The Obama DOJ compared gay marriage to incest

[chads]

@Domnk

Comparison - n.

• Rhetoric. the considering of two things with regard to some characteristic that is common to both, as the likening of a hero to a lion in courage.

Your comparing the cars emissions per states legal status, but you still brought up the fact they are both illegal.

In this case, it is incest is legal\illegal from state-to-state and gay marriage is legal\illegal from state-to-state.. hmm, a characteristic common to both, according to the definition, it is a comparison

It may seem like a fine point and hair splitting but they are comparing the legality of the relationships, not the relationships themselves.

What seems perfectly logical to me may not be logical to others , although I think that is the logic the DOJ is using.

[data4]

So I have to ask… what’s wrong with comparing gay marriage to incest?

-D4

[Tigerlilly]

For you, nothing. Both (seem to) have been adequately explained within your head, and are acceptable situations for you. (no judgement on either is intended with that statement.)

For others, the verbiage is a lightening rod, based on social trends and norms.

Frankly, coming from a divorcee, if anyone wants to be equally miserable in a legal union, go for it. Marriage screws it all up anyway - but there are some tax benefits.

If I could get tax benefits and relationship perks from a union-not-a-marriage-thingy, I would be so ridiculously pleased. As it stands, I have a multi-page prenup already planned out for any potential-eventual legal union in my supposed future…

[Domnk]

The fact of the matter is, the mass majority of people are not logical. They are motivated by tradition, faith, etc.

Data4, as of right now, the GLBT movement has enough trouble gaining the support from the predominantly heterosexual population. There are stereotypes, which inhibit equal rights for non-heterosexual people, such as, the theory that says gay men are predominantly pedophiles. Now, make a comparison, legal comparison or otherwise, and people will start associating incest with gays. You reference a logical means of contraception to prevent offspring, between two consenting adults, but that view is not a popularly held belief, it is to rational. When incest is brought up the mass populace, as Americans flooded by constant televised chaos, are programmed to associate incest with an older person taking advantage of a younger child who happens to be a family member.
Therefore, it would be devastating for this movement to be compared to incest and not fight that.

I’m a libertarian. Do what you want, dont ask me to pay for it.

Agreed..

Dominick

[data4]

I’m with Tigerlilly. If all the benefits of marriage can be attained from a legally recognized union, why the need to redefine “marriage”?

And regarding the taboos associated with incest, those same feelings were applied to homosexuality just 50 years ago. I don’t see why GLBT groups don’t ally themselves with other alternate lifestyle groups to get strength in numbers.

-D4

[Domnk]

Because ‘separate but equal’ is not acceptable, as demonstrated during the Civil Rights Movement and the court case, Brown v. Board of Education. Legally it is not fair, and personally, I find it insulting.

It’s politics, complicated as it is, just taking it one step at a time is the best approach, I think. At the moment the GLBT movement has alot of support, I doubt they would want to complicate things and risk that support. And what ‘other alternate lifestyle groups’ do you refer too?

@data4

I’m with Tigerlilly. If all the benefits of marriage can be attained from a legally recognized union, why the need to redefine “marriage”?

And regarding the taboos associated with incest, those same feelings were applied to homosexuality just 50 years ago. I don’t see why GLBT groups don’t ally themselves with other alternate lifestyle groups to get strength in numbers.

-D4

[data4]

@Domnk

Because ‘separate but equal’ is not acceptable, as demonstrated during the Civil Rights Movement and the court case, Brown v. Board of Education. Legally it is not fair, and personally, I find it insulting.

What civil rights are GLBT people denied? You can still vote when you reach the age of 18, you can still own land, you have protections under the Equal Opportunity Employment Act. I know first hand at least 3 VERY well paid, prestigious position holders at my job who are homosexual (2 men, 1 woman). What is it you’re being denied, other than a designation that is traditionally held sacred as the union of one man and one woman in the state of matrimony? To equate the “struggles” of the GBLT community with those of minorities, and in particularl those of African descent who until 40 years ago could not even enjoy the basic freedoms listed above is quite presumptious and is, imho, a slap in the face of everyone who gave their lives and more to achieve that freedom. While I honestly believe Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would never turn a GLBT person away from his church, I imagine he’d have a thing or two to say about the idea of two men or two women getting married, and an argument about the existence or lack thereof of civil rights would not be in the picture.

It’s politics, complicated as it is, just taking it one step at a time is the best approach, I think. At the moment the GLBT movement has alot of support, I doubt they would want to complicate things and risk that support. And what ‘other alternate lifestyle groups’ do you refer too?

Oh, none specific. Just any group who face oppression because of the way in which they live their lives. Seems like what’s good for the one should be good for the many, correct?

-D4

[Domnk]

@data4

What is it you’re being denied, other than a designation that is traditionally held sacred as the union of one man and one woman in the state of matrimony?

You don’t really understand marriage then, do you (kidding ) People often say marriage is a sacred union, but GBLT people are not trying to change the religious views of marriage, they are trying to change the legal definition. A legal wedding and a traditional religious wedding are two different things. And if a church agrees to marry two men, then take it up with the dam church.. because outside of the church, in the courts in has nothing to do with religion. Get that straight, please. (no pun intended)

@data4

To equate the “struggles” of the GBLT community with those of minorities, and in particularl those of African descent who until 40 years ago could not even enjoy the basic freedoms listed above is quite presumptious and is, imho, a slap in the face of everyone who gave their lives and more to achieve that freedom.

I referenced the basic rights, which ever person is entitled, and past injustises which have been resolved by the US courts. Now, I ask you, “Seems like what’s good for the one should be good for the many, correct?”

[data4]

@Domnk

You don’t really understand marriage then, do you (kidding )

@Oxford English Dictionary

Oxford Languages | The home of language data.

http://www.oup.co.uk/images/covers/0-19-861022-X.gif

marriage

• noun 1 the formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife.

People often say marriage is a sacred union, but GBLT people are not trying to change the religious views of marriage, they are trying to change the legal definition. A legal wedding and a traditional religious wedding are two different things. And if a church agrees to marry two men, then take it up with the dam church.. because outside of the church, in the courts in has nothing to do with religion. Get that straight, please. (no pun intended)

If civil unions were given federal recognition, to include validity in all states and tax breaks, would that work?

I referenced the basic rights, which ever person is entitled, and past injustises which have been resolved by the US courts. Now, I ask you, “Seems like what’s good for the one should be good for the many, correct?”

If you look at the Civil Rights Act you will see that there is nothing there that excludes GLBT’s. Furthermore, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act included language specifically for GLBT to protect against employment discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

In this case, a lifestyle choice (and I realize there’s a whole can of worms about to be opened up) has been given special protection under law. While you and others may declare that you didn’t choose to be gay, there has been no conclusive, scientific proof that people who are GLBT are born that way, while women and non-white persons are CLEARLY brought into this world bearing attributes they had no control over, which historically was the source of grief for them before suffrage and the Civil Rights act.

-D4

[Domnk]

Like I said, take it up with the churches, it’s not an issue. If you insist on taking that ‘sacred union’ stance, you don’t understand ‘separation of church and state’.

[quote=“data4”]

If civil unions were given federal recognition, to include validity in all states and tax breaks, would that work?

Civil Unions ‘separate but equal’ to marriage? Hmm… (didn’t we just go over this)

@data4

If you look at the Civil Rights Act you will see that there is nothing there that excludes GLBT’s. Furthermore, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act included language specifically for GLBT to protect against employment discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

Yes, and the GLBT movement is seeking to obtain all rights guaranteed to all Americans.

@data4

In this case, a lifestyle choice (and I realize there’s a whole can of worms about to be opened up) has been given special protection under law. While you and others may declare that you didn’t choose to be gay, there has been no conclusive, scientific proof that people who are GLBT are born that way…

Huh, I’ve heard this argument many times…

So, according to your logic, your sexually attracted to men, but don’t ‘choose’ to accept\follow through on it? Wouldn’t that make everyone who is straight, actually in the closet And wouldn’t that mean everyone, gay or straight, is actually the same… and, in that case, shouldn’t we all, for the sake of equality the country is based upon, have equal, and non-separate , rights?

P.S.
While scientifically it has not been proven, it also has not been disproved. Meaning any argument on the subject would prove to be cyclical, and quite frankly, pointless.

Dominick

[Domnk]

@Domnk

P.S.
While scientifically it has not been proven, it also has not been disproved. Meaning any argument on the subject would prove to be cyclical, and quite frankly, pointless.

Whoops, wrong on that one! There are in fact brain scans which show gay men’s brains are indeed quite similar to women’s and the response of gay men similarly reacting to pheromones as females! Duh, me, can’t believe I left that out

[data4]

@Domnk

Whoops, wrong on that one! There are in fact brain scans which show gay men’s brains are indeed quite similar to women’s and the response of gay men similarly reacting to pheromones as females! Duh, me, can’t believe I left that out

Source, please?

-D4

[diane999]

@Domnk

Actually, it was Adam and Lilith, and she was turned into a demon, that preys on men and young children for their ‘seed’, for wanting to be on top when having sex, and then speaking the name of god out loud. Lilith was before Eve, and she and Adam were created in gods image from the dirt, but because Lilith was too independent, got created Eve from Adams ribs, so she would be submissive, obedient to Adam, the man. Why do you think it’s called a Lullaby? Seriously, look it up. It was in the bible, but after some editing by the Churches it wasn’t.

And hey, if were going by the bible in this one, why do you believe in ‘Domestic monogamous partnerships’ at all? In the bible it clearly says

Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 8:22

If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13

Get something concrete please, if your going to start taking a religious view on this, one, stop using the bible and picking and choosing what you want it to say, and, two, get out of this discussion Because the bible is either absolute, or it isn’t, we are either an abomination, as the bible says, or the bible is not the word of god and the information with it is not valid. You can’t say something is absolute and also say the statements need to be selectively followed. That’s an extreme contradiction.

Were talking about politics, and the right of ever person in the United States to have equal rights. I’m sorry, but the fact is I nor any other person, with an orientation other than straight, don’t want to have rights which are ‘Separate but equal’.

You know, land owners and voters used to only be for white males, your right, laws should never undergo redefinition.

Edit: And no, I am not putting anyone’s religion down, merely using logic to try and invalidate a typical, and irrational argument, believe what you wish, just don’t tell me I have to live by that same code, and then expect me not to counter those points you attempt to force upon me.

Sorry, I have to disagree here. This is right up there with Jews being accused of killing children and putting their blood on the eucharist during the pogroms in the dark ages. Go read the TORAH, the original, not the crap cobbled together by an inbred, drooling idiot. And don’t believe all the crap you read.

Diane

[diane999]

@Domnk

Oh yeah, I know, in The Zohar, but isn’t it interesting that in Genesis, in the Bible, there are two different references to Adam and Eve’s creation by god? One, creating both from the Dirt, and, two, creating Adam in God’s image and creating Eve from his rib. It may not include Lilith’s name in Genesis, but the ‘New Testament’ does have it’s roots in Jewish texts.

One more thing, while it is controversial, it is believed that Isaiah 34:14, in the ‘New Testament’, references Lilith as a Succubus, but, like I said, it is controversial, due to it’s translation.

Here is the Zohar. Wow, you guys… Learn Hebrew and read it in its original… less chance of misinterpretation that way. But please understand, this is a mystical text written in twighlight language. It is not literal.

https://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/zohar

Diane

[data4]

@Domnk

Like I said, take it up with the churches, it’s not an issue. If you insist on taking that ‘sacred union’ stance, you don’t understand ‘separation of church and state’.

I provided a definition of marriage as given in what’s considered the authoritative dictionary of the language. In this instance, church has nothing to do with it.

@data4

If civil unions were given federal recognition, to include validity in all states and tax breaks, would that work?

Civil Unions ‘separate but equal’ to marriage? Hmm… (didn’t we just go over this)

Equal in status, yes, but separate in definition/ What you are seeking do do is redefine a word that has been in the language for some 500 years or longer. Here is the etymology of “marry”

marry (v.)
1297, from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare “to wed, marry, give in marriage,” from maritus “married man, husband,” of uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from “provided with a *mari,” a young woman, from PIE base *meri- “young wife,” akin to *meryo- “young man” (cf. Skt. marya- “young man, suitor”). Said from 1530 of the priest, etc., who performs the rite.

The very origins of the word indicate the union of a male and a female.

Yes, and the GLBT movement is seeking to obtain all rights guaranteed to all Americans.

Please refer to the Section, Article, and/or Amendment in the U.S. Constitution that limits your rights as a homosexual man vs. a non-homosexual man.

Huh, I’ve heard this argument many times…

So, according to your logic, your sexually attracted to men, but don’t ‘choose’ to accept\follow through on it? Wouldn’t that make everyone who is straight, actually in the closet And wouldn’t that mean everyone, gay or straight, is actually the same… and, in that case, shouldn’t we all, for the sake of equality the country is based upon, have equal, and non-separate , rights?

Your logic is flawed. The exact same can be said for any behavior. Which reminds me, I’m still waiting for a definitive reason from you why incest is bad. The reason why I ask is… well, let’s look at your thread title from a Neuro Linguistic Programming standpoint.

“The Obama DOJ compared gay marriage to incest”

There are a few points here. First, we have a contrast. Gay marriage vs. incest. The presupposition here is that gay marriage is good and incest is bad. What sets gay marriage higher in status than incest? Remember, the playing field is level, here. We’re assuming that all parties are of the age of consent and of sound mind.

There’s another presupposition here that assumes all who read this thread are in favor of redefining the word “marriage” to include same-sex couples. This creates a conundrum for those who are not in favor because the standard knee-jerk response is to presume the dissenter is a “homophobe” or is motivated by “hate”, which puts said dissenter at a distinct disadvantage.

So, what I really want to know is this: Are we really talking about giving equal rights to all Americans, or is this about social conditioning to bring everyone else into your line of thinking?

-D4

[diane999]

@Domnk

Oh yeah, I know, in The Zohar, but isn’t it interesting that in Genesis, in the Bible, there are two different references to Adam and Eve’s creation by god? One, creating both from the Dirt, and, two, creating Adam in God’s image and creating Eve from his rib. It may not include Lilith’s name in Genesis, but the ‘New Testament’ does have it’s roots in Jewish texts.

One more thing, while it is controversial, it is believed that Isaiah 34:14, in the ‘New Testament’, references Lilith as a Succubus, but, like I said, it is controversial, due to it’s translation.

Wow! Talk about misinformation!

Isaiah is old testament. Again, I recommend you read the Torah and Tanach, which are in the right order and not so badly mangled as far as interpretation goes.

A little historical background around Isaiah at this time in Jewish history:

After the death of Solomon the Jewish kingdom was split into two kingdoms, Israel (the ten northern tribes) and Judah. At this time (the time of Isaiah) the ten northern tribes (Israel) were poised to be conquered by Assyria and Babylon, and their inhabitants scattered amongst those nations. But they had not yet been conquered.

After this time, for the ten northern tribes would no longer exist as a people, as her peoples would be supplanted first by Syrians and Assyrians, and later by people from the kingdom of Babylon.

But at this time, Assyria was just fully flowering and coming into her power.

The two tribes comprising Judah still held all of their ancestral lands for a long time after the scattering of the northern tribes (150 years).

At the time of Isaiah, Joash became king of the two tribes of Judah at a very young age. When he was a bit older he went to war with Edom and Geber (the areas just south and southeast of Judah), and with the peoples known as the Amalakites.

The prophecy by Isaiah, below recorded as Chapter 34, was concerning Judah’s war with these peoples, in which he prophecied total destruction of all of them and their continued desolation afterwards.

Isaiah 34 (The whole chapter)

Approach, oh, nations, and listen
Give heed, oh, peoples!
Let the earth and those in it hear;
The world, and what it brings forth.
For the Lord is angry at all the nations,
Furious at all their host;
He has doomed them, consigned them to slaughter.
Their slain shall be left lying,
And the stench of their corpses shall mount;
And the hills shall be drenched with their blood.
All the host of heaven shall wither.
The heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll,
And all their host shall wither
Like a leaf withering on the vine,
Or shriveled fruit on a fig tree.

For My sword shall be drunk in the sky;
Lo, it shall come down upon Edom,
Upon the people I have doomed,
To wreak judgement.
The Lord has a sword; it is sated with blood,
It is gorged with fat-
The blood of lambs and he-goats,
The kidney fat of rams.
For the Lord holds a sacrifice in Bozrah,
A great slaughter in the land of Edom.
Wild oxen shall fall with them,
Young bulls with mighty steers;
And their land shall be drunk with blood,
Their soil shall be saturated with fat.
For it is the Lord’s day of retribution,
The year of vindication for Zion’s cause.
Its streams shall be turned to pitch
And its soil to sulfur.
Its land shall become burning pitch,
Night and day it shall never go out;
Its smoke shall rise for all time.
Through the ages it shall lie in ruins;
Through the eons none shall traverse it.
Jackdaws and owls shall possess it;
Great owls and ravens shall dwell there.
He shall measure it with a line of chaos
And with weights of emptiness,
It shall be called, “No kingdom is there,”
Its nobles and all its lords shall be nothing.
Thorns shall grow up in its palaces,
Nettles and briers in its strongholds.

It shall be a home of jackals,
An abode of ostriches.
Wildcats shall meet hyenas,
Goat-demons shall greet each other;
There too the lilith shall repose
And find herself a resting place.
There the arrow-snake shall nest and lay eggs,
And shall brood and hatch in its shade.
There too the buzzards shall gather
With one another.
Search and read it in the scrolll of the Lord;
Not one of these shall be absent,
Not one shall miss its fellow.
For His mouth has spoken,
It is His spirit that has assembled them,
And it is He who apportioned it to them by lot,
Whos hand divided it for them with the line.
They shall possess it for all time,
they shall dwell there through the ages.

What does this have to do with gay marriage? Nothing at all.

Diane

[diane999]

@chads

I agree with you. I heard it has been proven that many of the genetic mating problems with first cousins don’t exist and restrictions should be lifted.

This statement is not true. These are all recessive and most are fatal. If your family carries this you are way more likely to give it to your kids if you both carry the alleles, which is more likely the closer you are related.

Hemophilia
dwarfism
Huntington’s Chorea
Infantile Hypertonic Muscular Dystrophy
Cystic Fibrosis
Galactosemia
Recessive Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa
Molybdenum cofactor deficiency
megacystis-microcolon-intestinal hypoperistalsis syndrome
Lafora’s disease, Mitochondrial Hsp60 Chaperonopathy
globoid cell leukodystrophy
fatal infantile lactic acidosis
Late infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis
Congenital myopathy and gastrointestinal pseudo-obstruction due to Polgi1 mutations
Duchenne muscular dystrophy
Fragile-X syndrom
BRCA 1 gene mutation leading to breast cancer
Tay-Sachs
Niemann-Pick Type A
Canavan Disease
Familial Dysautonomia

I could go on and on and fill three pages of these recessives.

If your family has these recessives in their genes and you breed with a close relative, the closer you are in the family to each other, the more likely you will be to both have the same recessives and pass those on to your children.

Take a look at small groups who inbred… like the Amish for example. Inbreeding by a group that “fixes” recessive genetic traits, so that the majority (or all) of the members now carry those genes, is called “founders’ effect.”

Inbreeding in the Amish Community : Amish Furniture - Solid Wood Custom Made Fine Furniture, - Amish Direct Furniture

Diane

[Domnk]

@diane999

Sorry, I have to disagree here. This is right up there with Jews being accused of killing children and putting their blood on the eucharist during the pogroms in the dark ages. Go read the TORAH, the original, not the crap cobbled together by an inbred, drooling idiot. And don’t believe all the crap you read.

Diane

@diane999

Wow! Talk about misinformation!

Isaiah is old testament. Again, I recommend you read the Torah and Tanach, which are in the right order and not so badly mangled as far as interpretation goes. …

I never claimed to be an expert or anything on theological literature… and reserve the right to be wrong, Diane

Thanks for clearing that up though
And your right it sort of did break off into two different discussions

[diane999]

@Domnk

I never claimed to be an expert or anything on theological literature… and reserve the right to be wrong, Diane

Thanks for clearing that up though
And your right it sort of did break off into two different discussions

I’m sorry. this wasn’t about theology. It was about history.

I’m just an ancient history nut and I really loathe the way people grab a bit of information and run with it in ways that totally screw up the historical facts.

The King James Bible is a big case in point. The Torah and Tanach are mainly historical documents. The early church picked and chose what books they wanted and they misinterpreted and threw them together in such a way that totally clouds that fact. As the books are in the King James Bible, they are just confusing.

Today there are so many Christian cults that take prophecies like the one above and try to fit it to anything. I find it disturbing that so much of that is taken as truth, when hardly anyone tries to find out what these documents were actually all about.

It’s sad, too, in a way, because if you read these as history, and the flavor of this ancient people, there is so much surprising stuff in there. You get details of the great ancient civilizations that you can’t find any more, at least since the great library at Alexandria was destroyed.

Diane

[Domnk]

@data4

Source, please?

Research finds differences in lesbian brains - Sexual health- msnbc.com

Gay Men Respond Differently to Pheromones - Health News - redOrbit

@data4

I provided a definition of marriage as given in what’s considered the authoritative dictionary of the language. In this instance, church has nothing to do with it.

Equal in status, yes, but separate in definition/ What you are seeking do do is redefine a word that has been in the language for some 500 years or longer. Here is the etymology of “marry”

The very origins of the word indicate the union of a male and a female.

Why would redefining such a term be a bad thing, data4? Because it would be incongruent with it’s origins?

@data4

Please refer to the Section, Article, and/or Amendment in the U.S. Constitution that limits your rights as a homosexual man vs. a non-homosexual man.

I never said the U.S. Constitution limits rights of homosexuals. That statement means that the GLBT movement is trying to uphold equal rights. Such as getting DADT and DOMA repealed. It is about enforcing the Constitution, not trying to reverse a prejudiced ‘Section, Article, and/or Amendment’.

@data4

Your logic is flawed. The exact same can be said for any behavior. Which reminds me, I’m still waiting for a definitive reason from you why incest is bad. The reason why I ask is… well, let’s look at your thread title from a Neuro Linguistic Programming standpoint.

I appologize, the comment you quoted wasn’t meant to be taken so literally, I was trying to lighten the mood a bit, but I guess you didn’t get the hint… anyway,
How is it flawed, you said homosexuality is a choice. Either every one is bisexual, because anyone can choose who their attracted to\everyone is attracted to everyone else… or it isn’t a ‘lifestyle choice’.

And I never said that, under those conditions, it would be bad. I said it would hurt the GLBT movement at this time if it were to be associated with incest, because of incest’s associating with pedophila. (not saying it’s right or wrong, just saying that it is a stradegy for swaying public, political opinion)

@data4

There’s another presupposition here that assumes all who read this thread are in favor of redefining the word “marriage” to include same-sex couples. This creates a conundrum for those who are not in favor because the standard knee-jerk response is to presume the dissenter is a “homophobe” or is motivated by “hate”, which puts said dissenter at a distinct disadvantage.

Ok, no disagreement there… but that’s people for you, it’s not like they use logic to decide everything.

@data4

So, what I really want to know is this: Are we really talking about giving equal rights to all Americans, or is this about social conditioning to bring everyone else into your line of thinking?

Equal right’s to all Americans, I don’t expect all people to believe what I believe, I am not trying to convince you or anybody else of anything… I was merely having fun debating.

Is it not interesting to you, that we could never reach an agreement on this issue, between the two of us?

I’m sorry if my intentions appeared misleading, I think that a Civil Union equal to marriage would be acceptable, for now. The system, in my belief, will work out any rights issue if done correctly, but it will take time.