Republican Nominees

Roloman4 wrote:How does it open another can?

People can fight for the right to marry multiple spouses, incest, etc.

ahlycotc wrote:

Roloman4 wrote:How does it open another can?

People can fight for the right to marry multiple spouses, incest, etc.

You are such a cunt...not only do you support religious discrimination in the worst way possible, you're also a massive homophobe, the sad thing is you don't even seem to realise it. When you start resorting to fantasy scenarios to justify a patently homophobic position then that's when you should stop taking that position, and the fact that a lot of people around you might hold the same position doesn't make it a justifiable one.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

People can fight for the right to marry multiple spouses, incest, etc.

You are such a cunt...not only do you support religious discrimination in the worst way possible, you're also a massive homophobe, the sad thing is you don't even seem to realise it. When you start resorting to fantasy scenarios to justify a patently homophobic position then that's when you should stop taking that position, and the fact that a lot of people around you might hold the same position doesn't make it a justifiable one.

Am I false? If homosexuals can fight for their rights, what is preventing another group from fighting for theirs? On a personal level, I don't agree with homosexuality, but if it's a matter of US law, I think it should be up to the people to vote on it. If the majority want to legalize gay marriage then so be it. This has happened in a few states and some states did not want to legalize gay marriage (California comes to mind).

What is so different about homosexuality and say incest? Both people have an interest in the other partner and want to be able to show their "love" for that partner by getting married. So why is homosexual marriage OK but incest isn't?

And try having a discussion without using insults next time. It makes you look weak.

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

You are such a cunt...not only do you support religious discrimination in the worst way possible, you're also a massive homophobe, the sad thing is you don't even seem to realise it. When you start resorting to fantasy scenarios to justify a patently homophobic position then that's when you should stop taking that position, and the fact that a lot of people around you might hold the same position doesn't make it a justifiable one.

Am I false? If homosexuals can fight for their rights, what is preventing another group from fighting for theirs? On a personal level, I don't agree with homosexuality, but if it's a matter of US law, I think it should be up to the people to vote on it. If the majority want to legalize gay marriage then so be it. This has happened in a few states and some states did not want to legalize gay marriage (California comes to mind).

What is so different about homosexuality and say incest? Both people have an interest in the other partner and want to be able to show their "love" for that partner by getting married. So why is homosexual marriage OK but incest isn't?

And try having a discussion without using insults next time. It makes you look weak.

and stupid*

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

You are such a cunt...not only do you support religious discrimination in the worst way possible, you're also a massive homophobe, the sad thing is you don't even seem to realise it. When you start resorting to fantasy scenarios to justify a patently homophobic position then that's when you should stop taking that position, and the fact that a lot of people around you might hold the same position doesn't make it a justifiable one.

Am I false? If homosexuals can fight for their rights, what is preventing another group from fighting for theirs? On a personal level, I don't agree with homosexuality, but if it's a matter of US law, I think it should be up to the people to vote on it. If the majority want to legalize gay marriage then so be it. This has happened in a few states and some states did not want to legalize gay marriage (California comes to mind).

What is so different about homosexuality and say incest? Both people have an interest in the other partner and want to be able to show their "love" for that partner by getting married. So why is homosexual marriage OK but incest isn't?

And try having a discussion without using insults next time. It makes you look weak.

Let's go back in time to a century or so ago, before interracial marriage was legal in the US. All of your arguments would equally apply to that. If the majority of people did not want to legalise interracial marriage, for fear that brothers and sisters will start wanting to marry each other, should that have continued to be banned?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

Am I false? If homosexuals can fight for their rights, what is preventing another group from fighting for theirs? On a personal level, I don't agree with homosexuality, but if it's a matter of US law, I think it should be up to the people to vote on it. If the majority want to legalize gay marriage then so be it. This has happened in a few states and some states did not want to legalize gay marriage (California comes to mind).

What is so different about homosexuality and say incest? Both people have an interest in the other partner and want to be able to show their "love" for that partner by getting married. So why is homosexual marriage OK but incest isn't?

And try having a discussion without using insults next time. It makes you look weak.

Let's go back in time to a century or so ago, before interracial marriage was legal in the US. All of your arguments would equally apply to that. If the majority of people did not want to legalise interracial marriage, for fear that brothers and sisters will start wanting to marry each other, should that have continued to be banned?

That's the whole point of a democracy. People vote on things. There are certain rights protected for everyone, anything else is a matter of opinion.

Unlike interracial marriage, homosexual marriage and incestual marriage go against the concept of marriage.

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Let's go back in time to a century or so ago, before interracial marriage was legal in the US. All of your arguments would equally apply to that. If the majority of people did not want to legalise interracial marriage, for fear that brothers and sisters will start wanting to marry each other, should that have continued to be banned?

That's the whole point of a democracy. People vote on things. There are certain rights protected for everyone, anything else is a matter of opinion.

Unlike interracial marriage, homosexual marriage and incestual marriage go against the concept of marriage.

You can't hide behind democracy, the question is whether it's right or wrong. If there was a nationwide referendum on the issue in the US, you wouldn't vote based on what you think the majority will do, you will vote on either what you think is right, or what serves your best interests.

Other than the ridiculous slippery slope fallacy you've employed, are there any reasons to continue to ban gay marriage, that you can elaborate on, or even begin to explain. Keep in mind that the United States constitution pretty much forbids religion from dictating the law.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

That's the whole point of a democracy. People vote on things. There are certain rights protected for everyone, anything else is a matter of opinion.

Unlike interracial marriage, homosexual marriage and incestual marriage go against the concept of marriage.

You can't hide behind democracy, the question is whether it's right or wrong. If there was a nationwide referendum on the issue in the US, you wouldn't vote based on what you think the majority will do, you will vote on either what you think is right, or what serves your best interests.

Other than the ridiculous slippery slope fallacy you've employed, are there any reasons to continue to ban gay marriage, that you can elaborate on, or even begin to explain. Keep in mind that the United States constitution pretty much forbids religion from dictating the law.

Like I said, I would vote against it on a personal level. But if the majority want to legalize it, then I'd accept that.

I've already told you why I think it's wrong to legalize it. I don't see the benefit of homosexual or insectual marriage. In fact, I see them as a harm to the concept of marriage. The point of marriage is a religious one to begin with. Without religion, people would just have sex and raise their children without marriage. They would even go on to raise more children with another partner afterwards. So first of all, homosexual and incestual marriage is thrown out the window. Then there are other points. With incest, you are raising a child that is potentially deformed or has some kind of disease because of the genetics. With homosexuality, you can't raise your own children because two people of the same sex can't naturally make kids. Now if you think donating sperm or eggs gets around that, then I ask you is it OK if a brother and sister get married and have kids through donation instead of the natural way?

Now you are probably thinking, what about couples who refuse to have kids. Is that wrong? The answer is yes.

And you are wrong. There is nothing in the Constitution that says laws can't be based on religion. It says the government can't claim an official religion. There are many laws today that came from religion that you would have no problem accepting.

ahlycotc wrote:Like I said, I would vote against it on a personal level. But if the majority want to legalize it, then I'd accept that.

I've already told you why I think it's wrong to legalize it. I don't see the benefit of homosexual or insectual marriage. In fact, I see them as a harm to the concept of marriage. The point of marriage is a religious one to begin with. Without religion, people would just have sex and raise their children without marriage. They would even go on to raise more children with another partner afterwards. So first of all, homosexual and incestual marriage is thrown out the window. Then there are other points. With incest, you are raising a child that is potentially deformed or has some kind of disease because of the genetics. With homosexuality, you can't raise your own children because two people of the same sex can't naturally make kids. Now if you think donating sperm or eggs gets around that, then I ask you is it OK if a brother and sister get married and have kids through donation instead of the natural way?

Marriage has legal implications as well, including the division of property. How do homosexual marriages impact upon intersexual marriages?

Now you are probably thinking, what about couples who refuse to have kids. Is that wrong? The answer is yes.

So would you ban people with hereditary retardations, and those who are unable to have kids from being allowed to marry as well?

And you are wrong. There is nothing in the Constitution that says laws can't be based on religion. It says the government can't claim an official religion. There are many laws today that came from religion that you would have no problem accepting.

Making laws based on the whims of any religious group lends a degree of officialdom to said religion. Secular government was something that the founding fathers envisioned while creating the Constitution.

ahlycotc wrote:What is so different about homosexuality and say incest? Both people have an interest in the other partner and want to be able to show their "love" for that partner by getting married. So why is homosexual marriage OK but incest isn't?

fucking your blood relative is just wrong dude

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Marriage has legal implications as well, including the division of property. How do homosexual marriages impact upon intersexual marriages?

I don't understand the question. If you mean how does a homosexual marriage impact a heterosexual marriage, then it doesn't. That's not the point. How does incest impact normal heterosexual marriages? It's about the concept of marriage.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:So would you ban people with hereditary retardations, and those who are unable to have kids from being allowed to marry as well?

If a couple tries and can't have a kid, then that's just fate. But if a couple knew in advance that if they were to form a deformed child because of their genes and they did so anyways, then yes that would be wrong. I would even support punishing the couple with jail time or a fine.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Making laws based on the whims of any religious group lends a degree of officialdom to said religion. Secular government was something that the founding fathers envisioned while creating the Constitution.

No. What the constitution means is that the US government can't choose a specific religion to be the official religion of the land. The founding fathers left Europe because they didn't like the fact that countries over there made Christianity an official religion that everyone had to follow. However, the founding fathers were still Christians and the laws of the land were still based on religion to a degree. You can't deny that.

El_indian wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:What is so different about homosexuality and say incest? Both people have an interest in the other partner and want to be able to show their "love" for that partner by getting married. So why is homosexual marriage OK but incest isn't?

fucking your blood relative is just wrong dude

I agree, but who is to say what is wrong and what is not? Religion? Then so is homosexuality. The people? Then let the people decide if they want to legalize homosexuality.

I think I am a good judge of what is right and what is wrong.

homo's are not harming anybody, I have no problems with them, they probably have better/stronger/healthier relationships than the average one between a man/women.

El_indian wrote:I think I am a good judge of what is right and what is wrong.

homo's are not harming anybody, I have no problems with them, they probably have better/stronger/healthier relationships than the average one between a man/women.

Let's be serious though.

ahlycotc wrote:

El_indian wrote:
fucking your blood relative is just wrong dude

I agree, but who is to say what is wrong and what is not? Religion? Then so is homosexuality. The people? Then let the people decide if they want to legalize homosexuality.

Not quite sure how you can compare homosexuality to incest. I mean having kids with a blood relative just isn't natural, i think i causes genetic mutations and stuff too.

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Marriage has legal implications as well, including the division of property. How do homosexual marriages impact upon intersexual marriages?

I don't understand the question. If you mean how does a homosexual marriage impact a heterosexual marriage, then it doesn't. That's not the point. How does incest impact normal heterosexual marriages? It's about the concept of marriage.

How does it negatively impact any people who have an interest in "the concept of marriage"?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:So would you ban people with hereditary retardations, and those who are unable to have kids from being allowed to marry as well?

If a couple tries and can't have a kid, then that's just fate. But if a couple knew in advance that if they were to form a deformed child because of their genes and they did so anyways, then yes that would be wrong. I would even support punishing the couple with jail time or a fine.

So these people should be banned from being married then? Also the people who know they cannot have children, in your ideal world, are they allowed to get married?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Making laws based on the whims of any religious group lends a degree of officialdom to said religion. Secular government was something that the founding fathers envisioned while creating the Constitution.

No. What the constitution means is that the US government can't choose a specific religion to be the official religion of the land. The founding fathers left Europe because they didn't like the fact that countries over there made Christianity an official religion that everyone had to follow. However, the founding fathers were still Christians and the laws of the land were still based on religion to a degree. You can't deny that.

I can fucking deny that, and the founding fathers were secularists above all else. There is nothing on the Constitution that is based on any religion.

El_indian wrote:I think I am a good judge of what is right and what is wrong.

You and everyone else.

Well yes let the people decide, and if they had any sense the would agree with me, unfortunately there are many stupid people and it may not work out this way..

TBH I think I should just be God.

umm ahly, It is a widely accepted fact that the founder fathers were not christens. They believed in a creator but they didn't agree with religion.

----

To do with the topic at hand, Comparing homosexuals with people who commit incest. I both think they are wrong but i don't see how anyone can say one is right while the other is wrong. They are both based on "feelings".

NZG wrote:umm ahly, It is a widely accepted fact that the founder fathers were not christens. They believed in a creator but they didn't agree with religion.

He knows, but he's a liar, a coward and a thief.

To do with the topic at hand, Comparing homosexuals with people who commit incest. I both think they are wrong but i don't see how anyone can say one is right while the other is wrong. They are both based on "feelings".

Are you fucking serious? Incest carries a great risk of retardation of children, and is very much subject to power abuse, for example between a parent and child, or much older brother. I can't believe you would even compare these sorts of things, it is absolutely horrendous, what you are trying to do.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

NZG wrote:umm ahly, It is a widely accepted fact that the founder fathers were not christens. They believed in a creator but they didn't agree with religion.

He knows, but he's a liar, a coward and a thief.

To do with the topic at hand, Comparing homosexuals with people who commit incest. I both think they are wrong but i don't see how anyone can say one is right while the other is wrong. They are both based on "feelings".

Are you fucking serious? Incest carries a great risk of retardation of children, and is very much subject to power abuse, for example between a parent and child, or much older brother. I can't believe you would even compare these sorts of things, it is absolutely horrendous, what you are trying to do.

You don't understand the point. I understand why you dont. (you a stupid bias boy) I will explain why.

Incest in the cases you pointed are wrong but that is not what i was talking about. I can't believe you can't even see the comparisons. Lesser minds

When a brother and a sister want to get married and have kids (that will not be retarded) then who are we to stop them?

There is no difference between that case and a homosexual case. They both 'love' each other and both are not harming anyone.


Hopefully you understand now, I know it is hard for you to process because "you are too stupid".

Also just because you are "too stupid" to understand doesn't mean you should go around insulting anyone. Learn to respect people who are clearly smarter than you. (in this case me and ahly)

NZG wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

He knows, but he's a liar, a coward and a thief.


Are you fucking serious? Incest carries a great risk of retardation of children, and is very much subject to power abuse, for example between a parent and child, or much older brother. I can't believe you would even compare these sorts of things, it is absolutely horrendous, what you are trying to do.

You don't understand the point. I understand why you dont. (you a stupid bias boy) I will explain why.

Incest in the cases you pointed are wrong but that is not what i was talking about. I can't believe you can't even see the comparisons. Lesser minds

When a brother and a sister want to get married and have kids (that will not be retarded) then who are we to stop them?

There is no difference between that case and a homosexual case. They both love each other and both are not harming anyone.

I have already outlined that there are dangers inherent to incest that are not nearly as prevalent in homosexual relationships. For a start incestuous relationships are illegal in the first place (although whether they should be is another matter), as a society we have a duty to stop these people getting together, we have a duty to the unborn children, and to ourselves - lets not forget, healthcare for retarded kids comes at a cost to the state. There is also the power abuse factor which I have already mentioned, which is no more likely in homosexual relationships than heterosexual ones.

There is a massive difference between the above and homosexuality.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

NZG wrote:

You don't understand the point. I understand why you dont. (you a stupid bias boy) I will explain why.

Incest in the cases you pointed are wrong but that is not what i was talking about. I can't believe you can't even see the comparisons. Lesser minds

When a brother and a sister want to get married and have kids (that will not be retarded) then who are we to stop them?

There is no difference between that case and a homosexual case. They both love each other and both are not harming anyone.

I have already outlined that there are dangers inherent to incest that are not nearly as prevalent in homosexual relationships. For a start incestuous relationships are illegal in the first place (although whether they should be is another matter), as a society we have a duty to stop these people getting together, we have a duty to the unborn children, and to ourselves - lets not forget, healthcare for retarded kids comes at a cost to the state. There is also the power abuse factor which I have already mentioned, which is no more likely in homosexual relationships than heterosexual ones.

There is a massive difference between the above and homosexuality.

You just missed the point again, It is okay lesser mind. I understand that you are "too stupid" to understand.

I will bullet point the reasons so hopefully you can understand my points that are clearly to great for you.

• They can adopt or if proven that retards kids won't happen then we have no say on if they should marry or not. So we can get around your stupid point.
  
  
• They 'love' each other just as much as homosexuals do, You can argue that they love each are more because they know each other a lot better.

Hopefully your lesser mind understands now on why they can have a case for marriage.

JMB_94 wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

I agree, but who is to say what is wrong and what is not? Religion? Then so is homosexuality. The people? Then let the people decide if they want to legalize homosexuality.

Not quite sure how you can compare homosexuality to incest. I mean having kids with a blood relative just isn't natural, i think i causes genetic mutations and stuff too.

And homosexuality is "natural"? I understand the genetic problems caused by incest, which is one of the reasons to ban it. But then again, what if an incestual couple decide to adopt a child? Are they allowed to still marry?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:How does it negatively impact any people who have an interest in "the concept of marriage"?

Greatly. The concept of a marriage is between a man and a woman to have children and start a nuclear family. No matter how much a man acts like a mother or a woman acts like a man, it's not the same as the real thing.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:So these people should be banned from being married then? Also the people who know they cannot have children, in your ideal world, are they allowed to get married?

The main idea behind marriage is to have natural children and start a family, so willingly not having sex would go against that. Should they be allowed to get married still, again that's up to the people to decide.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I can fucking deny that, and the founding fathers were secularists above all else. There is nothing on the Constitution that is based on any religion.

Religion makes only one direct and obvious appearance in the original Constitution that seems to point to a desire for some degree of religious freedom. That appearance is in Article 6, at the end of the third clause:

[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

That does not mean no laws can be based on religion. For example, the law that you can't commit murder is based on religion. The founding fathers wanted a nation that did not favor one religion over another. That does not mean they wanted to abolish religion or not recognize it.

ahlycotc wrote:

JMB_94 wrote:

Not quite sure how you can compare homosexuality to incest. I mean having kids with a blood relative just isn't natural, i think i causes genetic mutations and stuff too.

And homosexuality is "natural"? I understand the genetic problems caused by incest, which is one of the reasons to ban it. But then again, what if an incestual couple decide to adopt a child? Are they allowed to still marry?

No, because of the power abuse issues outlined earlier.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:How does it negatively impact any people who have an interest in "the concept of marriage"?

Greatly. The concept of a marriage is between a man and a woman to have children and start a nuclear family. No matter how much a man acts like a mother or a woman acts like a man, it's not the same as the real thing.

I'm still not seeing how two guys getting married effects a married couple. Will it make them less likely to have kids or start a nuclear family?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:So these people should be banned from being married then? Also the people who know they cannot have children, in your ideal world, are they allowed to get married?

The main idea behind marriage is to have natural children and start a family, so willingly not having sex would go against that. Should they be allowed to get married still, again that's up to the people to decide.

You are one of the people - what would your decision be?

Religion makes only one direct and obvious appearance in the original Constitution that seems to point to a desire for some degree of religious freedom. That appearance is in Article 6, at the end of the third clause:

[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

That does not mean no laws can be based on religion. For example, the law that you can't commit murder is based on religion. The founding fathers wanted a nation that did not favor one religion over another. That does not mean they wanted to abolish religion or not recognize it.

The law that you can't commit murder is based on the principle that a society doesn't work so well if the people are killing each other. If decisions are being made on religious grounds, then that is favouring one religion over another.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:No, because of the power abuse issues outlined earlier.

Incestual couples are not more likely to suffer from abuse than normal couples. If it's an age thing, then I guess that means all couples have to be the same age. If it's a relationship thing, then instead of a mother marrying a son, siblings can marry each other. There is no power structure among siblings.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I'm still not seeing how two guys getting married effects a married couple. Will it make them less likely to have kids or start a nuclear family?

It doesn't affect married couples. It just goes against the concept of marriage. Does incest affect married couples?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:You are one of the people - what would your decision be?

No.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:The law that you can't commit murder is based on the principle that a society doesn't work so well if the people are killing each other. If decisions are being made on religious grounds, then that is favouring one religion over another.

Many religious laws have a logical explanation behind them. Society didn't come up with the concept of banning murder before God commanded it.

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:No, because of the power abuse issues outlined earlier.

Incestual couples are not more likely to suffer from abuse than normal couples. If it's an age thing, then I guess that means all couples have to be the same age. If it's a relationship thing, then instead of a mother marrying a son, siblings can marry each other. There is no power structure among siblings.

OK, fine, I'm really not all that opposed to the idea of siblings marrying each other. There is of course a power structure there though, you're either being dishonest there or very naive.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I'm still not seeing how two guys getting married effects a married couple. Will it make them less likely to have kids or start a nuclear family?

It doesn't affect married couples. It just goes against the concept of marriage. Does incest affect married couples?

So we are doing it to protect a concept? I can't agree with a law that is to the detriment of people's happiness to protect a concept.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:You are one of the people - what would your decision be?

No.

To be clear, you are claiming that it should be illegal for couples who cannot have kids to marry each other.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:The law that you can't commit murder is based on the principle that a society doesn't work so well if the people are killing each other. If decisions are being made on religious grounds, then that is favouring one religion over another.

Many religious laws have a logical explanation behind them. Society didn't come up with the concept of banning murder before God commanded it.

You can't even prove that God commanded it, so don't go making these ridiculous claims.

Please take this crap out of the thread, so the proper crap can be discussed.

SBSP wrote:

Another insightful post.

Ron Paul.