Is it hateful and intolerant to disagree?

[charles_hamm]

Recently on another thread the term “bigot� has been used frequently to describe Christian views on homosexuality being a sin. Per Merriam-Webster’s dictionary a bigot is:

A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

My question is not about using this or any other derogatory term against another person since that should not be done, serves no purpose in a debate and is against the rules. My question is:

If a person, Christian or non-Christian expresses an opinion that homosexuality is a sin (or if you don’t believe in the concept of sin replace the word with morally wrong); does that opinion constitute a hatred of the person, the action or neither one? Does that opinion constitute intolerance of the person, the action or neither? Should Christians or non-Christians who do not support homosexuality be required to show tolerance toward the person? What about the action?

So we all can try to use the same definitions for the term, Merriam-Webster defines tolerance as:
A: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
B: the act of allowing something

If you say “yes� it constitutes hatred please list which one(s) it is toward and please explain why you believe it constitutes hatred. The same goes if you answer “yes� to intolerance.

If you answer “no� please explain why it doesn’t.

Just so we are clear, I am not labeling anyone as a bigot, hateful or intolerant or any other derogatory term. This is my first time to start a topic, so if I have left something out or could have worded my question better let me know.

Thanks.

[charles_hamm]

You asked if it's a 'human being'. The correct answer is yes.

Correct according to whom? It's the incorrect answer according to many jurisdictions.

Actually it's not a person to many jurisdictions, but it is still a human being.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Marriage is defined by some as, "the union of a husband and wife." A much more accurate definition would be, "the solidification of a relationship between two people with a ceremony and a celebration." Sorry to be the one to tell you this but marriage is not a term that exclusively belongs to the Christian fundamentalists(or Islamic fundamentalists), it existed as a concept and a practice long before any religion that exists today and will exist separate from those religions that do exist today.

Marriage has also been defined by some as the union of two or more people. Why should I accept your definition of marriage anymore than I accept that one?

Because the definition I provided encompasses all other definitions. Yours and the polygamists. Given that words are subjective, when discussing a topic as broad as, "marriage" it would be beneficial to the discussion to use the definition that best describes the entirety of that topic, lest confusion ensue and we talk about four different types of marriage while trying to discuss one.

By your definition there are no limits on what constitutes a marriage. Necrophilia, Polygamy, etc. would all be legal for existed. Necrophilia, no. One thing that must always be involved in state recognized unions is informed consent. A corpse is incapable of giving any kind of consent let alone "informed consent" and therefore, one could not marry a corpse legally or by the definitirms of marriage here.

Polygamy, yes, as I stated above. If you weren't aware, polygamy has been popular in human culture for millenia, in Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Pagan, Animistic and just about every religious culture that has eveon I provided. If you need further explanation, the excess criteria I mentioned here about "informed consent" comes with the definition of "people." People have rights that concern "informed consent". Doing something with or to a person without their "informed consent" is a violation of their rights.

Abortion (if done correctly) does not end a life anymore so than sex ends 50,000 lives (Majority of sperm do not produce fertilization and instead, perish). I do consider the right to life a basic human right, where that life begins it appears people disagree.

Red Herring. I asked if you support the right to life. The only way to defend abortion and answer yes here is to redefine when life begins. This is the same argument being used to promote gay marriage.

Actually, the definition of life does not include an embryo or quite a bit of the pregnancy. So it is the "pro-lifers" that redefine the word "life".[ref] (if you are unsure, embryo, and several other stages of an unborn human, are not capable of responding to stimuli and are therefore not actually 'alive' as per the definition of life).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/life

Life as defined by the dictionary. Life has 20 meanings according to Merriam-Webster so we can't cherry pick which one fits here. It doesn't work. Responding to stimuli is only ONE part of ONE definition for life.

The "ONE definition" of life happens to be the most accurate definition, the biological definition. In order for a thing to be considered "alive" it must meet all criteria of the biological definition of life. Just because you choose to cherry pick definitions and avoid the one that actually has evidential basis and, above all, consistency in it's definition does not change the fact that the biological definition is the most accurate basis for our discussion.

It doesn't need to be. These people feel attracted towards members of the same sex and also feel inclined to then perform sex with and sometimes get married to those people. It is not an infringement on anyone else to allow them to do so. By default, that means that they have a right to do so. It's called freedom.

A man marrying 10 women does not infringe on anyone else but that is not a right. The whole infringement argument does not hold up if you take into account that the U.S. already bans activities that don't infringe on anyone else.

What the U.S. does or does not do is an appalling basis for judgement. From what I understand many U.S citizens and many Christians the world round agree that the U.S is not a good place to start regarding how people should or should not act and what people should or should not be allowed to do. I have no problem regarding polygamy as long as it is completely consensual. if ten men want to marry one woman and are happy with that setup (and she is too) who am I to argue? Same goes with women to men.

If you can't argue against polygamy, then who are you to argue against incest. My point is in the U.S. we do have the right to stop someone from doing something whether it infringes on a so-called right or not.

Again, what happens in the U.S. can stay in the U.S. The rest of the world looks down upon many of the things that the U.S. government decides is "right" or "wrong".

I think I've stated this quite clearly, incest is an abuse of power, a power that exists even after the child grows past legal age. In most cases it is the result of coercion(and pedophilia) from a young age. Incest has an increased chance of birthing problems as well. When it comes to legalizing incestuous unions, there is no way evidence could be shown to prove that this case of incest did not involve coercion or abuse of power and given the extraordinarily large amount of cases of incest involve coercion and abuse, it could never be legalized practically.

The right to a childhood. Incest is most often the result of coercion from a young age. Children are coerced into becoming sexually involved with their family member. Such an act is robbing them of their childhood. Children have a right to a childhood and to dreams and ambitions and to sexing up who they want when they're old enough, not being buttered up for their Dad or uncle or brother or sister or mum or aunt. Not to mention the genetic problems that spring from incest

.

I asked if they were both of legal age to marry.

Coercion starts young, even if the sexy time doesn't begin until they're over 18. It's also abuse of power, parents hold a position of power over their children, to engage in that kind of relationship with them is an abuse of that power.

You are avoiding the question. It's a hard question because of your stance on marriage. Try to leave out coercion because you can't prove that every case would involve that.

Let's say the son was gay and the father came out as gay after the son turned 18. If the father never touched his son while his son was a minor then why using what you have written would that not be considered a basic human right?

As I said before, coercion starts young. "Touching" does not have to be a part of the coercion. Also the abuse of power.

You still haven't answered the question. You are trying to justify your position by saying something that MAY OR MAY NOT have happened. If you assume coercion did not happen then you can't deny them a basic human right can you?

If the event was entirely free of coercion, then sure, let 'em do what they wanna do. But it is practically impossible to show that such an event is free of coercion and therefore would be practically impossible to legalize as no cases would be considered true due to the impossibility of providing evidence and the ridiculously large number of cases where coercion does actually occur. Also, the genetic problems. You are making a red herring by trying to compare the two issues.

The genetic problems are not relevant because I have not brought up sex between two men at all. Sex between two people of the same sex serves no biological purpose so if we are using sex as an argument then we should address this point as well.

What kind of a point is that? Sex with any infertile person doesn't serve any "biological purpose"(whatever that means). Should we prevent people that cannot produce children from getting married as well?

Biological purposes is reproduction. This is why I never brought it up. It's not relevant to any point I made. Sex between two males is going to be the same whether incestual or not.

But you did bring it up? That's why I responded to your comment regarding it. You actually said, "Sex between two people of the same sex serves no biological purpose so if we are using sex as an argument then we should address this point as well." You not only brought it up, you took time to say that the point should be addressed.

I think there's something we need to get straight here, how do you define, "a basic human right?" I have made my definition clear, I think, so since you think I'm wrong, what would you define it as? How does your definition exclude, "the right to solidify your relationship with another person with a ceremony and a celebration." Listing off rights we have and don't have is pointless, the way to go about this would be to describe what it is that makes something, "a basic human right" or not, "a basic human right."

If something is a basic human right, then it is a basic human right regardless of the situation. That is the easiest and I believe the best definition.

But it's not a definition or a method for classification of "a basic human right" at all. You've only described how " a basic human right" applies and when it applies(always). So, would you like to try again and actually give a definition or a method for classification? Until you do, We've got nothing left but your adamant claims that my definition/method for classification is wrong and absolutely no definition or method for classification to oppose it.

What do you think "a basic human right" is? What does that phrase actually mean to you? How is same sex unions specifically disqualified from that definition where other unions are not?

[charles_hamm]

By your definition there are no limits on what constitutes a marriage. Necrophilia, Polygamy, etc. would all be legal forms of marriage here.

Polygamy, yes, as I stated above. If you weren't aware, polygamy has been popular in human culture for millenia, in Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Pagan, Animistic and just about every religious culture that has ever existed. Necrophilia, no. One thing that must always be involved in state recognized unions is informed consent. A corpse is incapable of giving any kind of consent let alone "informed consent" and therefore, one could not marry a corpse legally or by the definition I provided. If you need further explanation, the excess criteria I mentioned here about "informed consent" comes with the definition of "people." People have rights that concern "informed consent". Doing something with or to a person without their "informed consent" is a violation of their rights.

Once a person is dead, I am not sure the 'informed consent' issue would still apply. Do dead people actually have rights? If so, why don't babies in the womb share these rights (I know different subject, but used to illustrate that at certain points in life, people do not have rights)? Could a person marry an inanimate object and it be legal?

Abortion (if done correctly) does not end a life anymore so than sex ends 50,000 lives (Majority of sperm do not produce fertilization and instead, perish). I do consider the right to life a basic human right, where that life begins it appears people disagree.

Red Herring. I asked if you support the right to life. The only way to defend abortion and answer yes here is to redefine when life begins. This is the same argument being used to promote gay marriage.

Actually, the definition of life does not include an embryo or quite a bit of the pregnancy. So it is the "pro-lifers" that redefine the word "life".[ref] (if you are unsure, embryo, and several other stages of an unborn human, are not capable of responding to stimuli and are therefore not actually 'alive' as per the definition of life).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/life

Life as defined by the dictionary. Life has 20 meanings according to Merriam-Webster so we can't cherry pick which one fits here. It doesn't work. Responding to stimuli is only ONE part of ONE definition for life.

The "ONE definition" of life happens to be the most accurate definition, the biological definition. In order for a thing to be considered "alive" it must meet all criteria of the biological definition of life. Just because you choose to cherry pick definitions and avoid the one that actually has evidential basis and, above all, consistency in it's definition does not change the fact that the biological definition is the most accurate basis for our discussion.

In other words, you only want to use whatever definition suites your purpose. Well I will not do that. I have a recognized dictionary that defines life in multiple ways that can be applied here verses a biological definition that must only use the one that it cherry picks. I think I'll stick with the one that is actually supposed to define the meanings of words.

It doesn't need to be. These people feel attracted towards members of the same sex and also feel inclined to then perform sex with and sometimes get married to those people. It is not an infringement on anyone else to allow them to do so. By default, that means that they have a right to do so. It's called freedom.

A man marrying 10 women does not infringe on anyone else but that is not a right. The whole infringement argument does not hold up if you take into account that the U.S. already bans activities that don't infringe on anyone else.

What the U.S. does or does not do is an appalling basis for judgement. From what I understand many U.S citizens and many Christians the world round agree that the U.S is not a good place to start regarding how people should or should not act and what people should or should not be allowed to do. I have no problem regarding polygamy as long as it is completely consensual. if ten men want to marry one woman and are happy with that setup (and she is too) who am I to argue? Same goes with women to men.

If you can't argue against polygamy, then who are you to argue against incest. My point is in the U.S. we do have the right to stop someone from doing something whether it infringes on a so-called right or not.

Again, what happens in the U.S. can stay in the U.S. The rest of the world looks down upon many of the things that the U.S. government decides is "right" or "wrong".

I think I've stated this quite clearly, incest is an abuse of power, a power that exists even after the child grows past legal age. In most cases it is the result of coercion(and pedophilia) from a young age. Incest has an increased chance of birthing problems as well. When it comes to legalizing incestuous unions, there is no way evidence could be shown to prove that this case of incest did not involve coercion or abuse of power and given the extraordinarily large amount of cases of incest involve coercion and abuse, it could never be legalized practically.

I can agree. The U.S. should not be influenced by whatever other countries allow. WHat happens outside the U.S. should stay outside the U.S. You say it could never be legalized but I bet the same was said about same sex unions not 50 years ago.

The right to a childhood. Incest is most often the result of coercion from a young age. Children are coerced into becoming sexually involved with their family member. Such an act is robbing them of their childhood. Children have a right to a childhood and to dreams and ambitions and to sexing up who they want when they're old enough, not being buttered up for their Dad or uncle or brother or sister or mum or aunt. Not to mention the genetic problems that spring from incest

.

I asked if they were both of legal age to marry.

Coercion starts young, even if the sexy time doesn't begin until they're over 18. It's also abuse of power, parents hold a position of power over their children, to engage in that kind of relationship with them is an abuse of that power.

You are avoiding the question. It's a hard question because of your stance on marriage. Try to leave out coercion because you can't prove that every case would involve that.

Let's say the son was gay and the father came out as gay after the son turned 18. If the father never touched his son while his son was a minor then why using what you have written would that not be considered a basic human right?

As I said before, coercion starts young. "Touching" does not have to be a part of the coercion. Also the abuse of power.

You still haven't answered the question. You are trying to justify your position by saying something that MAY OR MAY NOT have happened. If you assume coercion did not happen then you can't deny them a basic human right can you?

If the event was entirely free of coercion, then sure, let 'em do what they wanna do. But it is practically impossible to show that such an event is free of coercion and therefore would be practically impossible to legalize as no cases would be considered true due to the impossibility of providing evidence and the ridiculously large number of cases where coercion does actually occur. Also, the genetic problems. You are making a red herring by trying to compare the two issues.

So gay marriage would be legal so long as the men were not related. That is causing suffering for those men who happen to be related but are in love with each other. The only red herring is claiming this is not related.

The genetic problems are not relevant because I have not brought up sex between two men at all. Sex between two people of the same sex serves no biological purpose so if we are using sex as an argument then we should address this point as well.

What kind of a point is that? Sex with any infertile person doesn't serve any "biological purpose"(whatever that means). Should we prevent people that cannot produce children from getting married as well?

Biological purposes is reproduction. This is why I never brought it up. It's not relevant to any point I made. Sex between two males is going to be the same whether incestual or not.

But you did bring it up? That's why I responded to your comment regarding it.

Nope I didn't. It was brought up as part of our discussion by you about incest and marriage. I used the term first, but you brought up the subject. As I said, I did not even intend on bringing sex into the conversation.

I think there's something we need to get straight here, how do you define, "a basic human right?" I have made my definition clear, I think, so since you think I'm wrong, what would you define it as? How does your definition exclude, "the right to solidify your relationship with another person with a ceremony and a celebration." Listing off rights we have and don't have is pointless, the way to go about this would be to describe what it is that makes something, "a basic human right" or not, "a basic human right."

If something is a basic human right, then it is a basic human right regardless of the situation. That is the easiest and I believe the best definition.

But it's not a definition or a method for classification of "a basic human right" at all. You've only described how " a basic human right" applies and when it applies(always). So, would you like to try again and actually give a definition or a method for classification? Until you do, We've got nothing left but your adamant claims that my definition/method for classification is wrong and absolutely no definition or method for classification to oppose it.

What do you think "a basic human right" is? What does that phrase actually mean to you? How is same sex unions specifically disqualified from that definition where other unions are not?

I am saying that I will accept your definition, if we agree that it applies regardless of the situation. I believe you will find that you can't apply the definition you gave and still meet my one criteria without allowing almost any form of marriage. Will you go that far?

[Filthy Tugboat]

By your definition there are no limits on what constitutes a marriage. Necrophilia, Polygamy, etc. would all be legal forms of marriage here.

Polygamy, yes, as I stated above. If you weren't aware, polygamy has been popular in human culture for millenia, in Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Pagan, Animistic and just about every religious culture that has ever existed. Necrophilia, no. One thing that must always be involved in state recognized unions is informed consent. A corpse is incapable of giving any kind of consent let alone "informed consent" and therefore, one could not marry a corpse legally or by the definition I provided. If you need further explanation, the excess criteria I mentioned here about "informed consent" comes with the definition of "people." People have rights that concern "informed consent". Doing something with or to a person without their "informed consent" is a violation of their rights.

Once a person is dead, I am not sure the 'informed consent' issue would still apply. Do dead people actually have rights? If so, why don't babies in the womb share these rights (I know different subject, but used to illustrate that at certain points in life, people do not have rights)? Could a person marry an inanimate object and it be legal?

Yes. According to my own views and current social/legal views(even in America), the dead do have rights.

Zygotes and fetus'(and many other stages of pregnancy) are not "people", neither is sperm or ovum. Until they are actually "alive" they are simply a part of the woman. The woman still has complete rights, including the right to decide what can or cannot grow inside her or what she has to suffer through or what suffering can be avoided.

Abortion (if done correctly) does not end a life anymore so than sex ends 50,000 lives (Majority of sperm do not produce fertilization and instead, perish). I do consider the right to life a basic human right, where that life begins it appears people disagree.

Red Herring. I asked if you support the right to life. The only way to defend abortion and answer yes here is to redefine when life begins. This is the same argument being used to promote gay marriage.

Actually, the definition of life does not include an embryo or quite a bit of the pregnancy. So it is the "pro-lifers" that redefine the word "life".[ref] (if you are unsure, embryo, and several other stages of an unborn human, are not capable of responding to stimuli and are therefore not actually 'alive' as per the definition of life).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/life

Life as defined by the dictionary. Life has 20 meanings according to Merriam-Webster so we can't cherry pick which one fits here. It doesn't work. Responding to stimuli is only ONE part of ONE definition for life.

The "ONE definition" of life happens to be the most accurate definition, the biological definition. In order for a thing to be considered "alive" it must meet all criteria of the biological definition of life. Just because you choose to cherry pick definitions and avoid the one that actually has evidential basis and, above all, consistency in it's definition does not change the fact that the biological definition is the most accurate basis for our discussion.

In other words, you only want to use whatever definition suites your purpose.

No, I'm saying that the most accurate and, need I stress it again, the most consistent definition should apply. This definition has been tried and tested against all forms of life and it is well founded and agreed upon scientifically and socially. You find issue in this one case (unborn children being classified as "non-living" or, for all intents and purposes, a part of the woman who may or may not birth them) compared to trillions of agreeable classifications of other forms of life by comparison to other "non-living" objects. This definition applies so completely to reality, it would be stupid to consider an English dictionary definition more reliable. I cannot stress the stupidity that such a decision relies on.

Well I will not do that. I have a recognized dictionary that defines life in multiple ways that can be applied here verses a biological definition that must only use the one that it cherry picks. I think I'll stick with the one that is actually supposed to define the meanings of words.

If and when you understand what cherry picking actually means, you will hopefully recognize that right now, you have completely screwed up the definition and swapped it. You couldn't be more wrong on this topic. The study of life and living organisms is called Biology. The English dictionary is a pursuit of the English language and how it is used by the populace. The vast majority of the populace are not biologists, they do not study life. Therefore, the more reliable definition would come from Biology.

Aside from the fact that the sources and the priorities you place on them are completely backwards, the definitions you may or may not pick to suit your needs are not consistent. The definition I provided is consistent. It has proven itself time and again in identifying what is and is not alive. That's why I'm stressing the major reason to rely on the biological definition is consistency.

It doesn't need to be. These people feel attracted towards members of the same sex and also feel inclined to then perform sex with and sometimes get married to those people. It is not an infringement on anyone else to allow them to do so. By default, that means that they have a right to do so. It's called freedom.

A man marrying 10 women does not infringe on anyone else but that is not a right. The whole infringement argument does not hold up if you take into account that the U.S. already bans activities that don't infringe on anyone else.

What the U.S. does or does not do is an appalling basis for judgement. From what I understand many U.S citizens and many Christians the world round agree that the U.S is not a good place to start regarding how people should or should not act and what people should or should not be allowed to do. I have no problem regarding polygamy as long as it is completely consensual. if ten men want to marry one woman and are happy with that setup (and she is too) who am I to argue? Same goes with women to men.

If you can't argue against polygamy, then who are you to argue against incest. My point is in the U.S. we do have the right to stop someone from doing something whether it infringes on a so-called right or not.

Again, what happens in the U.S. can stay in the U.S. The rest of the world looks down upon many of the things that the U.S. government decides is "right" or "wrong".

I think I've stated this quite clearly, incest is an abuse of power, a power that exists even after the child grows past legal age. In most cases it is the result of coercion(and pedophilia) from a young age. Incest has an increased chance of birthing problems as well. When it comes to legalizing incestuous unions, there is no way evidence could be shown to prove that this case of incest did not involve coercion or abuse of power and given the extraordinarily large amount of cases of incest involve coercion and abuse, it could never be legalized practically.

I can agree. The U.S. should not be influenced by whatever other countries allow. WHat happens outside the U.S. should stay outside the U.S. You say it could never be legalized but I bet the same was said about same sex unions not 50 years ago.

I couldn't care less what was said 50 years ago regarding this issue. You'll find inter-racial marriage was in huge debate in that same time period. Something we consider a basic human right these days. I am assuming you agree or do you think "non-whites" should not marry or otherwise perform intercourse with "whites"?

The genetic problems are not relevant because I have not brought up sex between two men at all. Sex between two people of the same sex serves no biological purpose so if we are using sex as an argument then we should address this point as well.

What kind of a point is that? Sex with any infertile person doesn't serve any "biological purpose"(whatever that means). Should we prevent people that cannot produce children from getting married as well?

Biological purposes is reproduction. This is why I never brought it up. It's not relevant to any point I made. Sex between two males is going to be the same whether incestual or not.

But you did bring it up? That's why I responded to your comment regarding it.

Nope I didn't. It was brought up as part of our discussion by you about incest and marriage. I used the term first, but you brought up the subject. As I said, I did not even intend on bringing sex into the conversation.

Whatever you think you said, is, well, wrong. I can literally quote you from the above comments that you yourself have since quoted. Here, "Sex between two people of the same sex serves no biological purpose so if we are using sex as an argument then we should address this point as well." You not only brought this specific comment up, you told me to address it. This is, to my knowledge, the only point in our debate you have gone out of your way to tell me to address and now you are claiming you didn't bring it up and didn't want to talk about it? Strange.

I think there's something we need to get straight here, how do you define, "a basic human right?" I have made my definition clear, I think, so since you think I'm wrong, what would you define it as? How does your definition exclude, "the right to solidify your relationship with another person with a ceremony and a celebration." Listing off rights we have and don't have is pointless, the way to go about this would be to describe what it is that makes something, "a basic human right" or not, "a basic human right."

If something is a basic human right, then it is a basic human right regardless of the situation. That is the easiest and I believe the best definition.

But it's not a definition or a method for classification of "a basic human right" at all. You've only described how " a basic human right" applies and when it applies(always). So, would you like to try again and actually give a definition or a method for classification? Until you do, We've got nothing left but your adamant claims that my definition/method for classification is wrong and absolutely no definition or method for classification to oppose it.

What do you think "a basic human right" is? What does that phrase actually mean to you? How is same sex unions specifically disqualified from that definition where other unions are not?

I am saying that I will accept your definition, if we agree that it applies regardless of the situation. I believe you will find that you can't apply the definition you gave and still meet my one criteria without allowing almost any form of marriage. Will you go that far?

Of course I will, that's why I've been defending my position (imo, quite successfully) for the last couple of posts. The definition I have provided for marriage, which I have in turn stated is a basic human right, does not include incest, necropilia, pedophilia or beastiality as all of these things infringe on other rights held by the victims of the aforementioned "relationships".

[charles_hamm]

By your definition there are no limits on what constitutes a marriage. Necrophilia, Polygamy, etc. would all be legal forms of marriage here.

Polygamy, yes, as I stated above. If you weren't aware, polygamy has been popular in human culture for millenia, in Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Pagan, Animistic and just about every religious culture that has ever existed. Necrophilia, no. One thing that must always be involved in state recognized unions is informed consent. A corpse is incapable of giving any kind of consent let alone "informed consent" and therefore, one could not marry a corpse legally or by the definition I provided. If you need further explanation, the excess criteria I mentioned here about "informed consent" comes with the definition of "people." People have rights that concern "informed consent". Doing something with or to a person without their "informed consent" is a violation of their rights.

Once a person is dead, I am not sure the 'informed consent' issue would still apply. Do dead people actually have rights? If so, why don't babies in the womb share these rights (I know different subject, but used to illustrate that at certain points in life, people do not have rights)? Could a person marry an inanimate object and it be legal?

Yes. According to my own views and current social/legal views(even in America), the dead do have rights.

Zygotes and fetus'(and many other stages of pregnancy) are not "people", neither is sperm or ovum. Until they are actually "alive" they are simply a part of the woman. The woman still has complete rights, including the right to decide what can or cannot grow inside her or what she has to suffer through or what suffering can be avoided.

You use the term 'alive' for a baby, but yet you don't require a person to be 'alive' to have rights? This is a contradiction.

Abortion (if done correctly) does not end a life anymore so than sex ends 50,000 lives (Majority of sperm do not produce fertilization and instead, perish). I do consider the right to life a basic human right, where that life begins it appears people disagree.

Red Herring. I asked if you support the right to life. The only way to defend abortion and answer yes here is to redefine when life begins. This is the same argument being used to promote gay marriage.

Actually, the definition of life does not include an embryo or quite a bit of the pregnancy. So it is the "pro-lifers" that redefine the word "life".[ref] (if you are unsure, embryo, and several other stages of an unborn human, are not capable of responding to stimuli and are therefore not actually 'alive' as per the definition of life).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/life

Life as defined by the dictionary. Life has 20 meanings according to Merriam-Webster so we can't cherry pick which one fits here. It doesn't work. Responding to stimuli is only ONE part of ONE definition for life.

The "ONE definition" of life happens to be the most accurate definition, the biological definition. In order for a thing to be considered "alive" it must meet all criteria of the biological definition of life. Just because you choose to cherry pick definitions and avoid the one that actually has evidential basis and, above all, consistency in it's definition does not change the fact that the biological definition is the most accurate basis for our discussion.

In other words, you only want to use whatever definition suites your purpose.

No, I'm saying that the most accurate and, need I stress it again, the most consistent definition should apply. This definition has been tried and tested against all forms of life and it is well founded and agreed upon scientifically and socially. You find issue in this one case (unborn children being classified as "non-living" or, for all intents and purposes, a part of the woman who may or may not birth them) compared to trillions of agreeable classifications of other forms of life by comparison to other "non-living" objects. This definition applies so completely to reality, it would be stupid to consider an English dictionary definition more reliable. I cannot stress the stupidity that such a decision relies on.

Well I will not do that. I have a recognized dictionary that defines life in multiple ways that can be applied here verses a biological definition that must only use the one that it cherry picks. I think I'll stick with the one that is actually supposed to define the meanings of words.

If and when you understand what cherry picking actually means, you will hopefully recognize that right now, you have completely screwed up the definition and swapped it. You couldn't be more wrong on this topic. The study of life and living organisms is called Biology. The English dictionary is a pursuit of the English language and how it is used by the populace. The vast majority of the populace are not biologists, they do not study life. Therefore, the more reliable definition would come from Biology.

Aside from the fact that the sources and the priorities you place on them are completely backwards, the definitions you may or may not pick to suit your needs are not consistent. The definition I provided is consistent. It has proven itself time and again in identifying what is and is not alive. That's why I'm stressing the major reason to rely on the biological definition is consistency.

Please, please, please explain how Biology came up with a definition for life if it did not use a previously established meaning for the word. Did they pull it out of thin air? If the majority of the world are not Biologist then why does it matter what Biology calls life when the majority will look at a dictionary to get a definition? Like I said, you are picking one and only one definition because it suites your position. Use it if you like, but understand you are limiting yourself not me. I have a source that backs up what I say.

It doesn't need to be. These people feel attracted towards members of the same sex and also feel inclined to then perform sex with and sometimes get married to those people. It is not an infringement on anyone else to allow them to do so. By default, that means that they have a right to do so. It's called freedom.

A man marrying 10 women does not infringe on anyone else but that is not a right. The whole infringement argument does not hold up if you take into account that the U.S. already bans activities that don't infringe on anyone else.

What the U.S. does or does not do is an appalling basis for judgement. From what I understand many U.S citizens and many Christians the world round agree that the U.S is not a good place to start regarding how people should or should not act and what people should or should not be allowed to do. I have no problem regarding polygamy as long as it is completely consensual. if ten men want to marry one woman and are happy with that setup (and she is too) who am I to argue? Same goes with women to men.

If you can't argue against polygamy, then who are you to argue against incest. My point is in the U.S. we do have the right to stop someone from doing something whether it infringes on a so-called right or not.

Again, what happens in the U.S. can stay in the U.S. The rest of the world looks down upon many of the things that the U.S. government decides is "right" or "wrong".

I think I've stated this quite clearly, incest is an abuse of power, a power that exists even after the child grows past legal age. In most cases it is the result of coercion(and pedophilia) from a young age. Incest has an increased chance of birthing problems as well. When it comes to legalizing incestuous unions, there is no way evidence could be shown to prove that this case of incest did not involve coercion or abuse of power and given the extraordinarily large amount of cases of incest involve coercion and abuse, it could never be legalized practically.

I can agree. The U.S. should not be influenced by whatever other countries allow. WHat happens outside the U.S. should stay outside the U.S. You say it could never be legalized but I bet the same was said about same sex unions not 50 years ago.

I couldn't care less what was said 50 years ago regarding this issue. You'll find inter-racial marriage was in huge debate in that same time period. Something we consider a basic human right these days. I am assuming you agree or do you think "non-whites" should not marry or otherwise perform intercourse with "whites"?

Men should be allowed to marry women. Period.

The genetic problems are not relevant because I have not brought up sex between two men at all. Sex between two people of the same sex serves no biological purpose so if we are using sex as an argument then we should address this point as well.

What kind of a point is that? Sex with any infertile person doesn't serve any "biological purpose"(whatever that means). Should we prevent people that cannot produce children from getting married as well?

Biological purposes is reproduction. This is why I never brought it up. It's not relevant to any point I made. Sex between two males is going to be the same whether incestual or not.

But you did bring it up? That's why I responded to your comment regarding it.

Nope I didn't. It was brought up as part of our discussion by you about incest and marriage. I used the term first, but you brought up the subject. As I said, I did not even intend on bringing sex into the conversation.

Whatever you think you said, is, well, wrong. I can literally quote you from the above comments that you yourself have since quoted. Here, "Sex between two people of the same sex serves no biological purpose so if we are using sex as an argument then we should address this point as well." You not only brought this specific comment up, you told me to address it. This is, to my knowledge, the only point in our debate you have gone out of your way to tell me to address and now you are claiming you didn't bring it up and didn't want to talk about it? Strange.

Did you see the conditional "if" in my statement? That means I responding to a situation already made. You brought up genetic defects in a previous post prior to me saying anything. That is the only reason sex was addressed.

I think there's something we need to get straight here, how do you define, "a basic human right?" I have made my definition clear, I think, so since you think I'm wrong, what would you define it as? How does your definition exclude, "the right to solidify your relationship with another person with a ceremony and a celebration." Listing off rights we have and don't have is pointless, the way to go about this would be to describe what it is that makes something, "a basic human right" or not, "a basic human right."

If something is a basic human right, then it is a basic human right regardless of the situation. That is the easiest and I believe the best definition.

But it's not a definition or a method for classification of "a basic human right" at all. You've only described how " a basic human right" applies and when it applies(always). So, would you like to try again and actually give a definition or a method for classification? Until you do, We've got nothing left but your adamant claims that my definition/method for classification is wrong and absolutely no definition or method for classification to oppose it.

What do you think "a basic human right" is? What does that phrase actually mean to you? How is same sex unions specifically disqualified from that definition where other unions are not?

I am saying that I will accept your definition, if we agree that it applies regardless of the situation. I believe you will find that you can't apply the definition you gave and still meet my one criteria without allowing almost any form of marriage. Will you go that far?

Of course I will, that's why I've been defending my position (imo, quite successfully) for the last couple of posts. The definition I have provided for marriage, which I have in turn stated is a basic human right, does not include incest, necropilia, pedophilia or beastiality as all of these things infringe on other rights held by the victims of the aforementioned "relationships".

Now I can't accept your definition anymore. You've altered what you said by leaving out certain types of marriages. Your definition excludes at least two acts that do no harm to anyone and a third that is questionable so by your own statements incest, necrophilia and beastiality should be legal. The correct answer for you should have been no you could not go as far as I said because I did allow for alterations or limitations to who gets to be married.

[kayky]

Whether you define the baby as a person or not is not relevant. The baby is still a human being and as such has basic human rights. Your ownership of your body in no way justifies your ownership of another living human beings body. As I said before, your example shows that one human being can exercise a right to deny another human being what have been called "basic human rights".

As a woman I find it totally relevant. Your attempt to define human
in the phrase "basic human rights" is most likely a reflection of your fundamentalist approach to defending the Bible as the inerrant word of God, which also often involves semantical gymnastics. I find this approach to interpreting either the Bible or the Constitution to be what is actually irrelevant.

Really? Physical reflexs to external stimuli is not too primitive. Also why stop here. Go on month more and babies can already hear and may feel pain. You picked a time when you had the best odds to get the lowest number of actual 'human' type actions, but in only one month an unborn baby shows the same types of things a born baby does.

I grew up on a farm. When you chop the head off a chicken, it will flop around on the ground for a minute or two. These are residual physical reflexes. So, yes, we are talking about extremely primitive brain function.

Over 90% of abortions performed in the US occur in the first trimester. The vast majority of those performed later are done for medical reasons.

Kayky:
Is a fertilized egg inside a Petrie dish a "human being"?

You asked if it's a 'human being'. The correct answer is yes.

No. It isn't. It's a human zygote. And that's a far cry from a human being.

[kayky]

I've already stated multiple times that gay marriage is immoral based upon my Biblical principals. You didn't like that but it doesn't change the fact that I answered. The fact that it is socially unacceptable is demonstrated by the number of states where it is illegal.

It's not a question of whether or not I like it. I just find it irrelevant. Do you have objective reasons (beyond "the Bible tells me so" and "we've always done it that way") for believing that gay marriage is immoral?

[bluethread]

Then you do think that only people who can't or won't find someone to marry should pay inheritance tax?

Spouses are exempt, I take it? I'm not a tax expert. If you have a point, I wish you'd just make it.

Well, if any two people of the same sex are permitted to marry, then the only one's paying inheritance tax would be those who do not have a same sex relative. This would also create a situation where men would be more likely the heirs of men and women the heirs of women. To use your term, is this fair? Why or why not? I present this because unequal tax treatment is one of the big reasons that is presented in support of homosexual marriage.

[kayky]

Well, if any two people of the same sex are permitted to marry, then the only one's paying inheritance tax would be those who do not have a same sex relative. This would also create a situation where men would be more likely the heirs of men and women the heirs of women. To use your term, is this fair? Why or why not? I present this because unequal tax treatment is one of the big reasons that is presented in support of homosexual marriage.

I've read it three times--once out loud--I still can't make sense of it.

[bluethread]

Well, if any two people of the same sex are permitted to marry, then the only one's paying inheritance tax would be those who do not have a same sex relative. This would also create a situation where men would be more likely the heirs of men and women the heirs of women. To use your term, is this fair? Why or why not? I present this because unequal tax treatment is one of the big reasons that is presented in support of homosexual marriage.

I've read it three times--once out loud--I still can't make sense of it.

Ok, if a man has a son and a daughter and he marries his son to avoid taxes, is that fair to the daughter? If the man has no son and he gives his estate to his daughter, he has to pay taxes, because he can not marry her. Is that fair? Also, if father-son, mother-daughter marriage is acceptable, who will pay inheritance tax? Father's without sons and mothers without daughters, right? Is that fair?