Why Are Republicans So Fixated On SEX???????

I've never said anything about "allowing sex with dogs" or anything even remotely similar. I don't know why you keep bringing that up. I just don't understand why you don't want marriage equality for everyone.

 

Not at all. Don't you think it's quite selfish for same-sex couples to only want equality for themselves? After all, the debate that's being waged is for everyone to have the same rights extended to them that only a portion of the population has previously enjoyed. Does it make sense to limit equality?

 

What is asked for is a change in the law that would allow same-sex couples to have the same legal privileges as an opposite-sex couple under the title of "marriage". Those privileges would include things like insurance, wills, trusts, mortgages, probate, etc.

All I'm asking is that you try to think more liberally about this. (Yes, I said that).

First of all, take the aspect of intercourse out of the equation. That's not what the debate is about. Opposite-sex and same-sex partners can legally have intercourse with consenting adults under current laws.

When I ask, "Would you allow two same-sex, biological siblings to marry?" the first thing that comes to your mind is "incest" and your response is that you wouldn't allow it. Bear in mind that incest is defined as "sexual relations between people who are closely related".

The sexual aspect of marriage is not the question here. As I've said before, what happens in the bedroom between consenting adults is their business, not yours or society's for that matter.

The "legal" aspect of marriage is what the current debate (and court cases) is focused on. Therefore, if we remove the "sexual" aspect from the equation, we're left with the "legal" aspect.

Dealing with only the "legal" aspect of marriage, I'll ask my question again: Would you allow two same-sex, biological siblings to marry?

 

Google the terms Right-wing & bestiality and you'll find many of your ilk make this argument quite often even if you haven't caught up with them yet. It is pretty much the same type of argument you made about same-sex marriages being equal to incestuous marriages. You tried and failed to wiggle out of that one but as usual, I refuse to let you. Slippery slope and logical fallacy arguments don't work on people on the Left. Only Righties fall for them because they are stupid.

 

Dumbest argument yet. We have a wiener...and that isn't a typo.

 

Interesting!!! I googled "right-wing bestiality" and got 177,000 results. However, I also tried "left-wing bestiality". Guess what Teddy. I got 2,450,000 results. Man, you (and your ilk) have sure been busy. You started it. Now lets see how you are going to back out of this.

 

I'm not equating same-sex marriage to bestiality or incest, you moronic dolt. You can't answer my question simply because it would make you second-guess your own argument. Marriage (and I'm not talking about intercourse - or can't you read?) should be an equal proposition for everyone, not just a select demographic. I don't know why you're advocating limiting the freedom of anyone who wishes to marry. You need to open your mind and quit focusing on your own prejudices and biases.

 

Whoa, Tiger, where did I say I "wouldn't allow it" in reference to same sex siblings marrying? You might want to provide that quote.

And to your question, speaking in a legal context, it would depend on what kind of case they could make. Where is the harm? What deficiency or deficiencies exist in a relationship such as this that a change in the law could rectify? What legal rights would marriage confer on them that they do not currently enjoy as siblings? Would marriage be the best remedy?

I don't have the answers to these questions but it's questions like these that I would ask in the hope of coming to a conclusion. The proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage equality have been wrestling over questions like this for years now. The variant of same-sex marriage that you propose above would need to be addressed similarly.

And by the way, you've been talking about "all people" even though you've kind of zeroed in on our pair of gay brothers/lovers. You want to extend marriage rights to all people? I'd love to hear how that's going to work.

 

I asked,

"So, if society is going to allow marriage equality (not just opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage), then marriage should be equal for ALL people. Shouldn't it? Or do you disagree?"

and you responded,​

"No, I would not agree."​

The presumption from your answer is that you would not agree with allowing marriage to be equal for all people. This would include so-called "incestuous" relationships.​

I don't really think it's your place or my place to decide for a couple what "legal rights marriage would confer on them" or what rights "they do not currently enjoy as siblings". They would have the same legal rights as any married couple. If they decide that marriage confers more legal rights to them as opposed to being siblings, shouldn't that be THEIR choice?

Thank you. That's the most intelligent response I've read in this thread.

I've referred to "same-sex biological siblings" for the sake of argument. Not necessarily brothers, but sisters or father/son or mother/daughter. For that matter it could be uncle/nephew, aunt/niece or grandmother/granddaughter. If you are basing an opinion on the "yuck" factor, isn't that really what most heterosexuals who are opposed to same-sex marriage are doing?

Yes, these certainly are questions that will have to be answered.

 

I was disagreeing with a blanket statement. You know that as well as I do. You conveniently ignore that I later expanded on my opinion there. It's impossible for me to agree with your "all people" thing. All people means anyone situated between birth and death regardless of age or circumstance. Sorry. I'm not that Liberal. Your focus on incest is interesting. And now you don't seem to like the legal aspects anymore even though you specifically said that those are what you wanted to talk about. So tell me, where did this talking point come from?

 

I'm simply asking "Devil's Advocate" type questions. For the sake of argument "all people" can refer to anyone of legal age who wishes to enter into the legally-binding contract of "marriage" with another person or persons. Opposite-sex, same-sex, transgendered... it doesn't matter; the government shouldn't even be considering the sex of the individuals who want to enter the contract. The only aspect I'm interested in is the legal aspect. The sexual aspect has nothing to do with the argument; sexual activity between consenting adults is, and should be, none of the government's business and certainly not the basis for granting contractual rights.

Now, if we're only dealing with the legal aspect of two (or more) individuals entering into a marriage contract granted by the government, shouldn't the government treat any such partnership equally regardless of the sex or personal relationship of the individuals?

I think too many people are hung up on the idea that "marriage" has to, necessarily, involve sex. Or mutual attraction. Or love. Or procreation. Actually, it's nothing more than a contract. If the parties involved love each other or want to procreate, well, that's their business - not the government's business.

But, back to my same-sex biological siblings argument, if the individuals want to join in marriage for whatever legal reasons they see fit, shouldn't the government allow them to do that?

 

People marry for all sorts of reasons. Companionship, money, social position, family pressure, a visa, love, a combination of any of the above and others. So obviously sex is not necessarily the only or even the primary motivation. I think most people understand that. Nothing new here.

And you continue by saying that the government should allow people to join in marriage for any legal reason. Well yes. That's exactly what the government allows people to do now - join in marriage for any legal reason. However, in most places, wanting to marry your same sex partner is not a legal reason. Also not legal is incest. In most places. I guess. I haven't really researched it. So what exactly are you talking about? I think I've answered what I think might be the question as best I can when I say I don't know. Haven't heard the arguments yet. And with that I think I'm pretty much done. Maybe you'll have better luck with someone else.

 

Yep, I think I'm done, too. Marriage equality should be marriage equality for EVERYONE. I don't know how much more I can emphasize that. At least you carry on an intelligent conversation. Thanks for participating.

 

Everything was legal until laws were created to make certain things illegal. A lot of those laws are for the general good of a society, DOMA (and the like) isn't, IMO. Those types of laws are forcing religious beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs. While I can accept that they have the right to say they don't agree with a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman, I will not accept the laws they insist be created to force their religious views on others. The talk about incest is idiotic, a desperate attempt to make a point where their other arguments have failed.

 

Not really. Not if they want to get married, too. Who are you to judge?

 

"if they want to [fill in the blank], who are you to judge? As IQ rightly points out, our legal process is designed to address that seemingly simple question.

 

View attachment 1597

 

Ah, but the debate in question is about marriage equality, not (fill in the blank). Surely you're not saying we should be able to judge who can get married and who can't.

 

Well we do. We do it all the time. Do you have a problem with judging who is competent to enter a contract and who isn't? Civil marriage is a form of contract and one of the limits we place on marriage relates to contractual competence. We also currently restrict marriage to two people at one time. Should we have to power to do this? Yes, I think so. Is it a good idea to impose this restriction? That is a separate question and I don't know the answer to that. I haven't given it enough thought or heard enough pro/con arguments to come to a conclusion. But I think it's silly to say that the government should have no role. The government has a role in all contracts and marriage is no different.

If you are one of those who wants the government out of marriage, that's easy enough. If you are currently married, get a divorce. Then you and your partner go to your clergy person of choice and have him or her marry you without the license and without acting in his/her capacity as an agent of the state. In other words, get married in the eyes of your church and your deity and bingo, a government-free marriage.

 

I'm not saying anything about "competency". That's a given.

No one can, nor should they be able to, enter into a contract if they're incompetent. What's your point?

We also restrict marriage to two people who are of the opposite sex. That's what the lawsuit currently before the court is asking to change. Are you also saying that you advocate limiting the freedom of more than two people to marry?

That's all I'm asking you to do. Think about it. Hasn't the law in this country imposed enough restrictions on who can or can't marry? Isn't it time for change? The current debate about same-sex marriage is causing a lot of people to reconsider their pre-conceived notions about marriage in general. Just think about what marriage really is and question your own notions.

I think government's role in marriage should be limited to issuing a license and making a record of the contract. Government should not be stipulating who can marry and who can't.

No, I don't want government out of marriage. I want them to perform their duty as I stated above. The clergy or the church really has nothing to do with the marriage contract. They simply perform a religious service for those who want that, but it's completely separate from the marriage contract.