4/3/2013 1:37 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 1:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 12:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 11:58:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 11:50:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 5:57:00 AM (view original):
I did not give "inability to raise children as well" as a reason not to allow gay marriage.  Somebody else mentioned gays adopting children and I responded, as a tangental discussion.
So we agree that children have nothing to do with the gay marriage argument.
Sure.
Cool.

And your argument is that allowing gays to marry is a change to marriage?
Yes.
OK. I guess my response to that is, so what? Marriage has changed many times before.

It used to be a property arrangement. It was also a way for families to consolidate power. Marriages used to be arranged (and still are in some parts of the world). Wives used to be considered the property of their husbands. Adultery used to be a crime. Divorces not allowed (and then only allowed in certain circumstances). Marriages in the US used to be restricted to people of the same race and interracial marriage wasn't completely legal until 1967. And in many states gays are marrying now. The sky hasn't fallen. Marriage hasn't been ruined for anyone else.
Marriage has always been between males and females.  That's been a constant aspect of marriage, and universal in all cultures since the beginning of human civilization.

Do you deny that?
Nope. I'm saying that marriage has changed before. Marriage now includes gays. The sky isn't falling. Marriage is fine. What's the problem?
4/3/2013 1:38 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:31:00 PM (view original):
You obviously haven't read the entire thread.

I could care less if gays marry.  But I think it opens doors and I think we should determine if those doors should be open.  

I'm a "Let's operate now" rather than "Let's put a band-aid on it today and see how it is tomorrow" kind of guy.


I know that's not how things work in America courts but I think we'd be better off if it did.
I've don't like the "sets a bad precedent" argument here.  What precedent? We obviously won't allow incestuous marriage, mostly because of the offspring they produce.  But in your example, the extreme example of the 100 or so people who managed to fall in love with their sibling and is willing to makes themselves infertile to get married? Fine, let them get married too.  What else do you have?  The scenario of when aliens land and live among us? Can we marry them?
4/3/2013 1:38 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:36:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I'm not OK with sibling marriage.   I won't be.  Under any circumstance.   I was just arguing against your point of "They have other options!"

Let's assume all wives/husbands would have to consent to bringing another party into their marriage.     OK by you?
So you're on record as "not OK with sibling marriage."

Are you OK with gay marriage?
4/3/2013 1:40 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 1:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:31:00 PM (view original):
You obviously haven't read the entire thread.

I could care less if gays marry.  But I think it opens doors and I think we should determine if those doors should be open.  

I'm a "Let's operate now" rather than "Let's put a band-aid on it today and see how it is tomorrow" kind of guy.


I know that's not how things work in America courts but I think we'd be better off if it did.
I've don't like the "sets a bad precedent" argument here.  What precedent? We obviously won't allow incestuous marriage, mostly because of the offspring they produce.  But in your example, the extreme example of the 100 or so people who managed to fall in love with their sibling and is willing to makes themselves infertile to get married? Fine, let them get married too.  What else do you have?  The scenario of when aliens land and live among us? Can we marry them?
It's a slippery slope argument. He likes it because it provides a moving target and he can lump it in with gay marriage.

People use slippery slopes when they can't argue against the topic at hand. So they argue against other ridiculous things like toaster marriages and incest.
4/3/2013 1:41 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 1:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:31:00 PM (view original):
You obviously haven't read the entire thread.

I could care less if gays marry.  But I think it opens doors and I think we should determine if those doors should be open.  

I'm a "Let's operate now" rather than "Let's put a band-aid on it today and see how it is tomorrow" kind of guy.


I know that's not how things work in America courts but I think we'd be better off if it did.
I've don't like the "sets a bad precedent" argument here.  What precedent? We obviously won't allow incestuous marriage, mostly because of the offspring they produce.  But in your example, the extreme example of the 100 or so people who managed to fall in love with their sibling and is willing to makes themselves infertile to get married? Fine, let them get married too.  What else do you have?  The scenario of when aliens land and live among us? Can we marry them?

We're discussing what else I have.  Polygamy.   I think we figured this one out when you conceded infertile siblings should be allowed to marry under your standards.  Work on the other one.

4/3/2013 1:41 PM
For those who say it isn't "natural"...what does that matter?  Birth control isn't natural.  Ban it?

Maybe those people would say "yes" when you say birth control should be banned. Maybe they don't want people to do anything that isn't natural.

Or maybe they just don't want marriage to be unnatural and don't care about other topics such as birth control.

As for hiring people, keep in mind  my personal opinion is you should be able to hire the best candidate for the job regardless of their gender, race, ethnicity, beliefs, etc. That means if all the best candidates are men, or Asian, or muslim,  then that is what your work force would consist of.

I think it's ridiculous anyone an employer thinks is the best candidate should not be hired for a job, and it's even more ridiculous that anyone who is NOT the best candidate should be hired because of a personal trait that has nothing to do with the job itself.

This is another topic perhaps best discussed elsewhere, but I wanted to clarify that since it was brought up.
4/3/2013 1:42 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 1:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:36:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I'm not OK with sibling marriage.   I won't be.  Under any circumstance.   I was just arguing against your point of "They have other options!"

Let's assume all wives/husbands would have to consent to bringing another party into their marriage.     OK by you?
So you're on record as "not OK with sibling marriage."

Are you OK with gay marriage?
Read the thread. 

You force me to start ignoring you when you ask me to repeat myself.
4/3/2013 1:42 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:36:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I'm not OK with sibling marriage.   I won't be.  Under any circumstance.   I was just arguing against your point of "They have other options!"

Let's assume all wives/husbands would have to consent to bringing another party into their marriage.     OK by you?
This one, burnsy.
4/3/2013 1:43 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:36:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I'm not OK with sibling marriage.   I won't be.  Under any circumstance.   I was just arguing against your point of "They have other options!"

Let's assume all wives/husbands would have to consent to bringing another party into their marriage.     OK by you?
I don't know.  Probably, but I don't know for sure.  I don't know many polygamists and I haven't heard much about them.  If there was a thread here on "Should polygamy be legal" you wouldn't see me posting on it.

Why do you have no opinion on gay marriage but you're against sibling marriage?  Didn't we say they're the same thing? 
4/3/2013 1:48 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/3/2013 1:41:00 PM (view original):
For those who say it isn't "natural"...what does that matter?  Birth control isn't natural.  Ban it?

Maybe those people would say "yes" when you say birth control should be banned. Maybe they don't want people to do anything that isn't natural.

Or maybe they just don't want marriage to be unnatural and don't care about other topics such as birth control.

As for hiring people, keep in mind  my personal opinion is you should be able to hire the best candidate for the job regardless of their gender, race, ethnicity, beliefs, etc. That means if all the best candidates are men, or Asian, or muslim,  then that is what your work force would consist of.

I think it's ridiculous anyone an employer thinks is the best candidate should not be hired for a job, and it's even more ridiculous that anyone who is NOT the best candidate should be hired because of a personal trait that has nothing to do with the job itself.

This is another topic perhaps best discussed elsewhere, but I wanted to clarify that since it was brought up.
Cars aren't natural.  Nor computers.  Ban them.

Just marriage has to be "natural?" Why?

And I think it's ridiculous if a person thinks they found someone who is the best candidate to marry, that laws will tell them that they're wrong.
4/3/2013 1:57 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 1:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:36:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I'm not OK with sibling marriage.   I won't be.  Under any circumstance.   I was just arguing against your point of "They have other options!"

Let's assume all wives/husbands would have to consent to bringing another party into their marriage.     OK by you?
I don't know.  Probably, but I don't know for sure.  I don't know many polygamists and I haven't heard much about them.  If there was a thread here on "Should polygamy be legal" you wouldn't see me posting on it.

Why do you have no opinion on gay marriage but you're against sibling marriage?  Didn't we say they're the same thing? 
Well, I'll explain briefly.

I believe it's possible to love a sibling like no other.   I believe it's possible to love the same sex like no other.  I believe it's possible to love two people equally regardless of sex.   So, if one believes these things to be true, one really should have some logical objection to the union of said people or they should just STFU.  And here you go:

Sibling:  They've known one another their entire lives.   No one but them knows their exact history.   It's troubling to me, even in sterile situations, because there is the possiblity that one holds some sort of sway over the other.    "Hey, sis, get me my Legos", "Hey, sis, get me a soda", "Hey, sis, suck my dick", "Hey, sis, we're getting married."     I'd rather deny a million "legit" sibling marriages than have one that began forming when both were still poopin' their pants.

Same sex:  No real objection to man/man or woman/woman marriage.   But the overwhelming reason for it is "They're in love.  They want to be married.  Let them be happy."   None of which is a problem but it isn't applicable to just this particular marriage.    So I believe it cracks a door to the next one.

Polygamy:   The marriage of multiple people.  As I mentioned above, I think it's possible for consenting adults to love more than one person.  To love them so much they want to marry them.  So, if we apply "They're in love.  They want to be married.  Let them be happy", we have polygamy.  Much like everything in our lives, we want more.   So it would quickly evolve from one man/two women or two men/one woman.   We'd have multiple people.   And, if you buy into "They're in love.  They want to be married.  Let them be happy", you can't restrict the number.   Now you've got hundreds of people legally married to one another.   I see that as problematic.   And, because of this, I need more than "They're in love.  They want to be married.  Let them be happy" to get behind gay marriage.   Having no opinion seems to be the appropriate position for me.   I'm not going to object to it but I'm not marching on DC in support either.
4/3/2013 2:00 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 1:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 12:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 11:58:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 11:50:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 5:57:00 AM (view original):
I did not give "inability to raise children as well" as a reason not to allow gay marriage.  Somebody else mentioned gays adopting children and I responded, as a tangental discussion.
So we agree that children have nothing to do with the gay marriage argument.
Sure.
Cool.

And your argument is that allowing gays to marry is a change to marriage?
Yes.
OK. I guess my response to that is, so what? Marriage has changed many times before.

It used to be a property arrangement. It was also a way for families to consolidate power. Marriages used to be arranged (and still are in some parts of the world). Wives used to be considered the property of their husbands. Adultery used to be a crime. Divorces not allowed (and then only allowed in certain circumstances). Marriages in the US used to be restricted to people of the same race and interracial marriage wasn't completely legal until 1967. And in many states gays are marrying now. The sky hasn't fallen. Marriage hasn't been ruined for anyone else.
Marriage has always been between males and females.  That's been a constant aspect of marriage, and universal in all cultures since the beginning of human civilization.

Do you deny that?
Nope. I'm saying that marriage has changed before. Marriage now includes gays. The sky isn't falling. Marriage is fine. What's the problem?

The other "changes" to marriage have all been ancillary changes.  The most fundamental aspect of marriage is that it is between a man and a woman, and always has been since the begining of human civilization, across all cultures.

The "problem" is changing the fundamental definition of marriage to be something other than what it has always been since the beginning of time, just to be trendy and make people feel good about themselves ("Hooray!  Look at me!  I support gays!").  It's a knee-jerk reaction of the political correctness movement that started around 25 years or so ago that has gone to extremes to the point of absurdity.

Political correctness is not a reason to **** all over tens of thousands of years of human culture and tradition.

Can I say that any more clearly?

4/3/2013 2:11 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 1:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:36:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I'm not OK with sibling marriage.   I won't be.  Under any circumstance.   I was just arguing against your point of "They have other options!"

Let's assume all wives/husbands would have to consent to bringing another party into their marriage.     OK by you?
So you're on record as "not OK with sibling marriage."

Are you OK with gay marriage?
Read the thread. 

You force me to start ignoring you when you ask me to repeat myself.
I just want you to be clear.

Based on the thread, I'll infer that you are not OK with gay marriage.
4/3/2013 2:12 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 2:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 1:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 12:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 11:58:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 11:50:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 5:57:00 AM (view original):
I did not give "inability to raise children as well" as a reason not to allow gay marriage.  Somebody else mentioned gays adopting children and I responded, as a tangental discussion.
So we agree that children have nothing to do with the gay marriage argument.
Sure.
Cool.

And your argument is that allowing gays to marry is a change to marriage?
Yes.
OK. I guess my response to that is, so what? Marriage has changed many times before.

It used to be a property arrangement. It was also a way for families to consolidate power. Marriages used to be arranged (and still are in some parts of the world). Wives used to be considered the property of their husbands. Adultery used to be a crime. Divorces not allowed (and then only allowed in certain circumstances). Marriages in the US used to be restricted to people of the same race and interracial marriage wasn't completely legal until 1967. And in many states gays are marrying now. The sky hasn't fallen. Marriage hasn't been ruined for anyone else.
Marriage has always been between males and females.  That's been a constant aspect of marriage, and universal in all cultures since the beginning of human civilization.

Do you deny that?
Nope. I'm saying that marriage has changed before. Marriage now includes gays. The sky isn't falling. Marriage is fine. What's the problem?

The other "changes" to marriage have all been ancillary changes.  The most fundamental aspect of marriage is that it is between a man and a woman, and always has been since the begining of human civilization, across all cultures.

The "problem" is changing the fundamental definition of marriage to be something other than what it has always been since the beginning of time, just to be trendy and make people feel good about themselves ("Hooray!  Look at me!  I support gays!").  It's a knee-jerk reaction of the political correctness movement that started around 25 years or so ago that has gone to extremes to the point of absurdity.

Political correctness is not a reason to **** all over tens of thousands of years of human culture and tradition.

Can I say that any more clearly?

I understand what you're saying. My question is, what's the harm in changing marriage to allows gays to marry? We've already done it. Marriage hasn't collapsed. What's the problem?
4/3/2013 2:14 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 1:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:36:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I'm not OK with sibling marriage.   I won't be.  Under any circumstance.   I was just arguing against your point of "They have other options!"

Let's assume all wives/husbands would have to consent to bringing another party into their marriage.     OK by you?
I don't know.  Probably, but I don't know for sure.  I don't know many polygamists and I haven't heard much about them.  If there was a thread here on "Should polygamy be legal" you wouldn't see me posting on it.

Why do you have no opinion on gay marriage but you're against sibling marriage?  Didn't we say they're the same thing? 
Well, I'll explain briefly.

I believe it's possible to love a sibling like no other.   I believe it's possible to love the same sex like no other.  I believe it's possible to love two people equally regardless of sex.   So, if one believes these things to be true, one really should have some logical objection to the union of said people or they should just STFU.  And here you go:

Sibling:  They've known one another their entire lives.   No one but them knows their exact history.   It's troubling to me, even in sterile situations, because there is the possiblity that one holds some sort of sway over the other.    "Hey, sis, get me my Legos", "Hey, sis, get me a soda", "Hey, sis, suck my dick", "Hey, sis, we're getting married."     I'd rather deny a million "legit" sibling marriages than have one that began forming when both were still poopin' their pants.

Same sex:  No real objection to man/man or woman/woman marriage.   But the overwhelming reason for it is "They're in love.  They want to be married.  Let them be happy."   None of which is a problem but it isn't applicable to just this particular marriage.    So I believe it cracks a door to the next one.

Polygamy:   The marriage of multiple people.  As I mentioned above, I think it's possible for consenting adults to love more than one person.  To love them so much they want to marry them.  So, if we apply "They're in love.  They want to be married.  Let them be happy", we have polygamy.  Much like everything in our lives, we want more.   So it would quickly evolve from one man/two women or two men/one woman.   We'd have multiple people.   And, if you buy into "They're in love.  They want to be married.  Let them be happy", you can't restrict the number.   Now you've got hundreds of people legally married to one another.   I see that as problematic.   And, because of this, I need more than "They're in love.  They want to be married.  Let them be happy" to get behind gay marriage.   Having no opinion seems to be the appropriate position for me.   I'm not going to object to it but I'm not marching on DC in support either.
Slippery slope.

Allowing gay marriage doesn't force us to allow polygamy. Just like allowing interracial marriage didn't force us to allow polygamy.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.