What a travisty - Page 13 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: PLease consult a physician before whoring.
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > General Forums > Political Debate Forum

 
Click here to go to the first VIP post in this thread.  
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2012-07-09, 02:07 PM   [Ignore Me] #181
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: What a travisty


But Sheppy, it's so much easier to lump everything together that relates to the word "sex" and isn't explicitly understood nor cared for by the person making the generalisations and links! D:

You're undermine everything they stand for!

Next you'll say having sex with animals is nothing like a woman having sex with a man, as you can't make the comparison just because both may involve a penis and one is consenting and the other isn't, because in theory the woman may not be consenting either and aaaargh someone's brain is about the explode by now! D:






<3
Figment is offline  
Old 2012-07-09, 03:31 PM   [Ignore Me] #182
ziegler
Master Sergeant
 
ziegler's Avatar
 
Re: What a travisty


I am thinking you didnt actually read the link you gave on polygamy. It seems to actually support it or shows that the negative parts of it comes from religious beliefs practiced in the family and not the actual polygamy itself.

The other link goes to poke holes in the way the studies were conducted, but it doesnt actually provide any actual study that disproves those findings either. They just say....this isnt done correctly so that invalidates the findings. That isnt the same thing as doing your own study and it's findings show different results. NAMBLA is still out there and doing fine.

Going so far as to say...well, pedophilia is liking prepubescent children, therefore that isnt the same as child molestation of teenagers, and that invalidates the results. Splitting fine hairs it is.

Either way, I am not taking the stance that all homosexuals are molesters or deviants or vice versa. I'm not gay...but I am deviant.

But that still doesnt invalidate my stance of....if 3 adults enter into a marriage, it is not the governments place to tell those 3 consenting adults that they cant enter into a marriage. I also didnt see anything in that polygamy paper about swinging or the polygamous relationships that exist through that lifestyle, they only attacked the religious ones and the problems come from the religious teachings/beliefs, not the polygamy itself.


Once we get through with tickling this one...we can start on incest.
ziegler is offline  
Old 2012-07-09, 03:55 PM   [Ignore Me] #183
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: What a travisty


Originally Posted by elfailo View Post
So how does Romney feel about polygamy?
Oh dear, mormons.




To be fair. Hit under the belt really, but yes. Good question. He tends to avoid the answer by stating his grandfather wasn't a polygamist (didn't marry more than one wife, which could have reasons like others having taken all the American women already and them having migrated to catholic Mexico in flight of a ban on polygamous weddings ). Meaning he does not imply he was against it, or didn't support or approve of it, just that they never practiced it.

http://www.inquisitr.com/222879/mitt...ampaign-trail/

Again, it also doesn't mean they did support it, his parents supported it or that he supports it.

More so, only splinter groups of the mormon churches are still said to practice polygamy. Communities that fled the use in 1890 typically did just that. Including the one his father was born and raised in. However, that same father did not stay there, so it's well possible he didn't quite agree with it.


Either way, suggesting Romney supports plural marriage is somewhat pushing it right now, since his direct family has only practiced monogamy and he's no exception. Question of course is, is that because he believes that's how it should be, or because it's illegal now?

But, is it relevant? One cannot honestly think that even if he'd get into office, he'd find the support to change that. It's a non-issue and a private matter, tbh.

Originally Posted by ziegler View Post
Either way, I am not taking the stance that all homosexuals are molesters or deviants or vice versa. I'm not gay...but I am deviant
But that still doesnt invalidate my stance of....if 3 adults enter into a marriage, it is not the governments place to tell those 3 consenting adults that they cant enter into a marriage.
I'm going to cut up these quotes and call you a hypocrite.

How is it okay for three consenting adults to marry, of which two are at least of the same sex, but not for two?
Figment is offline  
Old 2012-07-09, 04:28 PM   [Ignore Me] #184
ziegler
Master Sergeant
 
ziegler's Avatar
 
Re: What a travisty


Originally Posted by Figment View Post


I'm going to cut up these quotes and call you a hypocrite.

How is it okay for three consenting adults to marry, of which two are at least of the same sex, but not for two?
how is that? I stated I would support gay marriage as soon as polygamy is allowed as well.

It would be like....I only agree with equal rights for blacks, if asians can have equal rights as well.
ziegler is offline  
Old 2012-07-09, 05:02 PM   [Ignore Me] #185
ItsTheSheppy
Second Lieutenant
 
ItsTheSheppy's Avatar
 
Re: What a travisty


Originally Posted by ziegler View Post
I am thinking you didnt actually read the link you gave on polygamy. It seems to actually support it or shows that the negative parts of it comes from religious beliefs practiced in the family and not the actual polygamy itself.

The other link goes to poke holes in the way the studies were conducted, but it doesnt actually provide any actual study that disproves those findings either. They just say....this isnt done correctly so that invalidates the findings. That isnt the same thing as doing your own study and it's findings show different results. NAMBLA is still out there and doing fine.

Going so far as to say...well, pedophilia is liking prepubescent children, therefore that isnt the same as child molestation of teenagers, and that invalidates the results. Splitting fine hairs it is.

Either way, I am not taking the stance that all homosexuals are molesters or deviants or vice versa. I'm not gay...but I am deviant.

But that still doesnt invalidate my stance of....if 3 adults enter into a marriage, it is not the governments place to tell those 3 consenting adults that they cant enter into a marriage. I also didnt see anything in that polygamy paper about swinging or the polygamous relationships that exist through that lifestyle, they only attacked the religious ones and the problems come from the religious teachings/beliefs, not the polygamy itself.


Once we get through with tickling this one...we can start on incest.
First off, I'm not sure what you're looking for in those studies. I don't think you really understand how science works. You see, it's not like religion. It doesn't deal with absolutes. What science does is collect evidence and then make assumptions based on that evidence. We have a lot of evidence that suggests gravity exists, so we assume it will continue to do so unless there is evidence to suggest that it might not.

Also, proper science is always conducted with a full attention to honesty. If a study has potential flaws, those flaws are mentioned; not doing so is intellectually dishonest and bad science. So you see, the more honest a study is in its findings and methods, the more you can trust the results.

Also, if you read through the entire study (about the myth of homosexuality being linked to pedophilia) you will find that despite some of the flaws located in the study, the preponderance of evidence on display suggests no link. Be wary of your confirmation bias. If you don't know what that is, wikipedia it.

On to your comments about polygamy.

You're still not getting what I'm saying. I'll spell it out slowly, in big words, so that it's as clear as I can make it in the English language. Propping up polygamy as a counter to homosexual marriage is a fallacy, because the implied moral flaws with polygamy don't exist in monogamous homosexual relationships. There is no common link, other than the fact that sex and marriage is involved. Apples and oranges are also both fruits, but you cannot say you don't like apples because you bit into an orange once and didn't like the taste of citrus. They are different things and bringing up polygamy is a smokescreen that betrays how little actual solid evidence you have on hand to suggest that gay marriage is bad; we would have heard of it by now.

If you want to make a case for polygamy, go for it. I'm dead serious. I'll post in that thread. You're right; there is evidence to suggest that certain polygamist relationships can work. The legality of such a thing is certainly in question, and I don't feel that the evidence is, as I said, a slam-dunk. But do not bring it up as a counter to gay marriage because they are not even close to the same thing.
__________________
Guru
ItsTheSheppy is offline  
Old 2012-07-09, 11:58 PM   [Ignore Me] #186
CutterJohn
Colonel
 
Re: What a travisty


And whats wrong with polygamy anyway? We can't make gay marriage legal because then polygamy would be legal!

Yeah? And? Why isn't it legal? It is not my business how or with whom consenting adults wish to arrange their relationships. In fact, I really can't think of anything that is less my business.
CutterJohn is offline  
Old 2012-07-10, 07:23 AM   [Ignore Me] #187
ItsTheSheppy
Second Lieutenant
 
ItsTheSheppy's Avatar
 
Re: What a travisty


Originally Posted by CutterJohn View Post
And whats wrong with polygamy anyway? We can't make gay marriage legal because then polygamy would be legal!

Yeah? And? Why isn't it legal? It is not my business how or with whom consenting adults wish to arrange their relationships. In fact, I really can't think of anything that is less my business.
At the risk of derailing the thread further, a large enough portion of polygamist situations have been found to be abusive, restrictive, or hazardous to children's development that there is a reasonable secular case against it. The kicker here is informed consent; in many cases, the women feel like they don't have a choice, not that they're making the choice to be married to a polygamist fully conscious of the opportunities available to them.

This is my principle objection to the Amish. For all that they allow their young adults to go out into the world and experience it before making their 'choice', the choice isn't entirely informed. Think about it; their family, friends, and entire support structure is rooted in their home community; they are likely to return to it at first opportunity because they don't know anything else. Each generation is raised dependent on their insular community, so the consent isn't informed.
__________________
Guru
ItsTheSheppy is offline  
 
  PlanetSide Universe > General Forums > Political Debate Forum

Bookmarks

Discord

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:22 PM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.