CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Evidence:


Arthur Wolf carried out a study of 14,200 Taiwanese minor marriages between 1957 and 1995. (A minor marriage is a Chinese custom by which a family adopts an infant girl, with the intention of later marrying the girl to their son.) Wolf discovered that the children in question often strongly resisted the idea of marrying when they were of age, that they were three times likely to become divorced, produced 40% fewer children, and the wives were three times more likely to commit adultery. He identified the key factor as the closeness of the relationship during the first thirty months of the lives of both partners. The more time they had spent together during those crucial first thirty months, the more likely they were to reject the idea of marriage and more likely any subsequent marriage would fail.

Further evidence arose with the work of Joseph Shepher in 1960s in Israeli Kibbutzim. There children where raised collectively in creches, and Shepher found that not only did children raised in such an enviroment not marry within their kibbutz peer group, but that there were no instances of any sexual contact whatsover between peer group members.

Interesting. There are other mammal species with "hard coded" restrictions on dominance and (therefore) mating within the pack, including I think, gorillas!

Sorry about the sentence structure, I've been drinking.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SpencerH

OTOH, I'm not gay so perhaps its not my battle to fight and I should merely support people closer to the issue who I respect, such as Wittlich.

I fully welcome straight allies in our civil rights struggle -- even if you and I have some disagreements about what happened in the early AIDS crisis in United States.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
You told me you disagreed with me.

No, I mocked your position on a specific issue. That being, that incestuous relationships are inherently unhealthy.

Your attempt to pretend that by doing so I disagree with anything and everything you've said in this thread is beyond stupid.

I only lumped you in with Ming when you replied that I was wrong when I was responding to him.

I specified what I was talking about. You ignored that and lumped me in with Ming about a separate issue.

If so, it was brought about by you not being clear in our discussion.

If by "not clear", you mean talking specifically about a specific issue, then yes, I was "not clear".

So patronizing!

You make it easy

This is the point that I have been trying to make. Statistically it is true that something is bad. That means that most of the time it is bad, and since most of the time it is bad, then the government should not support it. This is not saying that there is never excepts

That is not the point I addressed though. You still can't understand what I said.

When you say it is fundamentally unhealthy, you are saying there is an unhealthy effect always prevalent in the issue. There can be no exceptions, otherwise your statement is false. That is what I addressed.

I am glad you can admit there are exceptions though. If only you would use the "logic" you so dislike to understand why the exceptions occur, perhaps you could understand what the real issue is, and how the unhealthy symptoms that show in such relationships can be because of other factors than simply the genetic relation between the two parties in the relationship.

I never claimed that there wasn't ever a 3 person relationship where everyone was treated equally and were emotionally healthy that was stable. I said it wasn't very likely, and most of the time it isn't stable and is emotionally unhealthy.

Are you seriously that far gone? I have not discussed anything about polygamy in this thread and you keep coming back to argue against me as if I am. You say the reason you do so is I've been unclear, yet I've flat out told you this before.

I am talking about incestuous relationships, specifically, your statement that they are fundamentally unhealthy. Sorry that you find this so confusing to understand. I mean, it's only what I quoted, talked about, and told you I had talked about. Is that really that difficult to figure out?

I don't think you really understand what statistics is?

I understand statistics. You are the one ignorant of what is going on here.

I am pointing out the completely retarded assertion you made that incestuous relationships are fundamentally unhealthy.

They are not fundamentally unhealthy unless all incestuous relationships display that unhealthiness. And they don't. I've referred you to specific cases where this is obvious. (Those cases you continue to either ignore or fail to understand.)

So I have the 6th grade reading level, but you fail in reading so that you don't see that I have already addressed this?

You didn't address my statements in that regard. The first time you ignored the entire issue of taboo and unknown relation, and instead just hid behind some inane "it's emotional" crap. The next time you addressed the taboo, but only in regards to sibling-sibling, which is not the same thing. What I address was cousin-cousin/first cousin. So no, you never addressed my statements about cousin-cousin, and how various cultures view those relationships differently... except to throw up strawmen.

Ah, so you didn't understand me. I thought that might be the case.

I understand what you say. The only thing I don't understand is how the hell you can come up with such nonsense.

Huh? I now am beginning to think that you haven't understood one thing that I have said. I pointed out that the issue was with the sibling relationship (or parent child). I pointed this out again and again, yet you continue to ignore me, and now accuse me of not comprehending what you wrote.

You were referencing a statement I had made about cousin-cousin. You did so specifically to "address" what I had said. (As you noted at least twice.) But when you did so, you addressed sibling-sibling in regards to cultural taboo, and not first cousin-cousin, which was the example.

Now you are trying to pretend that addressing cultural differences in regards to first cousins-cousins is achieved by addressing sibling-sibling taboo and not cousin-cousin taboo. That is ridiculous.

Why would emotional unhealthiness, which is caused by relationships, manifest itself where no emotional relationship has existed?

Because awareness of the relation is not fundamental to incestuous relationships. Thus results of the awareness cannot be considered fundamental to the relationship. Regardless of what those results are. The fundamental aspects of an incestuous relation are the couple's relation to each other, and the status of their romantic/physical relationship. That's what defines an incestuous relationship. "Unhealthy" does not.

As I said, this becomes more clear when you look at relationships across cultures, where taboo varies. First cousin relationships are the best example, since there are cultures which view such with no taboo, and other cultures view the same with taboo. That is why I bring it up, to help show the correlation of the guilt, shame, and social pressures to the taboo.

The same factors will apply in other quite unrelated cases where there is a cultural taboo. For example, there are homosexuals who end up feeling guilt or shame because their communities have a taboo on their status. (Thankfully, this is becoming less and less an issue, at least in the civilized world.) Homosexuality is not fundamentally unhealthy, but the effects of social stigma on homosexuals certainly can lead to unhealthiness.

I myself felt a lot of guilt and shame when growing up due to religious pressures. I didn't believe the way everyone I knew did, and that caused me a lot of problems. It's not that believing the way I do is fundamentally a problem... it's was the social stigmas I was raised with that were cause of the problems.

Similarly, the guilt and shame are not fundamental to incestuous relations... they are results of the predominate social stigmas attached to them. Thus in cases where the social stigmas do not apply, it becomes apparent that there is no real fundamental problem to the incestuous relationship. Indeed, people often can't differentiate between the incestuous relationship and others without the information that it is indeed an incestuous relationship.

Bad conclusion. As I pointed out, this is emotional harm, why are you considering biological relationship and not emotional relationship?

An incestuous relationship is defined by the biological relation between the couple. You can emotionally feel someone is your sister, but it doesn't make the relationship incestuous unless she really is your sister.

You are just trying to hide behind some inane point and ignore what incestuous relationships actually are, so that you can continue to make fallacious statements about incestuous relationships.

At least I am an adult.

You want to pretend like condescension is bad, and then engage in it yourself. You are a hypocrite.

(Myself, I don't pretend condescension is bad in this particular instance. If I was going to make such a point, I surely wouldn't be condescending about it in any case, that's just retarded.)

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by MrFun
I fully welcome straight allies in our civil rights struggle -- even if you and I have some disagreements about what happened in the early AIDS crisis in United States.

I'm glad of your support MrFun for our mutual cause - but let's not bring in the early AIDS crisis which could fog-up the current situation at hand - that being "Same-Sex Marriage."

[Nugog]

Adults who love each other getting married

[TCO]

What about 3 person marriages? Why should the rights of like to have sex with same genderers have greater weight than the rights of like to have 2 chicks guys?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Evidence:

You do realize that what you posted is not dealing with incestuous relationships, right? In fact it shows that at least some of the problems are not fundamental to incestuous relationships, but rather to proximity in formative years.

Hilariously enough, it's Freud's position, the one refuted in that evidence, which would support your own. Since it refers to actual incestuous instincts, and why it is important that there be restrictions upon them.

The other studies are dealing with children who are not biologically related, and who don't display an attraction for their peer group. Quite different from those who do display an attraction for their siblings.

[Jon Miller]

I think that you just don't understand my position Aeson. Please read the link I posted, where I gave it back some 200 posts.

JM

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

Logic without evidence is just intellectual masturbation. Completely worthless.

JM

What is the evidence for that claim? It looks suspiciously like an attempt at a logical truth to me.

Pwned.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Wittlich


I'm glad of your support MrFun for our mutual cause - but let's not bring in the early AIDS crisis which could fog-up the current situation at hand - that being "Same-Sex Marriage."

Apparently, the thread is no longer about equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

Now, it's about incestuous relationships.

[Wezil]

Yeah, equality has it's downside. Your threads get jacked like everyone else's.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Wezil
Yeah, equality has it's downside. Your threads get jacked like everyone else's.

You bastard!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Wezil
Yeah, equality has it's downside. Your threads get jacked like everyone else's.

Is it really a jack if it covers the same issues?

[Wezil]

How far off the thread topic do you have to stray before it becomes a threadjack? Perhaps Slowwhands chicken and egg thread holds the answers.

[MrFun]

Are you seriously saying that Slowwy holds the keys to enlightenment??