As I said... I prefer the American Quarter horse to the Tennessee Walker.
Cat, That one went completely over my head until you explained it to me.
As I said... I prefer the American Quarter horse to the Tennessee Walker.
Again, you are willing to discriminate against people who freely choose to have an incestuous relationship based on the possibility that they "may" pro-create, and that offspring may be physically or mentally handicapped???
D-DAY said:Some married couples with known genetic defects have children knowing that their offspring will inherit the faulty genes and even be physically or mentally challenged. Do we need to force these people to divorce so they don't do anymore damage to the gene pool?
I don't believe it can be called discrimation when actual harm is befalling someone. Can you make the connection between the legal term "discrimination" and not allowing incestual relationships between two people?
Systematically giving every couple genetic tests before they have sex is outlandish. Incestual relationships need no testing, though.
What harm? You are speculating that there are going to be children. I am talking about marriage, remember.
D-DAY said:If the argument that marriage is for procreation is an invalid one, since technically a homosexual couple cannot have children, then it is an invalid one for this case too.
D-DAY said:Children are not a given because marriage is involved, and therefore cannot be used as a basis for discrimination for incestuous couples.
Unfortunately, there is a fair amount of truth to that. Morality is ultimately subjective. Still, I do think that even subjectivity can be argued. Just look at Olympic sports that require judges to score performances based on certain criteria. I think that even though morality is subjective, you can still select goals you'd like a society to accomplish and see which rules give you the best shot at reaching those goals.
"You cannot get an ought from an is"
- David Hume
Morality isn't subjective. There is a right, and there is a wrong. However, no human being is the absolute authority.
So then how do you know what is right and wrong?
Morality isn't subjective. There is a right, and there is a wrong. However, no human being is the absolute authority.
Are you suggesting that if we allowed incestuous marriages that not one of them would ever produce even a single child?
You do bring up a good point, though. Before we can move on we need to define marriage. It's useless if we are both discussing two different ideals.
No, the argument against homosexuals is based on the fact that homosexual sex cannot produce a child. That is something totally different from my argument against incestuous couples having sex, because they *can* produce a child - a child with defects.
Both deal with procreation, or lack thereof, but that doesn't mean that they represent the same thing. One argument says "You cannot get married because you cannot have children", while the other says "You cannot get married (or even have sex for that matter) because you can produce a child with serious defects. That's not fair for the child."
If you use the argument that a couple that cannot have children shouldn't get married, then it actually backfires on many heterosexual couples and would force them to get a divorce because they cannot have a child.
Marriage or no marriage, incestuous people should not be allowed to reproduce because they can produce children with serious defects. That is not discrimination, that's preventing harm from befalling an innocent child.
You seem to be hung up on the "children" issue. The fact of the matter is you cannot have double standards when considering this an issue about civil rights. Children should not even come into the discussion of marriage rights, that is unless you plan on using it as a definition of marriage (ie. procreation purposes). In that case, the homosexuals and the incestors are out.
D-DAY said:Again, normal married couples with bad genes "knowingly" have children that will have physical and/or mental deformities. Who is there to protect these innocent children??? These people are allowed to re-produce at will, but its ok since the marriage is of the traditional variety?
You seem to be saying that morality is objective, if that is so, objectively proving what is moral and what isn't would be as simple as ojectively proving that 3 is greater than 2.
Have you ever heard of the "ought-is problem"?
Given knowledge of the way the world is, how can one know the way the world ought to be? David Hume posed that question, and I've yet to hear an answer to it.
Morality is objective. Just because we are incapable of providing definitive answers doesn't mean they don't exist.
And just because we are incapable of proving definitive answers doesn't mean that they do exist.
I could claim that certain colors are objectively prettier than others, and say that just because I cannot objectively prove it doesn't mean that there isn't objective proof for it.
The gay marriage debate boils down to this. A person's moral beliefs according to the Bible. Either you believe there is a Christian God and homosexuality is a sin or you don't. Many who do believe it is a sin also believe the lifestyle has a negative impact on society. They also believe if left unchecked homosexuality, along with other sins, lead to the moral decay of a society and can bring the wrath of god upon that country. If you don't believe the Bible the Christian mindset makes no sense and appears intollerant. This post is not to debate the subject. Only to demonstrate why it's debate can be so passionate and unwinable. Below are several passages giving Gods word on the subject.
Romans 1
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Religious beliefs are irrelevant, they do not influence law here in America. This is a civil rights issue and I've already explained how the Supreme Court views marriage.
When you can't win the argument attack the messenger calling them names. I was wondering when you would stoop to ad hominem attacks.
pain man said:Many of the legislators creating our laws are Christian and other religions. Even the judges on the Supreme Court have their religious beliefs. To say their religious beliefs are irrelevant is to live in a vaccum.
It's a Christian nation. Our laws are going to reflect our deep seated beliefs. That's human nature.