Author Topic: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"  (Read 114179 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #350 on: May 11, 2012, 04:17:20 PM »
i don't know who the hell posted this under my account, but not cool at all. 

« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 06:05:31 AM by kirksnosehair »

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12785
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #351 on: May 11, 2012, 04:45:02 PM »
Remember that scene from "Crocodile Dundee" where he says, "That's not a knife, this is a knife"  ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nMANMIe0ZZI

What...the...what?  ???
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #352 on: May 11, 2012, 04:46:10 PM »
For a person that's undecided on the legalization of gay marriage, there's a lot of good stuff in this thread.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline WindMaster

  • DTF's Ultimate Frisbee Player
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 1525
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #353 on: May 11, 2012, 07:00:19 PM »
As a NC resident that lives in the Triangle and is a student of a school that is against Amendment One, and has done activism work against it, it is really heartbreaking to see this amendment passed. I'm completely for legalizing gay marriage and totally against the amendment. It's really a stupid desicion to have passed it, but at least my county was 79% against!
I only listen to electro-post dubprog.  You've probably never heard of it.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #354 on: May 11, 2012, 07:06:29 PM »
 :tup
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline skydivingninja

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11593
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #355 on: May 12, 2012, 08:03:09 PM »
As a NC resident that lives in the Triangle and is a student of a school that is against Amendment One, and has done activism work against it, it is really heartbreaking to see this amendment passed. I'm completely for legalizing gay marriage and totally against the amendment. It's really a stupid desicion to have passed it, but at least my county was 79% against!

I think Wake county's was something like 57% against it.  So go us!

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5821
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #357 on: May 12, 2012, 11:10:40 PM »
what

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #358 on: May 13, 2012, 06:06:28 AM »
Remember that scene from "Crocodile Dundee" where he says, "That's not a knife, this is a knife"  ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nMANMIe0ZZI

What...the...what?  ???

Yeah, that's what I said.  Please check the logs, bosk, I am sure you will see that shit was not posted from any computer I own.  I have changed my password.  Also, check your PM please.

Offline Vivace

  • Posts: 664
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #359 on: May 13, 2012, 08:39:26 AM »
A refreshing glimmer of sanity in the darkening abyss of the ever-more secularized and increasingly relativist United States of America.

The law is supposed to be secularized.

This isn't sanity.  It's fucking bigotry.  Plain and simple.

Strawman arguments get you no where.

it's nice to see how many people online cannot give a single fucking toss that democracy was practiced in the state of NC. All they see is bigotry, hatred, rights stripped away, and such. Do I have a right to steal when I'm poor and starving? What exactly does rights mean? Who's rights? What rights? When does the idea of rights even come into play? From what I see in history it is simply what is owed to people. It is a form of justice. If I perform a service for you I am owed something. I have a right to compensation. That is justice. Rights are primarily focused on justice and deal more with civilization and less about the individual. The point being blacks had a right to be human and to be treated as equals because that was what they are, equals. They are humans and nothing within that person should keep them from having the same rights as a white should have. The only thing that separated them was the color of their skin. It was an injustice to treat them differently because their difference was based solely on skin color.

People want to relate the problems in 1963 between the racial attacks against blacks with homosexuality. But here there is a difference and that difference is getting overlooked and assumptions are being made. I think someone here wanted to point out that marriage hasn't been the same which is true to a point. Polygamy is certainly a different form of marriage which I think is still practiced but there is still a fundamental difference between polygomy and homosexuality, polygomy still fulfills the marital act between a man and a woman, it still creates a family unit and it one with a child being born within this family and raised by this family, its own biological unit. Homosexuality is not this at all. Sure we have a unitive structure between two people who are in love augmented by a sexual attraction to each other, but this pairing can never fulfill the marital act of procreation. That is not unless you change that part of marriage and just say, it's about two people in love. This was "never" the idea of marriage in our past. So to argue that marriage was never always like it is now or that homosexuality has the same rights as a couple who actually produce a single biological family is changing the very idea of the form of justice on what a married couple is. Now justice is being asked to support not just a family unit of a man and woman, but a pairing of a man and man or woman and woman with no chance of both biological parents being there to raise the child. Now we have a problem. Now we are talking about children being raised by parent 1 and parent 2, possibly one of them being the mother or father but the other biological parent not in the picture. Some would argue we have single moms and dads but that's another logical fallacy.

Nature, like all animals, has developed our nurturing needs as has culture and tradition. But nature has the biggest part. Certain animals are born into situations where the father isn't there for natural reasons (he might kill, eat, maim, destroy the child). For human, both parents are present and furthermore both parents mate for life or are monogamous. Homosexuality will ultimate bring about a sharp change to this in that it will remove one paternal parent willingly. That is, it is the choice of the parents that least one biological parent be not present at all. Yes, adoption exists, but this exists like it does in any animal species, the child is still raised in the natural order of the species. Here we are changing that. Which brings an interesting question. Is it right to force a child to be raised under a situation that is not natural for his upbringing or is right for "me" to marry of the same sex because I have rights too. Thus a very common form of justice, whose rights are more important, because in the end, in order to give rights to one who have to remove that right for another. When in justice is it right to take justice away from one in order to give it to another. Imagine during the 20's rights were given to women but it's effect was that rights were taking away from men? Who has a greater right? Is there such a thing as a greater right?

I'm against homosexuality not because two people love each other, but because that act is inferior to the heterosexual act which is the natural human action. It is inferior and unnecessary yet it has somehow turned into a lifestyle and identity which is a contradiction within itself and a rejection of the human nature in the person. I'm against homosexual marriage because I feel marriage between a man and women produces the justice necessary for a child to be raised which takes into consideration the child's justice, a justice people are too ready to forget. If homosexuals believe that they have a greater right to marry because of they "believe" their identity is homosexual (there is no physical or scientific proof or conclusions accepted by the scientific community as a whole that support homosexuality as racial or genetic), thus a race and thus entitle to a justice all its own then by this act they are taking away the justice of a child, that is physical, that has fundamental rights.

Instead, words like bigot, prejudice, assholes and whatnot get thrown around. That's not an argument. That's amateur hour.
"What kind of Jedis are these? Guardians of peace and justice my ass!"

"Ha ha! You fool! My Kung Fu is also big for have been trained in your Jedi arts why not!"

Offline ehra

  • Posts: 3362
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #360 on: May 13, 2012, 08:58:39 AM »
I'll be sure to tell my dad who raised me on his own, sacrificing well paying positions so that he could be home when he needed to be home for me, and lost contact with almost all of his friends and gave up the chance of meeting any other women so that he could spend the little free time he had with me that he was "taking away the justice" I deserved by not sticking with the kind of woman that'd threaten to jump out of a moving car while her own kid was watching in the back seat. What right did he have forcing me out of the chance of experiencing a natural upbringing?
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 09:05:13 AM by ehra »

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #361 on: May 13, 2012, 09:54:09 AM »
Ehra, out of curiousity, are you gay? (Yes, it's a serious question.)
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #362 on: May 13, 2012, 09:56:50 AM »
Is it inconceivable that a non-gay person would argue in favor of gay rights?
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline ehra

  • Posts: 3362
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #363 on: May 13, 2012, 09:59:13 AM »
No, I'm not.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #364 on: May 13, 2012, 10:03:44 AM »
Is it inconceivable that a non-gay person would argue in favor of gay rights?

Obviously not. As we all know, many atheists who are heterosexual (although their worldview permits them to be open the occasional homosexual encounter once in a while ie. Christopher Hitchens) are ardent supporters of same-sex "marriage". Their passionate demands for "justice," "equal rights," for the "right thing to be done" and their unabashed condemnation of war or similar atrocities as "morally abhorrent," "wrong," or "evil" and such ring hollow (sorry, rumborak) when you realize that most atheists and liberals tend to be moral relativists.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline the Catfishman

  • Posts: 490
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #365 on: May 13, 2012, 10:07:03 AM »
might as well lock this thread now.. lol  :lol amazing

Offline ehra

  • Posts: 3362
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #366 on: May 13, 2012, 10:07:56 AM »
So was there actually a point to your question, or what?

Offline AcidLameLTE

  • Nae deal pal
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11134
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #367 on: May 13, 2012, 10:09:27 AM »
Probably just a way to break back into the thread so he could tell us gay marriage is bad and war is cool.

Also, instead of locking the thread omega should just be kicked out of P&R because he was told not to post in this thread (at least, I think it was this one).

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #368 on: May 13, 2012, 10:10:19 AM »
As I said, it was out of curiosity (that avatar of yours can be misleading). I merely responded to Super Dude's question as accurately as I could. I didn't mean to "derail" the thread or any such other nonsense. Everyone just relax. Ooof!
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 4002
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #369 on: May 13, 2012, 10:12:23 AM »
Is it inconceivable that a non-gay person would argue in favor of gay rights?

Obviously not. As we all know, many atheists who are heterosexual (although their worldview permits them to be open the occasional homosexual encounter once in a while ie. Christopher Hitchens) are ardent supporters of same-sex "marriage". Their passionate demands for "justice," "equal rights," for the "right thing to be done" and their unabashed condemnation of war or similar atrocities as "morally abhorrent," "wrong," or "evil" and such ring hollow (sorry, rumborak) when you realize that most atheists and liberals tend to be moral relativists.
Oh "nice" transition from "substantive arguments" to ignorant ad hominem "attacks."

I like "quotation" "marks."

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #370 on: May 13, 2012, 10:14:32 AM »
These are not ad hominems and these are certainly no attacks. I merely stated a legitimate observation to a question I was asked.

Shall we stop picking on me and discuss the topic again?
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #371 on: May 13, 2012, 10:23:23 AM »
A refreshing glimmer of sanity in the darkening abyss of the ever-more secularized and increasingly relativist United States of America.

The law is supposed to be secularized.

This isn't sanity.  It's fucking bigotry.  Plain and simple.
Imagine during the 20's rights were given to women but it's effect was that rights were taking away from men? Who has a greater right? Is there such a thing as a greater right?
Are you actually suggesting that women should have fewer rights?

Anyway I think everybody here will agree that people should have rights taken away if they have too many - i.e. if there isn't complete equality.

Anyway, you're working under two fallacious assumptions:

1. That it is somehow "natural" to engage in heterosexual activity and "unnatural" to engage in homosexual activity. This was a working implicit assumption of yours which you failed to support at any time. EDIT: More than this, it's important to explain why unnatural things are necessarily worse. Everything in America is unnatural. Buildings, air conditioning, prepackaged food, movies, books, guns, glasses, computers... basically everything. Homosexual activity seems to me to be a lot more natural than any of these things, and if you're going to make the "unnatural" argument, you're basically arguing that we shouldn't be doing anything but having heterosexual sex at any time ever.


2. That marriage exists in order to promote the well-being and health of children. Everybody who's against same-sex marriage says this at one point or another, and it couldn't be farther from the truth. I and others have pointed it out in this very thread and many other threads as well, and I've never even heard a direct response to this very valid objection.

Historically, marriage has not existed to promote the raising of children. As I said before, the idea of getting married to somebody who loves you, buying a house, and raising a child in a healthy environment is very recent indeed, and only exists in developed countries.

Under this argument, the process of marriage does work and always has worked like this:

1. Want to start a family.
2. Get married.
3. Have children.

This is factually incorrect. Marriage, in the past, has been more like this:

1. Want to have sex.
2. Get married (probably because the church will not permit you to commit adultery).
3. Have children as a consequence of the sex (because contraception does not exist or the church prohibits it).
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 10:47:20 AM by theseoafs »

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #372 on: May 13, 2012, 10:37:46 AM »
I'll be sure to tell my dad who raised me on his own, sacrificing well paying positions so that he could be home when he needed to be home for me, and lost contact with almost all of his friends and gave up the chance of meeting any other women so that he could spend the little free time he had with me that he was "taking away the justice" I deserved by not sticking with the kind of woman that'd threaten to jump out of a moving car while her own kid was watching in the back seat. What right did he have forcing me out of the chance of experiencing a natural upbringing?

I don't think that's the point. Unfortunate the circumstances regarding your father and mother, yes, but we would be acting disingenuously if we didn't admit that the most optimal family unit consists of a loving and strong union between one man and one woman raising their biological children, nurturing them culturally and biologically to become productive members of society. It's no surprise that once this essential family unit is come to see as unnecessary by society that society begins to degrade. It is readily evident that, in principle, a parental unit of a man and a woman is superior to that of a single man or a single woman, or two men or two women, or many men and many women, etc. Also to note is that allowing homosexuals to "marry" will most certainly lead to the possibility of incest. Consider; there are two female lesbians in a relationship who are intent on "having a child" which they obviously cannot have unless you involve a male. The procedures that are used now by many lesbian couples are procedures that mask the identity of the father so that it cannot and will not be known who the father is. A conscious, willful effort is being made so that one could not know who is the father. Once you have made that effort, you've produced a child who cannot know who his father is. If you don't know and have no way of ascertaining who you father is, then you cannot know who your sisters and brothers are either. And if you cannot know who your sisters and brothers are, there is no way you could avoid having sexual relations with them.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #373 on: May 13, 2012, 10:41:12 AM »
Also to note is that allowing homosexuals to "marry" will most certainly lead to the possibility of incest. Consider; there are two female lesbians in a relationship who are intent on "having a child" which they obviously cannot have unless you involve a male. The procedures that are used now by many lesbian couples are procedures that mask the identity of the father so that it cannot and will not be known who the father is. A conscious, willful effort is being made so that you could not know who is the father. Once you have made that effort, you've produced a child who cannot know who his father is. If you don't know and have no way of ascertaining who you father is, then you cannot know who your sisters and brothers are either. And if you cannot know who your sisters and brothers are, there is no way you could avoid having sexual relations with them.

Um... sister and brother by defintion are people with the same parents. Unless the kid's mother had another kid with the same sperm donor, he wouldn't have any siblings.

As for half siblings, the odds of a kid meeting someone who was the child of the same sperm donor are astronomically low. Like, so low it's stunning that you'd even attempt to make that argument.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #374 on: May 13, 2012, 10:41:38 AM »
I'll be sure to tell my dad who raised me on his own, sacrificing well paying positions so that he could be home when he needed to be home for me, and lost contact with almost all of his friends and gave up the chance of meeting any other women so that he could spend the little free time he had with me that he was "taking away the justice" I deserved by not sticking with the kind of woman that'd threaten to jump out of a moving car while her own kid was watching in the back seat. What right did he have forcing me out of the chance of experiencing a natural upbringing?

It is readily evident that, in principle, a parental unit of a man and a woman is superior to that of a single man or a single woman, or two men or two women, or many men and many women, etc.

This is not evident to me or, I imagine, to many of the people in this thread so you'll have to explain why.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #375 on: May 13, 2012, 10:45:38 AM »
Um... sister and brother by defintion are people with the same parents. Unless the kid's mother had another kid with the same sperm donor, he wouldn't have any siblings.

As for half siblings, the odds of a kid meeting someone who was the child of the same sperm donor are astronomically low. Like, so low it's stunning that you'd even attempt to make that argument.

But over the years and if same-sex "marriage" were to be fully institutionalized, the chances of that happening would obviously increase exponentially.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36084
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #376 on: May 13, 2012, 10:50:50 AM »
Um... sister and brother by defintion are people with the same parents. Unless the kid's mother had another kid with the same sperm donor, he wouldn't have any siblings.

As for half siblings, the odds of a kid meeting someone who was the child of the same sperm donor are astronomically low. Like, so low it's stunning that you'd even attempt to make that argument.

But over the years and if same-sex "marriage" were to be fully institutionalized, the chances of that happening would obviously increase exponentially.


No it wouldn't. Same sex couples are still a minority. There aren't nearly enough of them having children to make the possibility anything worth fearing. The possibility currently exists for adopted children as well mind you, are you anti-adoption as well?

Also, please stop putting so many terms in quotation marks, it's degrading and insulting yet somehow permitted.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #377 on: May 13, 2012, 10:51:03 AM »
Um... sister and brother by defintion are people with the same parents. Unless the kid's mother had another kid with the same sperm donor, he wouldn't have any siblings.

As for half siblings, the odds of a kid meeting someone who was the child of the same sperm donor are astronomically low. Like, so low it's stunning that you'd even attempt to make that argument.

But over the years and if same-sex "marriage" were to be fully institutionalized, the chances of that happening would obviously increase exponentially.

Okay, and we could reduce the chances of incest happening exponentially if we all just stopped having sex completely. Obviously that is the best and most prudent option.

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #378 on: May 13, 2012, 10:54:15 AM »
Um... sister and brother by defintion are people with the same parents. Unless the kid's mother had another kid with the same sperm donor, he wouldn't have any siblings.

As for half siblings, the odds of a kid meeting someone who was the child of the same sperm donor are astronomically low. Like, so low it's stunning that you'd even attempt to make that argument.

But over the years and if same-sex "marriage" were to be fully institutionalized, the chances of that happening would obviously increase exponentially.

 :huh: There's nothing stopping (AFAIK) gay couples from having children now. There's also nothing stopping infertile couples and single moms from using artificial insemination (which already makes up a massive portion of sperm donation usage). There's really no reason to think the rate of artificial insemination would increase so much to make the odds of accidental incest 'exponential'.

Not to mention that there are ways for donor children to find/identify their half-siblings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donor_sibling_registration
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline WindMaster

  • DTF's Ultimate Frisbee Player
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 1525
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #379 on: May 13, 2012, 10:55:42 AM »
Um... sister and brother by defintion are people with the same parents. Unless the kid's mother had another kid with the same sperm donor, he wouldn't have any siblings.

As for half siblings, the odds of a kid meeting someone who was the child of the same sperm donor are astronomically low. Like, so low it's stunning that you'd even attempt to make that argument.

But over the years and if same-sex "marriage" were to be fully institutionalized, the chances of that happening would obviously increase exponentially.

Okay, and we could reduce the chances of incest happening exponentially if we all just stopped having sex completely. Obviously that is the best and most prudent option.
Right, and we know that's completely impossible. Don't even try to argue that just not having sex is possible.
I only listen to electro-post dubprog.  You've probably never heard of it.

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #380 on: May 13, 2012, 10:58:13 AM »
Um... sister and brother by defintion are people with the same parents. Unless the kid's mother had another kid with the same sperm donor, he wouldn't have any siblings.

As for half siblings, the odds of a kid meeting someone who was the child of the same sperm donor are astronomically low. Like, so low it's stunning that you'd even attempt to make that argument.

But over the years and if same-sex "marriage" were to be fully institutionalized, the chances of that happening would obviously increase exponentially.

Okay, and we could reduce the chances of incest happening exponentially if we all just stopped having sex completely. Obviously that is the best and most prudent option.
Right, and we know that's completely impossible. Don't even try to argue that just not having sex is possible.
I'm not saying it's possible. I'm saying it's the best and most prudent option if we're going to for some reason judge the worth of sexualities according to how much incest is theoretically possible therein.

Offline WindMaster

  • DTF's Ultimate Frisbee Player
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 1525
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #381 on: May 13, 2012, 11:01:26 AM »
That was directed at Omega, I was supporting your point.  :)
I only listen to electro-post dubprog.  You've probably never heard of it.

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #382 on: May 13, 2012, 11:03:20 AM »
Oh! Sorry, buddy.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #383 on: May 13, 2012, 11:08:40 AM »
Really? You think I believe that everyone should just stop procreating? You could have deduced (apparently) two things from my post:

1.) That I disapprove of the homosexual relationship norm of masking the identity of the father of potential children to be born to homosexual couples, etc.

or

2.) That I believe that everyone should just "stop having sex completely."


I cannot comprehend why option 2 was chosen.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #384 on: May 13, 2012, 11:11:14 AM »
1.) That I disapprove of the homosexual relationship norm of masking the identity of the father of potential children to be born to homosexual couples, etc.

It's not a homosexual relationship norm. Some sperm donors choose to be anonymous, regardless of who the child is born to (and bear in mind the majority of those births are not to lesbian couples but to infertile couples and single moms). Plenty of other donors allow their identity to be known.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.