Poop gate has been overpooped

[Sir_Brizz]

Now we're talking about hiring lawyers, drawing up complex legal documents just so people can get married. Even if it were practical, this will certainly be challenge in court regardless of how "iron clad" they may seem. And the problem won’t end with medical power of attorney. There will be inheritance, child custody, survivor benefits, etc…issues as well. Talk about your slippery slope!

Who is talking about that? The state requirements for entering into additional marriages would require that you define a person as the ultimate power of attorney among all of your marriages. Then everything else wouldn't matter as there would be someone who was the final say in all matters of that type. The only further issues it would cause are issues that already exist in inheritance cases.

So you’re okay with 3 year olds voting then?

To be honest, I was mocking the judge in this case in what you quoted, since part of his statement on his ruling was that the 14th amendment didn't specifically restrict any kind of marriage.

Do you honestly believe that mandatory sterilization is a good or remotely legal idea?

Wow, I didn't figure you'd try to play the out of context terms card! :tup: I think it's reasonable that, if incestual marriage was legally allowed, that to enter legally into that marriage would come along with certain requirements. How is that any different than laws that prevent people who have STDs from getting married in some states?

I have no idea what you said. All I read was a confused circle logic cluster-f**k.

I guess that's the problem with scanning posts instead of reading them. *puts on straw hat*

We're not talking about hats or disabilities that affect public safety; we're talking about the fundamental defining characteristics of a human being.

Are we? I don't know and it honestly doesn't really matter if it's true. Some people are "born" in a certain way and the law doesn't have to accommodate them for that. Some people are born predisposed to alcoholism, but they can still go to prison for drunk driving. I'd say the fundamental defining characteristics of a person only matter in very specific circumstances for very specific traits, whether or not this is one of them is still yet to be seen.

You are collapsing things to make them seem the same when they are not. Incest ACTIVELY harms the race by causing more genetic abnormalities. Homosexuality does not. Allowing siblings to marry fosters genetic problems, allowing homosexuals to marry has no negative consequences.

You could honestly make the same arguments about homosexuality when taken to the extreme.

If everyone was a homosexual, there would be no people. I'd say that extreme would harm the race quite badly. On top of that, there are certainly societal issues involved in this that nobody REALLY explores unless it furthers their cause.

If sibling marriage had requirements restricting them from having children in some way, then, you're saying it would be perfectly normal and fine for that to be allowed. If not, then your reasons are purely "moral" or "makes me uncomfortable". Again, the arguments anti-gay marriage people often use.

Look, if you are incapable of discriminating between a crazy person has said it and the basis for actual law, you need to stay out of arguments. Such inane points have no business in grown up conversations.

Did I say that I was incapable of discriminating between these two situations? I've seen cases where people were allowed to drive in the carpool lane because they had a dog with them in a passenger seat and that constituted a person. Things don't seem to happen as perfectly and succinctly as you make them out to.

You are right, certain laws DO need to be put into place regulating marriage. It is the purpose of the constitution, however, to invalidate particular laws which violate people's rights. Federal and state laws determine that a person under the age of 18 is a minor, various state laws set up provisions for minors to marry, etc. while the 14th amendment says that you don't get to make up ridiculous laws that say things to the effect of only certain genders/ethnicity/sexual orientations get those rights.

The 14th amendment specifies gender, ethnicity and sexual preference now?

Sorry, but your argument sounds more forced than mine does and I'm trying!

 

[Crotale]

YES! Marriage is regulated by the government and the government DOES get to determine qualifications for marriage. To put it in proper context, consider that you must meet certain requirements in order to qualify for a driver's license. While each state has similar generalized requirements, each individual state has varied determinations of age of eligibility to apply for a license. IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO DENY SOMEONE THEIR DRIVER'S LICENSE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. The state has the power to say only non-minors can get married and to enforce licensing procedures such as a 3 day waiting period, but to dictate race/ethnicity/sexual orientation of those adults is beyond the scope of the constitution.

Just as it is against the 14th amendment to say: no driver's license, you have to be white, so it is prohibiting people from homosexual marriages. Just because it is a privilege does not mean that the state is allowed to withhold it from people equal rights and protections.

~Jason

Okay, I'll throw my hat into the incest ring, so to speak. Not that I advocate incest, but why is incestuous marriage illegal in all fifty states? Because it does not meet standards set forth by society. That said, do you not agree that denying two adults who happen to be siblings, for example, the right to marry is infringing upon their Constitutionally protected "equal" rights just the same as gays? Incestuous marriage is socially taboo. Many Americans still feel that homosexuality is taboo. That is why you saw Prop 8 garner the votes it received, even in the self-proclaimed liberal State of California.

Incest ACTIVELY harms the race by causing more genetic abnormalities.

Are you saying it is acceptable to deny two consenting adults the right to marry simply because they have a higher probability of creating "defective" offspring? What if they choose to not reproduce?

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

Okay, I'll throw my hat into the incest ring, so to speak. Not that I advocate incest, but why is incestuous marriage illegal in all fifty states? Because it does not meet standards set forth by society. That said, do you not agree that denying two adults who happen to be siblings, for example, the right to marry is infringing upon their Constitutionally protected "equal" rights just the same as gays? Incestuous marriage is socially taboo. Many Americans still feel that homosexuality is taboo. That is why you saw Prop 8 garner the votes it received, even in the self-proclaimed liberal State of California.

Incest is a genetic minefield. Unless you plan forcibly sterilize people, it's best to keep incestuous marriage illegal.

 

[dragonfliet]

You could honestly make the same arguments about homosexuality when taken to the extreme.

If everyone was a homosexual, there would be no people. I'd say that extreme would harm the race quite badly. On top of that, there are certainly societal issues involved in this that nobody REALLY explores unless it furthers their cause.

You could honestly make the same arguments about childbearing when taken to the extreme.

If everyone had four children, the population boom would be so large that society would be unable to provide for the people and there would be massive starvation, sanitation issues and war. I'd say that extreme would harm the race quite badly.

See, if you take ANY ARGUMENT to a completely ridiculous and disingenuous extreme, you can make it bad. 100% of the population ISN'T homosexual, and the 10% that is doesn't harm society in any way. In fact, homosexual couples adopting children fills a needed gap in taking care of children. Again: your examples are ridiculous and have no bearing in reality and make no actual points.

If sibling marriage had requirements restricting them from having children in some way, then, you're saying it would be perfectly normal and fine for that to be allowed. If not, then your reasons are purely "moral" or "makes me uncomfortable". Again, the arguments anti-gay marriage people often use.

Honestly, I don't give a crap about who/what people screw. If you want to have sex with your sister, go for it. Enjoy, padre. the "makes me uncomfortable" argument is bunk and worthless.

Did I say that I was incapable of discriminating between these two situations? I've seen cases where people were allowed to drive in the carpool lane because they had a dog with them in a passenger seat and that constituted a person. Things don't seem to happen as perfectly and succinctly as you make them out to.

Okay: proof please. an animal is not a person and I have yet to see a single piece of legislation that says that an animal counts as a person. I'm sure you've imagined something, but I doubt you have anything that even kindofsortof meets what you're saying.

The 14th amendment specifies gender, ethnicity and sexual preference now?

Sorry, but your argument sounds more forced than mine does and I'm trying!

No, idiot, it makes no reference to ANY of these, yet "All people" includes all gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc. You see how that works? That means that if someone excludes based on race, despite the fact that race isn't mentioned in the 14th amendment, it violates the constitution, and if someone excludes based on sexual preference, it is likewise unconstitutional. Why is this so very difficult for you to grasp?

~Jason

 

[Crotale]

Incest is a genetic minefield.Unless you plan forcibly sterilize people, it's best to keep incestuous marriage illegal.

Not that I disagree with you, but looking at this issue from the point of personal freedoms, this would be considered to be a bigoted statement.

 

[Benfica]

Ok, had enough of this damn code, time to get some sleep. Before that, I just want to leave my contribution to this yet-another-lolitics-thread:



It blends well

 

[Larkin]

No, idiot, it makes no reference to ANY of these, yet "All people" includes all gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc. You see how that works? That means that if someone excludes based on race, despite the fact that race isn't mentioned in the 14th amendment, it violates the constitution, and if someone excludes based on sexual preference, it is likewise unconstitutional. Why is this so very difficult for you to grasp?

So just call people stupid and then say that? Ok, do as you will.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

You could honestly make the same arguments about childbearing when taken to the extreme.

If everyone had four children, the population boom would be so large that society would be unable to provide for the people and there would be massive starvation, sanitation issues and war. I'd say that extreme would harm the race quite badly.

See, if you take ANY ARGUMENT to a completely ridiculous and disingenuous extreme, you can make it bad. 100% of the population ISN'T homosexual, and the 10% that is doesn't harm society in any way. In fact, homosexual couples adopting children fills a needed gap in taking care of children. Again: your examples are ridiculous and have no bearing in reality and make no actual points.

So why are you taking YOUR argument to the extreme and excusing that as not being extreme? If married siblings didn't have children, your argument carries no weight. That same logical applies in both cases.

Honestly, I don't give a crap about who/what people screw. If you want to have sex with your sister, go for it. Enjoy, padre. the "makes me uncomfortable" argument is bunk and worthless.

Then why are you even arguing. If sibling marriage was somehow legalized, and you wouldn't care that it was, why do you even continue this?

Okay: proof please. an animal is not a person and I have yet to see a single piece of legislation that says that an animal counts as a person. I'm sure you've imagined something, but I doubt you have anything that even kindofsortof meets what you're saying.

As you can imagine, trying to scrounge up the story this related to is nearly impossible. I clearly remember the details since the woman went to court and said her dog was a person to her and they should excuse her carpool lane violation... and they did. I'm not saying an animal should be considered a person, I'm saying stranger things have happened in regards to the law.

No, idiot, it makes no reference to ANY of these, yet "All people" includes all gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc. You see how that works? That means that if someone excludes based on race, despite the fact that race isn't mentioned in the 14th amendment, it violates the constitution, and if someone excludes based on sexual preference, it is likewise unconstitutional. Why is this so very difficult for you to grasp?

Unnecessary inflaming personal attacks aside, it's not difficult for me to grasp your interpretation at all. Likewise, how is it so hard for you to grasp that, given your definition, the amendment excuses zoophilia, incest and polygamy? If someone is excluded from being married because they are already married, how is that different? If they are excluded because they are siblings, how is that different? According to the EPC of the 14th Amendment, what justification do you have for not wanting these things allowed? If none, then I've made my point... or we can keep driving around in circles if you simply can't comprehend that.

 

[BITE_ME]

Incest is a genetic minefield. Unless you plan forcibly sterilize people, it's best to keep incestuous marriage illegal.

Who did Adam and Eves kids have sex with

 

[dragonfliet]

So why are you taking YOUR argument to the extreme and excusing that as not being extreme? If married siblings didn't have children, your argument carries no weight. That same logical applies in both cases.

My argument? What have I brought to any extreme? Is gay marriage an extreme? Heterosexual marriages often lead to pregnancy. Not only because marriage affords protections for having children, but because as a general rule, penis+vagina=children. If the government allows siblings to marry and the siblings then have children, the government is in effect saying that it promotes (in any sense of the word) such genetically disastrous unions; which is bad for society as a whole.

As you can imagine, trying to scrounge up the story this related to is nearly impossible. I clearly remember the details since the woman went to court and said her dog was a person to her and they should excuse her carpool lane violation... and they did. I'm not saying an animal should be considered a person, I'm saying stranger things have happened in regards to the law.

I'm saying you have remembered this incorrectly and it never happened. I too have heard of people using dogs to try and get out of carpool tickets and none have. Because it is ridiculous.

Unnecessary inflaming personal attacks aside, it's not difficult for me to grasp your interpretation at all. Likewise, how is it so hard for you to grasp that, given your definition, the amendment excuses zoophilia, incest and polygamy? If someone is excluded from being married because they are already married, how is that different? If they are excluded because they are siblings, how is that different? According to the EPC of the 14th Amendment, what justification do you have for not wanting these things allowed? If none, then I've made my point... or we can keep driving around in circles if you simply can't comprehend that.

I'm saying you're deliberately missing the point. Zoophilia is cruelty to animals, and therefore isn't abridging someone's rights as it is protecting animals. Incest, as I have already explained, is by nature harmful to society and so it is well within the governments rights to ban it (yes, even if they PROMISE not to produce genetic freak babies). Neither of these have any even slightly reasonable protection under the 14th amendment. Gay marriage is not socially harmful, cannot lead to genetic problems, does not involve a lack of consent from the other party and has no non-religious reason to be prohibited.

These arguments you're throwing into the ring are like: wait, you mean I can't not hire someone because they're black? Oh, so I suppose that means I can't not hire someone because they're unqualified? What's to prevent an unqualified person from claiming they have equal protection under the law. Obviously, it is a stupid, stupid argument.

The only thing that is even worth discussion is polygamy which is such a huge matter it deserves an entire thread of its own. That being said: polygamy is not the discussion here and one doesn't simply IGNORE the 14th amendment when it comes to gay rights because it may possibly open the door to further discussions of other issues.

If you can't see how things like incest and zoophilia are in no way allowed by the equal protection clause, then you are either frightfully retarded or you are so blinded by your desire to oppose gay marriage that you refuse to see simple logic.

~Jason

 

[Larkin]

Goddamn dragonfliet, there is a wonderful post. You think you can fit more insults in there? I don't think your strategy of surrounding it with ignorance is working. Maybe try something else? Maybe consider not continuing the stupid about the fourteenth admendment?

 

[Adelheid]

I was going to make the madatory lesbian in a mans' body joke, but now I only feel like pointing out how ridiculuous it is that some people are acting like this will somehow affect their lives.

 

[Grobut]

2. Homosexuality is a mental Disorder. Trying to validate it as otherwise is tantamount to denial.

Wrong, because there exists NO EVIDENCE that Homosexuality is Psychological, indeed we currently do not know precisely why gay people are gay, but all reputable and peer reviewed supporting-evidence suggest that there is a Biological cause, not a Psychological one.

And there most certainly exists no basis for your earlier claims that it bears any resemblence to Zoophillia and Necrophillia, Zoophillia is rape, people do it to feel they can wield power over something weaker than them, assert dominance, love or sexual attraction has nothing to do with it, and Necrophillia is again mostly about power, dead people cannot refuse the advances of the Necrophile, and there are some serious issues of disassociation in there too, Necrophiles are usually people who feel so rejected and distanced from other people that they seek to fill the void with something "safe", something that's the next best thing to a living person but which can never reject them, a dead person.

Homosexuality is nothing of the sort, it is not about power, it is not rape, gay people fall in love with eachother and form sexual attractions and consentual relationships just as straight people do, the only difference is that they are attracted to people of their own gender.

There is no basis to call that a "Disorder", there is no evidence that this behaviour is caused by any deep seated trauma, or even that people do it to compensate for any feeling of inadequacy or to fill any emotional void caused by more serious underlying psychological problems, nor is there any evidence that Homesexuality is harmfull behaviour (the only threat of harm comes from bigots who might harm them for beeing different, but everyone faces that threat, you can be beat up for the clothes you like wearing, the bands you like listening to, the sports team you support or anything else under the sun).

What it is, is a minority, but a minority is not the same as a disorder, if it was, we would be calling all people with green eyes "sick", because green eyes are uncommon.

 

[Arcturus]

buttitics

 

[Adelheid]

Sexuality has a physical origin within in the brain.
This has been proven by medical science.
Sexuality is not a disorder.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

Wrong, because there exists NO EVIDENCE that Homosexuality is Psychological, indeed we currently do not know precisely why gay people are gay, but all reputable and peer reviewed supporting-evidence suggest that there is a Biological cause, not a Psychological one.

And there most certainly exists no basis for your earlier claims that it bears any resemblence to Zoophillia and Necrophillia, Zoophillia is rape, people do it to feel they can wield power over something weaker than them, assert dominance, love or sexual attraction has nothing to do with it, and Necrophillia is again mostly about power, dead people cannot refuse the advances of the Necrophile, and there are some serious issues of disassociation in there too, Necrophiles are usually people who feel so rejected and distanced from other people that they seek to fill the void with something "safe", something that's the next best thing to a living person but which can never reject them, a dead person.

Homosexuality is nothing of the sort, it is not about power, it is not rape, gay people fall in love with eachother and form sexual attractions and consentual relationships just as straight people do, the only difference is that they are attracted to people of their own gender.

There is no basis to call that a "Disorder", there is no evidence that this behaviour is caused by any deep seated trauma, or even that people do it to compensate for any feeling of inadequacy or to fill any emotional void caused by more serious underlying psychological problems, nor is there any evidence that Homesexuality is harmfull behaviour (the only threat of harm comes from bigots who might harm them for beeing different, but everyone faces that threat, you can be beat up for the clothes you like wearing, the bands you like listening to, the sports team you support or anything else under the sun).

What it is, is a minority, but a minority is not the same as a disorder, if it was, we would be calling all people with green eyes "sick", because green eyes are uncommon.

Here's what the dictionary has to say about your stated lack of correlation.

Dictionary.com
Zoophilia, from the Greek ζῷον (zṓion, "animal") and φιλία (philia, "friendship" or "love"), also known as bestiality, is the practice of sexual relations between humans and animals, or a preference or fixation on such practice. A person who practices zoophilia is known as a zoophile.[1]

Necrophilia, also called thanatophilia and necrolagnia, is a paraphilia characterized by a sexual attraction to corpses. The word is artificially derived from Ancient Greek: νεκρός (nekros; "corpse," or "dead") and φιλία (philia; "love"). The term appears[1] to have originated from Krafft-Ebing's 1886 work Psychopathia Sexualis.[2]

homosexuality [ˌhəʊməʊˌsɛksjʊˈælɪtɪ ˌhɒm-]
n
(Psychology) sexual attraction to or sexual relations with members of the same sex.

or elsewhere:
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=zoophilia
zoophilia, zoophilism (a sexual attraction to animals)

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=Necrophilia
necrophilia, necrophilism, necromania (an irresistible sexual attraction to dead bodies)

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=homosexuality
homosexuality, homosexualism, homoeroticism, queerness, gayness (a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex)

The key word here is 'attraction' they are all 3 abnormal (as defined by what is geneticly predisposed for our species and normal behavior for procreation). The other 2 are never argued as not being a disorder as they are harmful. The refinement to it not being a disorder was a placate-ment at best IMHO as it is, as you say, harmless.

Here is an analogy.
My great grandfather grew to be 7'8.5" (it is a recessive gene in my family) he lived to the age of 64 (he died in 1959) his height didn't hurt him any he didn't suffer from any ailments that afflict people with giant-ism (being genetic it is outside the technical definition of giant-ism). His height though harmless to him obviously helped define who he was. It was also a genetic disorder.

Homosexuality doesn't harm homosexuals but it does influence their thoughts and actions.

The definition was changed in my opinion to make homosexuals feel better about being homosexuals and psychologists feel better about not having the answers of what causes it or how to treat it. (Again I personally wouldn't recommend that even if we truly could).

 

[M.A.D.X.W]

What's your point anyway, why does it matter?

I wouldn't really think of anything as a disorder though, the opposite of a disorder is just an idea based of what is most common. But really people can't call something a disorder, it's just the way something is. There's no right or wrong way to be. Even if it is apparently abnormal or destructive it's still just normal existence.
It doesn't matter anyway though yerv.
-
And why do you weirdos talk about the constitution so much.

 

[Grobut]

Thouse are direct translations of the greek names, Fud, but it has nothing to do with the actual disorders and underlying causality and pathology of said disorders, that's just what they are called out of tradition, or put more simply: The Dictionary is not a good place to learn about Psychology, it is only a good place if your spelling sucks and you want to expand your vocabulary.

EDIT:

Here's another one for you: Francophile, AKA Francophilia; a person who is infatuated with the French language and/or French culture (and there exists a similar word for every culture you care to mention).

There you go, it has "phile" in it's name, so obviously, beeing a French-class geek is exactly the same as beeing a Pedophile or Necrophile! Yes indeed, you cannot be passionate about any language and not also rape children and corpses, the end.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Balton]

Here's what the dictionary has to say about your stated lack of correlation.

Dictionary.com
Zoophilia, from the Greek ζῷον (zṓion, "animal") and φιλία (philia, "friendship" or "love"), also known as bestiality, is the practice of sexual relations between humans and animals, or a preference or fixation on such practice. A person who practices zoophilia is known as a zoophile.[1]

Necrophilia, also called thanatophilia and necrolagnia, is a paraphilia characterized by a sexual attraction to corpses. The word is artificially derived from Ancient Greek: νεκρός (nekros; "corpse," or "dead") and φιλία (philia; "love"). The term appears[1] to have originated from Krafft-Ebing's 1886 work Psychopathia Sexualis.[2]

homosexuality [ˌhəʊməʊˌsɛksjʊˈælɪtɪ ˌhɒm-]
n
(Psychology) sexual attraction to or sexual relations with members of the same sex.

or elsewhere:
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=zoophilia
zoophilia, zoophilism (a sexual attraction to animals)

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=Necrophilia
necrophilia, necrophilism, necromania (an irresistible sexual attraction to dead bodies)

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=homosexuality
homosexuality, homosexualism, homoeroticism, queerness, gayness (a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex)

The key word here is 'attraction' they are all 3 abnormal (as defined by what is geneticly predisposed for our species and normal behavior for procreation). The other 2 are never argued as not being a disorder as they are harmful. The refinement to it not being a disorder was a placate-ment at best IMHO as it is, as you say, harmless.

Here is an analogy.
My great grandfather grew to be 7'8.5" (it is a recessive gene in my family) he lived to the age of 64 (he died in 1959) his height didn't hurt him any he didn't suffer from any ailments that afflict people with giant-ism (being genetic it is outside the technical definition of giant-ism). His height though harmless to him obviously helped define who he was. It was also a genetic disorder.

Homosexuality doesn't harm homosexuals but it does influence their thoughts and actions.

The definition was changed in my opinion to make homosexuals feel better about being homosexuals and psychologists feel better about not having the answers of what causes it or how to treat it. (Again I personally wouldn't recommend that even if we truly could).

:tup: arguing psychology with dictionary definitions.
If you dont see how you shape the image of texans in a bad way...

edit: that's a sarcastic :tup: