CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
While there might be some negative emotions due to relatives being unable to marry, there is also emotional harm in the relationship in the first place. Therefore it is in the states interest to discourage those sort of relationships.
JM

Where is the emotional harm in such relationships if they love each other and WANT to spend their lives together as husband and wife? You are the one seeing the harm, NOT THEM. By the state denying them this, there is a real harm being caused. Your religious beliefs aren't a straw man when they are the cause of your opinion on this subject. I love how you say that you don't mind if they don't know they are relatives, and agree not to have children. But if they know and want to have children... no way. Why shouldn't they be allowed to have children when a seirously sick person with a genetic disease who just happens to be married to person of the opposite sex can have children? Both have a seious risk of passing it along, but you think it's ok for one and not another.... get real.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
And mormons can live together and have sex together in any group they like. They just shouldn't get the state sponsership of marriage for their activities.

Why not... what logical reason is behind this opinion of yours besides a difference in religious beliefs.

And the instability of hetero-marriages is pretty bad too. Doesn't mean it isn't better than the other possibility.

My point is that hetero marriages aren't perfect, so why hold other variations up to a standard that sucks to begin with.

Nope. You are the one who isn't applying logic at all and is rather arguing from an idealistic fantasy land. Logic must be based on reality for it to be worth while applying to reality.
JM

Mine is not a fantasy land based on religious beliefs like yours is. My logic ignores bigoty and religious opinons, and is just what it is supposed to be... clean logic.

[Jon Miller]

I am saying that people who know they are relatives shouldn't be in a marriage period. No matter whether they want to have children or not.

It is emotionally bad for you to be in an incestal relationship. If you disagree, then all I can do is encourage you to read some.

The reason why I would be OK with allowing siblings who didn't know they were siblings to stay married (as long as they didn't have children) is because the emotional aspects relate to the emotional sibling relationship. Not to the physical sibling relationship.

JM

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Aeson


So you're saying China should require (at least a certain amount of) bigamy to account for their gender gap?

Somehow I think it would be easier to just stop killing baby girls

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Wouldn't that more be {bi, poly}andry?

Bigamy is the act of marrying a person when you are already married to another. So to close a gender gap where there are more males than females, it is implied that the females would marry more than one male. Bigamy and polyandry would both be suitable terms to use.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am saying that people who know they are relatives shouldn't be in a marriage period. No matter whether they want to have children or not.
It is emotionally bad for you to be in an incestal relationship. If you disagree, then all I can do is encourage you to read some.
JM

I have done my reading... and I guess my advantage is, I didn't just stick to books written from a religious bias. Am I saying that all relationships between relatives won't be bad.... NO. However, many relationships between non relatives are equally as bad... and some even worse. There are no guarantees in relationships. And not alllowing one, while allowing the other is simple discrimination. Just because a percentage of such relationships is harmful, doesn't mean you shouldn't allow them. Because if that was the case, NO MARRIAGES SHOULD EVER BE ALLOWED!

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ming
Why not... what logical reason is behind this opinion of yours besides a difference in religious beliefs.

I ahve given reasons over and over again. Instability in those relationships (among equals). Instability in society. Mental/emotional harm. These are all the results not of religion, but of reality. Please study some.

My point is that hetero marriages aren't perfect, so why hold other variations up to a standard that sucks to begin with.

Because they still provide some good things. Such as a good environment for children, stability, and health (in all facets of life). These other sorts of marriage fail in stability and health aspects (homosexual marriage only fails in bearing children aspect, which in today's soceity isn't as important).

Mine is not a fantasy land based on religious beliefs like yours is. My logic ignores bigoty and religious opinons, and is just what it is supposed to be... clean logic.

Logic without any basis in reality is useless when applied to reality. Apply logic to reality and you will think more similarly to how I am thinking.

JM
(And quit attacking the strawman of religion, would you? When I favored group marriage I was religious, just as I am religious now. It has nothing to do with my change to supporting monogamy. Rather, the study I did on the subject and observation of reality is what changed my mind.)

(Beleive me, I understand where you are coming from. As I have said, I have thought similiarly in the past, before I considered the real world.)

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
It is emotionally bad for you to be in an incestal relationship. If you disagree, then all I can do is encourage you to read some.

Yah... read about couples who got married and didn't know they were closely related. I mean, it's so obvious that it's a terrible thing that they didn't even know the terrible thing was affecting their relationship. They were just happily married instead of freaking out about their genetic similarities!?! WTF is wrong with them?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ming


I have done my reading... and I guess my advantage is, I didn't just stick to books written from a religious bias. Am I saying that all relationships between relatives won't be bad.... NO. However, many relationships between non relatives are equally as bad... and some even worse. There are no guarantees in relationships. And not alllowing one, while allowing the other is simple discrimination. Just because a percentage of such relationships is harmful, doesn't mean you shouldn't allow them. Because if that was the case, NO MARRIAGES SHOULD EVER BE ALLOWED!

The reading and studying I did weren't religious books at all.

I am saying that based on my understandings of psychology, any sexual relationship between siblings or parent/child is fundamentally unhealthy emotionally. I am not saying that there is more abuse/etc in a sexual relationship between siblings. I am saying that it is fundamentally unheathly.

Quite throwing discrimination out there until you can show that it provides everything that a heterosexual (or homosexual) marriage can provide.

JM

[Ming]

I have considered the real world. And there is no reason why children brought up by a larger group of parents than a simple couple cant be as good if not better than a traditional marrage. You are tying to make it sound like the ONLY and BEST way to bring up children is between a hetero couple. While in many hetero marriages, the children suffer. So again, no marriage should be sanctioned based on your critera.

And again, I have to bring up religion since you seem to think your religious beliefs are better than the mormons, who think it is acceptable to raise children in a different fashion because of their beliefs.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Aeson


Yah... read about couples who got married and didn't know they were closely related. I mean, it's so obvious that it's a terrible thing that they didn't even know the terrible thing was affecting their relationship. They were just happily married instead of freaking out about their genetic similarities!?! WTF is wrong with them?

Have you even read my posts?

I have said over and over again that it is unhealthy due to the emotional sibling relationship not the physical sibling relationship.

JM

[EPW]

Cultural bias

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am saying that it is fundamentally unheathly.
JM

No it isn't... that is an opinion held by some, but others disagree. And that's the point. It completely varies depending on the situation. Just like it does with hetero couples. There are no absolutes.
And you are arguing like it is an absolute. It isn't.

So all you are doing is cramming your beliefs down everybodies throat.

The state should sanction all or none.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ming
I have considered the real world. And there is no reason why children brought up by a larger group of parents than a simple couple cant be as good if not better than a traditional marrage. You are tying to make it sound like the ONLY and BEST way to bring up children is between a hetero couple. While in many hetero marriages, the children suffer. So again, no marriage should be sanctioned based on your critera.

And again, I have to bring up religion since you seem to think your religious beliefs are better than the mormons, who think it is acceptable to raise children in a different fashion because of their beliefs.

Once more, if you noticed my list of stability/health/children, I only put down children as a negative for incestal relationships, not for bigamist relationships. Although I would note that generally there is bigger problems with favoritism among group parents then in the whole.

This obviously has it's roots in biology.

The issues with bigamy is primarily stability, and secondary of emotional/mental health.

And obviously I think that my religious beleifs are better than the mormons. If I didn't think so, I would be a mormon, wouldn't I?

JM

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian


That's why it's depressing.

-Arrian

Keep in mind, though, that this was well before the national debate on the issue. I suspect that Californians are much less likely to pass an amendment banning same sex marriage today.

One is on the ballot in Florida. It needs 60% to win, and I suspect it will.