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

[AiliailiA]

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.

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!!"

[Person012345]

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.

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".

[Great Empire of Gamilus]

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?

its people like you that make me wish I was a dog... seriously at least I would not understand the shit you are vomiting all over the place, and I think you were born in the wrong century, if your looking for homophobic and racist audiances please go back to the middle ages where the catholic arseholes were murdering children and women by the thousands and sending millions of Europeans off to the middle east just because they had unresolved issues that Jesus was middle eastern.

get with the program, society is changing, if you can't keep up you will be killed off like an unneeded member of the pack...

[AiliailiA]

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

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

[Samuraikoku]

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.

[The Kal Empire]

No.

Just no, Homosexuals is one thing, but Pedophiles? Incest? Zoophiles? No, that's just sick and depraved.

[Lyassa and Nairoa]

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".

I´m used to it, but most people say it politely.

[Tekania]

(Image)

hooray for incest.

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

Incorrect

§ 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]

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.

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.)

[Samuraikoku]

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".

[AiliailiA]

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

Incorrect

§ 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.

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

What is the opposite of Progressive anyway? Retardative?

[Samuraikoku]

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]

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".

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.

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.

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

[AiliailiA]

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

What is the opposite of Progressive anyway? Retardative?

Regressive?

Yes, I'll settle for that.

Promoting change: Progressive.
Neutral: Retardative.
Promoting restoration of previous conditions: Regressive.

[Samuraikoku]

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.

I've had my share of that. I still believe what I believe. Nobody imposed anything on me, nor I them.

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.

I don't think I understand this part. My only purpose in the reply to Lyassa and Nairoa is to say, there are as many sets of values as there are people in the world. Doesn't mean some people have to impose theirs on others. Most legislation that is discussed on NSG topics (legislation against LGBT rights and abortion are the ones that come to mind) is an example of imposing certain arbitrary values infringing on people's freedoms in the name of morality.

So why should they have the right to?

I'll overlook the "daddy's company" part as it doesn't pertain to this argument and is not an accurate depiction of reality.

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

I'm just someone trying to be a hero. Never said I would definitely succeed. Doesn't keep me from still trying.

[Tsuntion]

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!!"

I have a feeling you're even more drunk than when you previously posted a response, you know.

[Tekania]

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.

It doesn't really play into their hands at all.... most western nations only bar marriage based on genes where the offspring would have a high likelihood of genetic defect due to the relation of the parents..... such would not be the case with XX-XX or XY-XY marital partners, and thus there are no valid issues with prohibiting it.