Thork

Re: Marriage equality in Australia
« Reply #40 on: April 03, 2015, 07:14:53 PM »
So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related
Its 2015. There should be no limits on love, I keep being told. We live in an age of contraception. Why shouldn't two siblings be able to have consensual sex? Because you don't like it? I don't like the idea of gay sex, but I'm shouted down as a homophobe by the carping neoliberals. There isn't a reason on earth two siblings shouldn't have sex. Unless of course you'd like to have a discussion about morality, in which case you need to form an argument as to the morality behind shoving your dick up another man's bum.

Gay people can't create malformed babies.
Neither can a woman with a contraceptive implant. Or a woman who has had a vasectomy. Or a woman who is infertile.

So should siblings be mandated to be sterilized before marrying? (a woman can't have a vasectomy, by the way)
Why?

The odds of having a genetically deformed child from 1st generation incest is so incredibly rare that its almost essentially thrown out. Of course as you look through your genome it does vary based on what traits you/sibling/family carry.

If you were to take two siblings who had no negative traits, they could have children with 0% (With a variance of one millionth degree) chance of having a deformity. Really all incest does is shrinks the potential gene pool, which overall is bad, but it doesn't cause the drastic over dramatized deformities you see in popular culture

Thork

Re: Marriage equality in Australia
« Reply #41 on: April 03, 2015, 07:15:24 PM »
Or a woman who has had a vasectomy.

Women can get vasectomies now?

Thork has been confused as to what a woman is this whole time. It explains everything.
hysterectomy. wow, I'm tired.

Thork

Re: Marriage equality in Australia
« Reply #42 on: April 03, 2015, 07:16:02 PM »
Its Friday night, its time for beer. :D

*

Offline Particle Person

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2987
  • born 2 b b&
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage equality in Australia
« Reply #43 on: April 03, 2015, 07:18:14 PM »
So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related
Its 2015. There should be no limits on love, I keep being told. We live in an age of contraception. Why shouldn't two siblings be able to have consensual sex? Because you don't like it? I don't like the idea of gay sex, but I'm shouted down as a homophobe by the carping neoliberals. There isn't a reason on earth two siblings shouldn't have sex. Unless of course you'd like to have a discussion about morality, in which case you need to form an argument as to the morality behind shoving your dick up another man's bum.

Gay people can't create malformed babies.
Neither can a woman with a contraceptive implant. Or a woman who has had a vasectomy. Or a woman who is infertile.

So should siblings be mandated to be sterilized before marrying? (a woman can't have a vasectomy, by the way)
Why?

The odds of having a genetically deformed child from 1st generation incest is so incredibly rare that its almost essentially thrown out.

I was assuming that in your scenario, marriage between siblings would be legal for more than one generation.
Your mom is when your mom and you arent your mom.

Thork

Re: Marriage equality in Australia
« Reply #44 on: April 03, 2015, 07:19:12 PM »
So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related
Its 2015. There should be no limits on love, I keep being told. We live in an age of contraception. Why shouldn't two siblings be able to have consensual sex? Because you don't like it? I don't like the idea of gay sex, but I'm shouted down as a homophobe by the carping neoliberals. There isn't a reason on earth two siblings shouldn't have sex. Unless of course you'd like to have a discussion about morality, in which case you need to form an argument as to the morality behind shoving your dick up another man's bum.

Gay people can't create malformed babies.
Neither can a woman with a contraceptive implant. Or a woman who has had a vasectomy. Or a woman who is infertile.

So should siblings be mandated to be sterilized before marrying? (a woman can't have a vasectomy, by the way)
Why?

The odds of having a genetically deformed child from 1st generation incest is so incredibly rare that its almost essentially thrown out.

I was assuming that in your scenario, marriage between siblings would be legal for more than one generation.
Hey, don't you dare get in the way of love. If two people love each other, what has it got to do with you?

*

Offline Particle Person

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2987
  • born 2 b b&
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage equality in Australia
« Reply #45 on: April 03, 2015, 07:20:42 PM »
Taxation would have to be increased to care for all of the retarded sibling children who can only survive with government assistance.
Your mom is when your mom and you arent your mom.

Yaakov ben Avraham

Re: Marriage equality in Australia
« Reply #46 on: April 03, 2015, 07:23:36 PM »
I figure, for secular purposes, I don't care who you marry. I mean, religion tells you one thing. I have my own beliefs on who you should marry and who you shouldn't marry, who you should schtupp, and who you shouldn't schtupp, and so-on. But it's not my business to tell other people who to marry or to schtupp. So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related, well, for secular purposes, marry them and/or schtupp them if that's what trips your trigger. Just don't ask me to agree with it necessarily.

This is a very reasonable approach, and I'm surprised to find that I completely agree with you on this. As an atheist, a secularist and a strong supporter of freedom of religion, I don't really care what religious institutions do. They can ban gays from joining their religion entirely for all I care.

My only interest is in ensuring that, as far as the law is concerned, no two consenting adults are treated differently from any other. Deregulating marriage altogether and leaving it in the hands of religion is an acceptable way to accomplish that.

I can respect your beliefs regarding marriage, but what I respect even more is that you aren't trying to impose them on others. If only our government would take the same approach.

In a society that is not governed by religious law, I agree with you entirely. And frankly, I am not so sure I would want to live in a Halachic State (meaning one that is governed by Halacha, or Jewish Law). I mean, it would depend. If Halacha were used as an inspiration for law, that is one thing. I wouldn't mind that at all. But if it in fact WERE the law, that would not be a state I would want to live in.

Right now, there is a debate going on in Israel, that started before the last election. A "Nationality Law" was proposed that would define Israel as a Jewish State and would make Halacha "the inspiration for Israeli law". Furthermore, although all citizens would have their rights respected as individuals, their current status as separate national groups would dissolved. The State would be defined as a State of its Jewish citizens. Other citizens would have individual rights, but not group rights, as they do now.

Ordinarily, I would be all in favour of this. But at present, I admit, I question the timing of such a law, and motives of it. As much as I am not fond of the presence of Arabs in the State of Israel, the fact is they are there. Until they can be removed, preferably humanely, making a law of this sort seems very provocative. Then again, that may be the whole point, is to provoke them to leave. I'm not sure that is the way to go about it, though.

Even now, in matters of family law, the separate religions govern matters. Secular marriage does not in fact exist. You are either married in Jewish rites, Muslim rites, or Christian ones. In a country like Israel, I think that is appropriate. But certainly in coutries where secular marriage exists, it should be independent of religious influence.

Ghost of V

Re: Marriage equality in Australia
« Reply #47 on: April 03, 2015, 07:23:58 PM »
Taxation would have to be increased to care for all of the retarded sibling children who can only survive with government assistance.

If that's your stance, then darkies should not be allowed to reproduce.

Re: Marriage equality in Australia
« Reply #48 on: April 03, 2015, 07:30:22 PM »
So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related
Its 2015. There should be no limits on love, I keep being told. We live in an age of contraception. Why shouldn't two siblings be able to have consensual sex? Because you don't like it? I don't like the idea of gay sex, but I'm shouted down as a homophobe by the carping neoliberals. There isn't a reason on earth two siblings shouldn't have sex. Unless of course you'd like to have a discussion about morality, in which case you need to form an argument as to the morality behind shoving your dick up another man's bum.

I don't understand how either of those things count as immoral acts for you.  Please tell me more about your system of ethics.

Hey, don't you dare get in the way of love. If two people love each other, what has it got to do with you?

Setting aside that sibling love/marriage and homosexual love/marriage aren't even close to the same thing, you make an entirely reasonable point.  Now that you mention it, I can't think of much reason two adult siblings should be prohibited from either consensual sex, or marriage equality.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage equality in Australia
« Reply #49 on: April 03, 2015, 07:32:44 PM »
This is one of those threads where everyone figures out the obvious notion that morality is an arbitrary standard with no right or wrong answer.

Yaakov ben Avraham

Re: Marriage equality in Australia
« Reply #50 on: April 03, 2015, 07:35:18 PM »
This is one of those threads where everyone figures out the obvious notion that morality is an arbitrary standard with no right or wrong answer.

I think, IRUSH, what people figure out is that there is no obvious morality that can apply to a heterogeneous population. When a population is homogeneous, then perhaps. Otherwise, it is difficult to find one.

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9777
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage equality in Australia
« Reply #51 on: April 03, 2015, 07:38:27 PM »
So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related
Its 2015. There should be no limits on love, I keep being told. We live in an age of contraception. Why shouldn't two siblings be able to have consensual sex? Because you don't like it? I don't like the idea of gay sex, but I'm shouted down as a homophobe by the carping neoliberals. There isn't a reason on earth two siblings shouldn't have sex. Unless of course you'd like to have a discussion about morality, in which case you need to form an argument as to the morality behind shoving your dick up another man's bum.

I thought you were going to provide us with a reason as to why same-sex marriage is harmful. Do you actually have one, or is this attempt to divert the discussion towards marriage between siblings and women with vasectomies an attempt to distract us from the fact that, yet again, you have no idea what you're talking about?

In a society that is not governed by religious law, I agree with you entirely. And frankly, I am not so sure I would want to live in a Halachic State (meaning one that is governed by Halacha, or Jewish Law). I mean, it would depend. If Halacha were used as an inspiration for law, that is one thing. I wouldn't mind that at all. But if it in fact WERE the law, that would not be a state I would want to live in.

For obvious reasons, as a non-Jewish person I also wouldn't want that. I am somewhat curious about your reasoning, but as we're getting off topic here, I'll post a question in your thread instead.

Even now, in matters of family law, the separate religions govern matters. Secular marriage does not in fact exist. You are either married in Jewish rites, Muslim rites, or Christian ones. In a country like Israel, I think that is appropriate. But certainly in coutries where secular marriage exists, it should be independent of religious influence.

Agreed. I actually don't have a strong opinion as to whether or not secular marriage should exist, just that if it does, then it should be equally available to all couples.

Out of curiosity, does Israel have civil unions, or is there no secular recognition of couples at all?
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

Thork

Re: Marriage equality in Australia
« Reply #52 on: April 03, 2015, 07:40:50 PM »
Taxation would have to be increased to care for all of the retarded sibling children who can only survive with government assistance.
there won't be any retarted babies. I just told you. the odds of having a retarted baby with your sibling are minute. The odds of having a scrambled baby through incest are less than having one with the woman being over 40.

Should we ban women over 40 from having babies?

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage equality in Australia
« Reply #53 on: April 03, 2015, 08:01:00 PM »
Okay, I know Thork is just constructing an elaborate strawman here, but I honestly don't see why first generation incest shouldn't be allowed. I guess Thork is trying to allude to some sort of inherent moral standard when there isn't one??

Re: Marriage equality in Australia
« Reply #54 on: April 03, 2015, 09:14:22 PM »
Can we not talk about sibling sex? It has absolutely nothing to do with the thread's title.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage equality in Australia
« Reply #55 on: April 03, 2015, 10:18:22 PM »
Thork is just trying to establish that it is okay for him to hate gay marriage because sibling marriage is also hated by showing that they are arbitrary distinctions; something everyone here should have already knew.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage equality in Australia
« Reply #56 on: April 07, 2015, 05:56:09 PM »
I deleted that before your reply as I assumed such a stupid thread was in Angry ranting. I will give a political reason why same sex marriage hurts ordinary people when I return from swimming. You may speculate wildly as to my reasoning in the mean time.

Is it because homosexuals do not reproduce so for every homosexual couple, you lose two adults that could otherwise reproduce and sire children that could contribute to the power and might of the British Empire United Kingdom?  As it is, they are just dead branches on a tree.
Incorrect.  Homosexual couples can reproduce via surrogacy and/or donor eggs/sperm.  They also adopt surplus/unwanted/abandoned children.

Or a woman who has had a vasectomy.

Women can get vasectomies now?

Thork has been confused as to what a woman is this whole time. It explains everything.
hysterectomy. wow, I'm tired.
Still wrong.  The female equivalent of a vasectomy would be a tubal ligation (having her tubes tied).  Having one's uterus and ovaries removed for birth control reasons is quite a bit of overkill.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.