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

Granted, the state designates clergy members as able to perform the clerical duties in lieu of a Justice of the Peace or judge. But, a clergy member doesn't actually "marry" anyone; that's the state's function. Once the individuals enter into the marriage contract provided by the state, the contract is complete. Clergy, Justices of the Peace, judges, etc. simply perform the clerical duties for the state.

 

So no government involvement other than issuing licenses to any competent couple who asks for one, and keeping records?

 

I think government's involvement needs to be minimal and it certainly shouldn't be able to indiscriminately decide who can enter into a contract.

 

I think we've got some mission creep going on here. Now government involvement has gone from specific - record keeping and registration - to unspecified "minimal". And no, the government shouldn't be able to indiscriminately decide who can enter into a contract and who can not. That's why we have courts, lawsuits, and elections. But take away "indiscriminately" and the government does and should.

 

I think I'm infinitely more qualified than the government to decide who I want to marry or with whom I want to enter into a contract or with whom I want to create a corporation.

It really shouldn't be the government's business if someone wants to enter into a contract with a stranger, a best friend, a same-sex partner, a sibling, a parent, etc. We've already agreed that the government should stay out of our bedrooms, but that's not the point of this discussion. Marriage is just another type of contract, so can you explain why the government should tell me I can't choose with whom I wish to partner (competency and legal age issues aside)? Playing Devil's Advocate again, if marriage is a contract (and it certainly is), shouldn't individuals be able to enter into that contract regardless of their inter-personal relationship?

 

In all cases (the competency of the parties being assumed)? Or strictly in your incest example?

 

I don't think the government should discriminate. Oh, and it's not incest unless they have sex and how is the government going to know that? SHOULD the government know that or even concern itself with it? If the government concerns itself with only the legal aspect of the marriage contract (as it should), why is the sexual aspect even being discussed? The sexual aspect is no one's business. Or is it?

 

I'm using incest as a convenient term to describe the relationship. Nothing more. As for discrimination, go forth and work to end ALL government discrimination if that is your cause in life.

 

Well, "incest" only refers to the sexual aspect of a relationship. So, unless you know that sex is happening between, say for example, two brothers then you really can't call their relationship "incestuous". Calling it a "convenient term" is rather presumptuous on your part.

This goes back to the same argument that heterosexuals who are opposed to same-sex marriages have. They think it's disgusting for same-sex individuals to have sex. But, you agree that it's really none of their business and they need to stay out of your bedroom. You want the right to enter into a marriage contract with the individual of your choosing, but would you deny that same right to a pair of brothers or a pair of sisters?

This is just a philosophical discussion. I'm not on a crusade to change the marriage laws. But, many who back same-sex marriage ARE on a crusade. That's fine, I certainly have no problem with that as you already know that I back same-sex marriage.

But, we need to step back and take a moment to discuss what marriage really is. If the current debate is really about marriage equality, then are we going to place limits on who can marry? If marriage is just a legal contract, why would we place limits on individuals who can legally marry?

View attachment 1599

 

View attachment 1600 ​

​

View attachment 1601 ​

 

Why do we place limits on who can enter into any sort of contract? Sometimes those limits are there for good and valid reasons, other times not. You are arguing, as far as I can tell, that there is no good reason to for any sort of limit on who can marry. I'm saying that that's an interesting view but as is the case with most such broad general statements, you tend to run into problems and conflicts when it comes to what is right and just in one specific case or another. So I'm not prepared to endorse your blanket assertion until I've been convinced that it's valid. Sentiments like that expressed in the sign above feel good but do not necessarily make total sense.

 

Certainly. But, who determines what is "right" and what is "valid"? You and other liberals have argued that it's the conservatives who limit freedoms. But, aren't they just trying to determine what is "right and valid"? Perhaps so, at the expense of individual liberty at times. But, liberals do the same thing when they argue that equal liberty should not be enjoyed by everyone. Little Joe made that very argument in this thread. He doesn't believe that brothers should be able to marry their own brothers. He called it "incest" although the definition of incest is that the parties are having sexual relations. How he determines that a married couple is (or is going to) have sex is beyond me. Maybe he has some special glasses... who knows? But, the point I'm arguing is that, at least philosophically, liberty and freedom should be enjoyed by everyone, not just certain segments of the population.

BTW, I think equality makes perfect sense.

 

I feel like I'm trying to have a discussion with a bumper sticker. Good night.

 

Just think about it, Takiji. That's more than what the other liberals on here do. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I just want you to consider all sides.

 

The position Coinous has taken assumes that "the government" is the one in this situation restricting the rights of individuals to marry here. And they are but only in as much as they have caved into the two main opposition lobbyists here, the religious community and the business community. Government is simply the tool these two interested parties are using to force the rest of us to conform to what the religious community feels is a "God-given" commandment and the business community feels is an expense i.e. covering additional spouses under their benefits program, that they are not interested in paying for.
So simply saying that it is "government' not letting people marry that fall into certain demographics is really just a misunderstanding, albeit intentional, of the real dynamic going on here. But Coinous knows that.

 

I think it's more like pea-headed people like you who simply have pre-conceived sexual notions clouding your judgement who refuse to think outside the box (pun intended). You're an old, heterosexual male who thinks its the "liberal" thing to do to allow same-sex couples to marry, but won't allow same-sex siblings to marry because you are concerned about what they're going to do in the bedroom. None of it affects you, but you still want to pile on your prejudices because you can't stand the thought of what's going on in their bedroom. Are you ever going to learn that the debate isn't about sex; it's about marriage?

 

Right there! That is where the comparison between same-sex marriage and incest is being made but the douche bag making it refuses to see it. Because, of course, if you consider the question of same-sex couples marrying, then why not close relatives, or people and dogs, or people and furniture, etc.

Give it up Coinous! The straw man is a logical fallacy.

Fine Coinous. I say if anyone wants to marry anything at all, who are we to stop them? Now! Is that an argument for or against same-sex marriage? Or is your obtuse point simply yet another one of your tangential exercises. Please enlighten us great swami.

 

Well, I'm glad to see you're giving in a bit and realizing that you've been wrong all along. You're taking a step in the right direction, but you're not quite there yet. Want to try again?

Allowing same-sex marriage and allowing same-sex-sibling marriage isn't "comparing" same-sex marriage to incest at all. Incest involves a sexual relationship (you said so yourself). What makes you think they're going to have sex? Why do you care? Why should the government care? Why should anyone care? This debate isn't over sex, it's over marriage equality and the legality of marriage. Why are you SO fixated on the sexual aspect? I think you have some issues that should be addressed.

 

The sounds clearly coming out of your ass at this point are hard to take seriously. You jump around from point to irrelevant point and along the way assuming everyone else is wrong and as usual, putting your words in other people's mouths. What do you think the word "AND" means anyway?
Again, if there actually is a point to your comparison, just make it. Stop trying to be clever. It isn't working. You keep dancing and dancing but refuse to explain why closely related people being allowed to marry has anything to do with same-sex marriage. Come on! Just come out and say it or have I backed you too far into a corner by calling out your non-point early on? Hum?