With so much discussion of gay marriage in the news lately and the Supreme Court taking it up as well, I thought that I'd see if anyone here has an objections to the the idea and why. I can't see why it should matter to anyone if two people want to get married. I don't believe that any religious organization should be forced to marry anyone they don't want to marry but gay couples should have the same rights as anyone else has. In other words, religious beliefs should not be used as a basis to discriminate against gay couples.
Especially since there isn't a single thing in the Bible against it. Funny, the same people who want the government out of their lives seem to want to restrict the freedoms of others via government and religion. Besides, marriage isn't a religious act, it's a civil act, predating any known religion by thousands of years. It's a human right, not a right of those who believe a certain way.
Do you believe that as my right or are you trying to determine my sexual orientation? And why would you care?
I couldn't care less what your sexual orientation is. Like I said, Joe, you should be able to marry any man who will have you.
It could be. So why are so many in your party of choice against the idea and even a few on the other side?
It's difficult to say. Why was Obama for it before he was against it before he was for it before he was against it before he was for it before he was against it before... oh, hell.. who can figure him out?
First off, BO & Bill Clinton have also been opposed to same sex marriage...both were elected then re-elected expressing that view so I hardly believe it's strictly a Republican issue. Further, I believe a great deal of the opposition comes from a fundamental distrust of anything that comes from or is advocated by this administration. I've discussed this with many people who do not believe the same sex marriage folks will be content with a civil recognition of their unions, they will want to force churches to bless them as well.
Marriage equality threatens traditional marriage in the same way abolishing slavery threatened the freedom of the slave owners. Think about it.
I've never said that it was strictly one political party but clearly the main opposition to gay marriage is from the Right. As far as the opposition being a result of a distrust of the Obama Administration, the history of opposition to gay marriage clearly, clearly predates this administration, and the last administration, and every administration prior to that. Further, churches cannot be forced to marry people against their will. The more likely result is that people will leave those churches in even larger numbers than they are leaving now and create whole new branches of more tolerant religious institutions. That is the real worry here. The slippery slope argument is still nonsense.
We've had this discussion before and you never answered my question then, but would you advocate for allowing two biological brothers or two biological sisters to marry? What about triplets of the same sex? Father and son? Mother and daughter? All these scenarios fall under the "same sex" umbrella. To simplify, are you only advocating same-sex marriage between two individuals who are not closely related? If so, why?
I am not advocating for incest of any kind nor do I equate incest with being gay anymore than I equate incest with being staight which is far, far more common occurrence. This argument of yours is ridiculous. This reminds me of those people that equate being gay with beastiality. How can you possibly make this crazy incest argument?
I merely asked you a question and you've answered it by saying that you don't advocate incest. So, in the case of same-sex, why not? After all, incest has been frowned upon through the ages due to the malformed children it produces. However, in the case of a same-sex couple there's no chance that biological offspring will result. If love is the basis for marriage, who are you to decide whether or not, for example, a mother-daughter relationship is any less valid than any other relationship? Even if love isn't the basis and it's merely a marriage of convenience, who are you to say that a mother and daughter can't marry? If the law is going to allow marriages of same-sex couples, why are you against the marriage of same-sex couples who are closely related?
Seriously? You are not "merely asking a question" here, you are making a direct comparison between same sex relationships and incestuous relationships. How is it even possible that you don't see that? How is it even possible that you don't see that incest is more common in heterosexual relationships? Then you try this bit of acrobatic logic... After all, incest has been frowned upon through the ages due to the malformed children it produces. However, in the case of a same-sex couple there's no chance that biological offspring will result. If love is the basis for marriage, who are you to decide whether or not, for example, a mother-daughter relationship is any less valid than any other relationship? Let me see if I can graph this statement for you... A. Incest has been a social tabu for a long time. B. "However" gay relations produce no children. C. If love is why people marry, I shouldn't be able to judge incest as an invalid relationship. You should really sit back and graph out your arguments before trying to make them and you would realize what a head scratching experience for the rest of us they are. Your argument makes absolutely no sense and you do draw a direct comparison between gay relationships and incestuous relationships. Try again.
Merely, playing Devil's Advocate here. Why are you against incestuous same-sex marriages? Is it that you're simply against incest? If the relationship produces no children, why are you against it? As a self-described liberal thinker (that's a joke unto itself, but that's another story), why aren't you liberal when it comes to incest? If the age-old taboos frowned on incest because of the malformed offspring, then that point is moot in a same-sex incestuous marriage. So far, you've provided absolutely no justification for your loathing of incestuous same-sex marriages. Please provide us a reason why you're against them. Just one.
I'm not equating incest with being gay. I'm asking if you think it's OK for a same-sex, closely related, (e.g., mother and daughter) couple to be able to marry. Let's assume the Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of gay marriage and same-sex couples are allowed to marry (hooray!). Now, you're the clerk at the county office where marriage licenses are issued and two biological brothers walk in and want to get a marriage license. Would you issue them one? If not, why not? Are you going to arbitrarily decide that the couple must have "X" amount of familial separation before they can marry? How much familial separation must there be? Indeed, why must there be ANY familial separation in a same-sex marriage? You've stated you're against incest for heterosexual couples. I assume it's because of the offspring that's produced or perhaps it's because of some innate fear or loathing that was instilled in you when you were young. But, whatever it is, what's your reasoning for denying an incestuous marriage to homosexual couples?
Incest is a sexual act. Same sex marriage is a legal procedure. What part of this is confusing you? Apparently most of it.
No one is saying that two brothers or two sisters, etc. have to engage in a sexual relationship in their marriage. I'm merely asking you if you would agree to allow them to marry.
If they are not engaging in sexual relations, there is no incest. As far as marriage is concerned, I know of no law that would prevent two consenting relatives from marrying. Check out New Jersey's laws. Marriage is a religious cermony and I'm sure that there are some that allow such unions.
