What's your take on marriages?

Debate about anything going on in the world.
Please remember everyone has their own opinion

Re: What's your take on marriages?

Postby Maradonna » Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:46 pm

CukiZeGerman wrote:
Maradonna wrote:love how people quoted scripture to be taken literally, then they complain about fundamentalist.


Considering that a lot of people take it literally it's alarming.
There are also a lot of people which take the quran literally (Wahhabism).

They prefer Salafis, wahhabism is a bit deminetory, it's like Mormons, they dont like that word.
funny anecdote, in my course there are 2 mormons and 1 suni islam dude, the muslim dude is a specialist in the mormon Jesus and he is studying the why Smith placed Jesus on America during precolombine ages. He claims that Mormonism is the most American religion in the world, because Jesus walked the land where the dreams come true, Jesus doing the America. Jesus been an inmigrant, Jesus been a puritan. The 2 mormons, 1 study hinduism, he is really into Ganesh, his tesis is about the holy trinity and hinduism (yes, i cant believe it either, but historically this "mistery" of god been human and god, and the son of god, and the holy spirit all at the same time, he claims that its bramanic) the other mormon is studing Paul the apostle.
Im, probably the only one in my class that has no strong religious background or history whatsoever. Im trying to study how genocide is related to divinity, how the divine relates to the massacre, how blood spread is prove of god existence. Im interested in monotheistic religions, thats why im no christian. Im studing trought the israelites (prior Rome entering the holy temple) and how they relate genocide exclusion and suffering with the divine.
So when you start to study religion from an academic point of view, you realized that you missed so much regarding history specially, you understand how complex are some views and how simplifided are in todays world the same views.
its fascinating, and no im not trying to be a priest.
Maradonna
David Rocastle
David Rocastle
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 6:34 pm
Location: Villa Crespo

Re: What's your take on marriages?

Postby whee » Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:57 pm

Anybody got anything nice planned for the weekend?
whee
David Rocastle
David Rocastle
 
Posts: 4643
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:58 pm

Re: What's your take on marriages?

Postby GoonerAlexandre » Thu Oct 08, 2015 4:12 pm

whee wrote:Anybody got anything nice planned for the weekend?

Yes, protesting at a gay marriage nearby with Westboro
User avatar
GoonerAlexandre
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 23775
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:31 am

Re: What's your take on marriages?

Postby DiamondGooner » Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:21 pm

StLGooner wrote:
Maradonna wrote:
StLGooner wrote:Who the f**k are you and anyone else to tell them who they can and can't have sex with.


that was NAMBLA argument against pedophile laws.



Seriously, OMG please f***ing stop with your ridiculous statements and just plainly idiotic arguments. I think you and Alexis have clearly shown your bigotry and complete disrespect for certain types of people and groups and just plain ignorance.


Can you fkin believe this guy (Maradonna) I'm usually a pretty impartial guy but I've never liked him and its sh*t arguments like this that are the reason.

How in fks name can you compare two adult consensual men having sex with an adult preying on kids, some as young as babies and toddlers?? the idiocy here is stunning!

Sleeping with someone below the age of consent is rape especially the age Paedo's usually go for, that is not a comparison with being Gay that is a comparison with a man forcing a woman to have sex.
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
Member of the Year 2018
Member of the Year 2018
 
Posts: 21217
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: What's your take on marriages?

Postby Héctor24 » Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:23 pm

DiamondGooner wrote:
StLGooner wrote:
Maradonna wrote:
StLGooner wrote:Who the f**k are you and anyone else to tell them who they can and can't have sex with.


that was NAMBLA argument against pedophile laws.



Seriously, OMG please f***ing stop with your ridiculous statements and just plainly idiotic arguments. I think you and Alexis have clearly shown your bigotry and complete disrespect for certain types of people and groups and just plain ignorance.


Can you fkin believe this guy (Maradonna) I'm usually a pretty impartial guy but I've never liked him and its sh*t arguments like this that are the reason.

How in fks name can you compare two adult consensual men having sex with an adult preying on kids, some as young as babies and toddlers?? the idiocy here is stunning!

Sleeping with someone below the age of consent is rape especially the age Paedo's usually go for, that is not a comparison with being Gay that is a comparison with a man forcing a woman to have sex.


why do people embelish other peoples arguments and then argue as if thats what the person said.
Héctor24
Nigel Winterburn
Nigel Winterburn
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:10 pm

Re: What's your take on marriages?

Postby DiamondGooner » Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:33 pm

Héctor24 wrote:
StLGooner wrote:
No you don't. Adults having sex with children and two consensual adults having sex is not even close to being the same thing. And then to have a set of beliefs and dogma that criticize a group of people based on their sexual preference is just wrong.


i gave incest as an example too. That can be between two adults. For example to adult siblings cannot get married.

But in response to what you said. I said consensual and in anticipation to what i believe you might say. Who are you to tell a person no matter what age they are what they can and cannot consent to.


There are laws of man which aren't always right and there are basic laws of nature, scientifically proven and shown examples of nature itself saying "That is bad".

E.g if you engage in incest there is a big likelihood your babies will be retarded or deformed in some way, also young girls can be damaged from having sex with an adult because they are not sexually mature ......... that is nature giving you rules, ones we all (decent people) know is right.

Would I lock someone up for incest? not if their consenting adults but we all know its wrong, often people get emotional issues as well from doing it so the negative side effects are there.

Children are A) Not in a position to decide for themselves as they are under their parents guidance and B) not naturally sexually mature.
Paedo's prey on helpless children who can't defend themselves and without permission from their parents, how the fk do you even begin to equate that with adult consensual sex?
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
Member of the Year 2018
Member of the Year 2018
 
Posts: 21217
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: What's your take on marriages?

Postby DiamondGooner » Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:36 pm

Héctor24 wrote:why do people embelish other peoples arguments and then argue as if thats what the person said.


OMFG he said Paedophiles ........ and your saying that's "embellishing" gtfo of here, what do you think a Paedo is ffs?
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
Member of the Year 2018
Member of the Year 2018
 
Posts: 21217
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: What's your take on marriages?

Postby Héctor24 » Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:49 pm

DiamondGooner wrote:
Héctor24 wrote:
StLGooner wrote:
No you don't. Adults having sex with children and two consensual adults having sex is not even close to being the same thing. And then to have a set of beliefs and dogma that criticize a group of people based on their sexual preference is just wrong.


i gave incest as an example too. That can be between two adults. For example to adult siblings cannot get married.

But in response to what you said. I said consensual and in anticipation to what i believe you might say. Who are you to tell a person no matter what age they are what they can and cannot consent to.


There are laws of man which aren't always right and there are basic laws of nature, scientifically proven and shown examples of nature itself saying "That is bad".

E.g if you engage in incest there is a big likelihood your babies will be retarded or deformed in some way, also young girls can be damaged from having sex with an adult because they are not sexually mature ......... that is nature giving you rules, ones we all (decent people) know is right.

Would I lock someone up for incest? not if their consenting adults but we all know its wrong, often people get emotional issues as well from doing it so the negative side effects are there.

Children are A) Not in a position to decide for themselves as they are under their parents guidance and B) not naturally sexually mature.
Paedo's prey on helpless children who can't defend themselves and without permission from their parents, how the fk do you even begin to equate that with adult consensual sex?



'the not in the position to decide for themselves as they are under their parents guidance bit'

thats where it falls down. unless you admit that some level of control has to be taken on who is allowed or not allowed to have sex.

In response to what you said about incest i dont even think thats anything but a wifes tale. It dependent on what genes both parents have and it really on relates to a situation where 2 reccessive genes are more likely to become an outcome. But then you could just get two recessive gene from 2 randomers.

Also sex doesnt equal having children nor does marriage they are both illegal under the law.

Now someone could make similar arguments with homosexual people (not the same but they ca try and base the argument on the safety of humanity).

I'll give an example

' The reason why i'm against homosexuality is because if the majority of the world are homosexual population is likely to decrease or at least working population and without new kids to take on future economic burdens we'll be stuck in a soceity in the future with too many dependent elderly people and not enough people working so that we can look after these people'


Right now the way things are there isnt any consistency so either we employ a system that is consistent or we stop pretending as if we are following some kind of consistent framework and just admit that it's an acception that has been afforded due to popular opinion.
Héctor24
Nigel Winterburn
Nigel Winterburn
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:10 pm

Re: What's your take on marriages?

Postby StLGooner » Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:55 pm

Héctor24 wrote:
StLGooner wrote:
No you don't. Adults having sex with children and two consensual adults having sex is not even close to being the same thing. And then to have a set of beliefs and dogma that criticize a group of people based on their sexual preference is just wrong.


i gave incest as an example too. That can be between two adults. For example to adult siblings cannot get married.

But in response to what you said. I said consensual and in anticipation to what i believe you might say. Who are you to tell a person no matter what age they are what they can and cannot consent to.




I'm nobody, and I don't tell people who they can have sex with or at what age, and that's the whole point. :dizzy:
Formerly ChVint22
User avatar
StLGooner
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 35646
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:07 pm
Location: St. Louis, Mo USA

Re: What's your take on marriages?

Postby Héctor24 » Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:03 pm

DiamondGooner wrote:
Héctor24 wrote:why do people embelish other peoples arguments and then argue as if thats what the person said.


OMFG he said Paedophiles ........ and your saying that's "embellishing" gtfo of here, what do you think a Paedo is ffs?


you dont see how this

How in fks name can you compare two adult consensual men having sex with an adult preying on kids, some as young as babies and toddlers??


is a dramatic representation of

that was NAMBLA argument against pedophile laws.


I would say you're being sensationalist what he said was right no matter how you try and dress it up to pull on heart strings. Nambla made the same case so it's not enough of a reason. I've also now given another situation where you cant get married. There has to be something more sophisticated than

'who are you to tell me what and what i can or cannot do'

that's exactly any law makers right so its a devoid any real substance.
Héctor24
Nigel Winterburn
Nigel Winterburn
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:10 pm

Re: What's your take on marriages?

Postby Héctor24 » Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:06 pm

StLGooner wrote:
Héctor24 wrote:
StLGooner wrote:
No you don't. Adults having sex with children and two consensual adults having sex is not even close to being the same thing. And then to have a set of beliefs and dogma that criticize a group of people based on their sexual preference is just wrong.


i gave incest as an example too. That can be between two adults. For example to adult siblings cannot get married.

But in response to what you said. I said consensual and in anticipation to what i believe you might say. Who are you to tell a person no matter what age they are what they can and cannot consent to.




I'm nobody, and I don't tell people who they can have sex with or at what age, and that's the whole point. :dizzy:


so then you should be ok if a 14 year want to have sex with a 36 year old i'm presuming
Héctor24
Nigel Winterburn
Nigel Winterburn
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:10 pm

Re: What's your take on marriages?

Postby DiamondGooner » Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:08 pm

Héctor24 wrote:'the not in the position to decide for themselves as they are under their parents guidance bit'

thats where it falls down. unless you admit that some level of control has to be taken on who is allowed or not allowed to have sex.

In response to what you said about incest i dont even think thats anything but a wifes tale. It dependent on what genes both parents have and it really on relates to a situation where 2 reccessive genes are more likely to become an outcome. But then you could just get two recessive gene from 2 randomers.

Also sex doesnt equal having children nor does marriage they are both illegal under the law.

Now someone could make similar arguments with homosexual people (not the same but they ca try and base the argument on the safety of humanity).

I'll give an example

' The reason why i'm against homosexuality is because if the majority of the world are homosexual population is likely to decrease or at least working population and without new kids to take on future economic burdens we'll be stuck in a soceity in the future with too many dependent elderly people and not enough people working so that we can look after these people'


Right now the way things are there isnt any consistency so either we employ a system that is consistent or we stop pretending as if we are following some kind of consistent framework and just admit that it's an acception that has been afforded due to popular opinion.


I've given you facts and you've given only opinion.

Just because you say "I think incest making offspring retarded is a wives tale" sorry Jr but that does not make it a fact, facts point to that it does very much so increase the risk.

Children are too young to fend for themselves so are very much so under the control of their parents, that is a control given by nature, so is the protection afforded them by their parents, so if being a Paedo was fine how come a parents instincts is to kick seven shades out of a paedo interfering with their children?

Your argument about Homosexuals is also ridiculous, the earth is over populated as it is, maybe more people should turn gay to save the environment?
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
Member of the Year 2018
Member of the Year 2018
 
Posts: 21217
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: What's your take on marriages?

Postby Héctor24 » Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:13 pm

DiamondGooner wrote:
Héctor24 wrote:'the not in the position to decide for themselves as they are under their parents guidance bit'

thats where it falls down. unless you admit that some level of control has to be taken on who is allowed or not allowed to have sex.

In response to what you said about incest i dont even think thats anything but a wifes tale. It dependent on what genes both parents have and it really on relates to a situation where 2 reccessive genes are more likely to become an outcome. But then you could just get two recessive gene from 2 randomers.

Also sex doesnt equal having children nor does marriage they are both illegal under the law.

Now someone could make similar arguments with homosexual people (not the same but they ca try and base the argument on the safety of humanity).

I'll give an example

' The reason why i'm against homosexuality is because if the majority of the world are homosexual population is likely to decrease or at least working population and without new kids to take on future economic burdens we'll be stuck in a soceity in the future with too many dependent elderly people and not enough people working so that we can look after these people'


Right now the way things are there isnt any consistency so either we employ a system that is consistent or we stop pretending as if we are following some kind of consistent framework and just admit that it's an acception that has been afforded due to popular opinion.


I've given you facts and you've given only opinion.

Just because you say "I think incest making offspring retarded is a wives tale" sorry Jr but that does not make it a fact, facts point to that it does very much so increase the risk.

Children are too young to fend for themselves so are very much so under the control of their parents, that is a control given by nature, so is the protection afforded them by their parents, so if being a Paedo was fine how come a parents instincts is to kick seven shades out of a paedo interfering with their children?

Your argument about Homosexuals is also ridiculous, the earth is over populated as it is, maybe more people should turn gay to save the environment?



which facts have you given me lol?

how can you go out and literally repeat a wives tale verbatim and act as it has any scientific grounding where's the study that concludes this?


nature says you're ready to fend for yourself when you're ready to have kids. Being under your parents wing until 18 isnt natural so please dont try and act as if it isnt a decision we came to.

The answer to overpopulation definitely isnt to reduce the working population
Héctor24
Nigel Winterburn
Nigel Winterburn
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:10 pm

Re: What's your take on marriages?

Postby DiamondGooner » Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:32 pm

Héctor24 wrote:

which facts have you given me lol?

how can you go out and literally repeat a wives tale verbatim and act as it has any scientific grounding where's the study that concludes this?


nature says you're ready to fend for yourself when you're ready to have kids. Being under your parents wing until 18 isnt natural so please dont try and act as if it isnt a decision we came to.

The answer to overpopulation definitely isnt to reduce the working population


Where would you like me to start?

Fact 1 - Children are not physically sexually mature and therefore sex with an adult (especially girls) can be damaged.

Fact 2 - 16 is the legal age limit for sex in the UK not 18 (again some fanciful number you plucked out of nowhere), when do most people move out of home? thank you, 16 and above never before, especially not on their own two feet, why? because they're not mature enough to look after themselves.

Fact 3 - Incest produces a higher likelihood of unhealthy offspring.

Recessive alleles are expressed (or rather, not masked) if the person does not have a dominant allele. This means a person with a 'bad' recessive allele paired with a 'good' dominant allele will be selected for based upon the good allele and the recessive allele will still have a chance of getting passed around. The closer you are related to somebody the higher the chance that you both carry the same copy of a recessive allele and so the likelihood of a potentially bad allele getting expressed in their offspring is higher.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com

Fact 4 - "The answer to overpopulation definitely isnt to reduce the working population"
WTF are you talking about!! The earth is overcrowded these two are not exclusive of each other, wtf do you care about "working population"? that's not the argument.

Your turn.
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
Member of the Year 2018
Member of the Year 2018
 
Posts: 21217
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: What's your take on marriages?

Postby Héctor24 » Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:55 pm

Fact 1 - Children are not physically sexually mature and therefore sex with an adult (especially girls) can be damaged.


16 year olds arent physically mature either thats a fact in the vast majority of cases.



Fact 2 - 16 is the legal age limit for sex in the UK not 18 (again some fanciful number you plucked out of nowhere), when do most people move out of home? thank you, 16 and above never before, especially not on their own two feet, why? because they're not mature enough to look after themselves.


this is irrelevant what does it relate too. The point of what i am saying is an argument can be made for someone who is 14 having sex. You wouldnt need to do that if they were already allowed. Being able to look after yourself isnt an enforced prerequisite for child bearing. Do you really think a 16 year old is any more likely to be able to look after a child than a 15 year old?
[b]Fact 3 - Incest produces a higher likelihood of unhealthy offspring.

Recessive alleles are expressed (or rather, not masked) if the person does not have a dominant allele. This means a person with a 'bad' recessive allele paired with a 'good' dominant allele will be selected for based upon the good allele and the recessive allele will still have a chance of getting passed around. The closer you are related to somebody the higher the chance that you both carry the same copy of a recessive allele and so the likelihood of a potentially bad allele getting expressed in their offspring is higher.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com
[/b]


so you repeated exactly what i said when i said

In response to what you said about incest i dont even think thats anything but a wifes tale. It dependent on what genes both parents have and it really on relates to a situation where 2 reccessive genes are more likely to become an outcome. But then you could just get two recessive gene from 2 randomers.


this is how i know you dont have a clue what you're talking about. You dont have a basic understanding of what that even says so you cannot argue based on it. If there are no recessive undesirable genes there's no chance of these so called genetic deformities unless there's some kind of mutation but that wouldnt be affected by who you slept with it's down purely to chance. They said it's a higher chance but they didnt say by how much it increase and also the likeliness of two sibbling sharing a damaging recessive gene. But again i'm sure you believe what you referenced equates to this

if you engage in incest there is a big likelihood your babies will be retarded or deformed in some way


:rofll: :rofll:

"The answer to overpopulation definitely isnt to reduce the working population"
WTF are you talking about!! The earth is overcrowded these two are not exclusive of each other, wtf do you care about "working population"? that's not the argument.


you're clearly not aware of the problems caused by an aging population and i cant be bothered to explain it in detail so il be quick

you have a population

dependent population = kids + pensioners ( + plus the unemployed, disable and people on benefits but i'll omit these 2 because it just complicates things)

then you have your working population.

Your working population has to provide in the now for your dependent population through their taxes.

If you're dependent population increases why your working population decrease like it could happen if people stopped having kids are decrease the rate at which they had kids. Goverments will face huge problems as countries wont be making enough to cover it's costs.

See countries like japan and china to see the dangers of and aging population.
Héctor24
Nigel Winterburn
Nigel Winterburn
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Big Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest