Gay Marriage Debate...

[karenmeal 0]

I would like to start out by saying that I strongly support gay marriage. I do not feel that we should pass laws which so obviously discriminate against a minority. Until yesterday, I felt that my argument for gay marriage was virtually flawless. However, I have now heard one potentially valid (ie. religiously nonbiased) argument that left me puzzled and feeling hypocritical.

The argument was: If gays can get married, then why can't brothers and sisters?

Arguments against gay marriage may include that many people feel that since gays cannot reproduce on their own, they should not be able to get married. People feel that this goes against their most basic religious beliefs that marriage is strictly reserved for love between a man and a woman (non-related). And that laws should not be made to encourage immorality.

When asked why I thought gays should be able to marry and siblings should not.. I was completely stumped!

The reasons why I think siblings should not be allowed to get married are essentially the same points that I argue against when applied to gay marriage! Siblings shouldn't marry because they should not inbreed. However, I suppose that they could adopt healthy children and elliminate that issue. I personally feel that its immoral for siblings to marry. However, I also do not feel that religious doctrine should be made into law. I felt extremely hypocritical when I pointed out that if we were to pass a law allowing siblings to marry it might encourage that behavior. However I realize that people have made the same argument against gay marriage and I responded by saying that was un-true.

So somebody help me out. Is this different, and why?

Should we go ahead and allow siblings to marry too?

*disclaimer* This post is not a joke, and is not meant to offend. I'm sorry if it does, I am merely trying to perfect my argument for why gays should be allowed to marry.

"Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

[rehmwa 2]

Heck, while we're at it.

What is the impact on taxes to extend spousal soc security benefits? Is it being driven to be retroactive?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[velo90 0]

I will probaly get flamed for this but...
A man and a women can get married, period. No exceptions, that is the definition of marraige.

Now if two people want to co-habit that's fine, no matter what sex they are.

If there are financial advantages to being married, you either give the advantages to people who co-habit or remove them all together.

[karenmeal 0]

So nobody can actually address my question..?

"Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

[velo90 0]

I have addressed your question. It's just that I don't believe gays or siblings should be allowed to marry.

It's nothing to do with discrimination, it's to do with gays, just as siblings, do not fullfil the requirents for marraige ( the joining together of a man and a women in holy matrimony).

And siblings do co-habit.

[jaaska 0]

Quote

So nobody can actually address my question..?

Siblings having sex may lead to pregnancy with developmental disorders. Gaysex can not.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So nobody can actually address my question..?

Probably not, you're asking to have the discussion on the 'moral' aspect of it. Other than very vague discussions, it takes quite a bit of bravery to pick a side and work it. So people stick with the vagueness and platitudes. I've seen analogies and attempts to make the discussion here, but I don't believe anyone is really equipped to predict the impact directly.

Me? I'd rather discuss the monetary aspects of the situation and if those will directly impact me or my family as someone in a traditional marriage.

If they don't, I don't think I should weigh in until those actions show they do affect me/mine (I can't yet see into the future to predict if this is good, bad or a wash and nobody else can either. The only way is to test it.)

I do like the idea of removing special contractual/financial consideration for all and treat individuals as just individuals. This extends beyond sexual orientation to age, race, religion, unions, income, etc. But just try and take away the McDonald's senior discount, affirmative action, scholarships to whichever special group, progressive/regressive taxes...... Social engineering is normally well meaning efforts that always backfire with the opposite results than intended.

Have fun - this thread may just be pretty silent until the more extreme types go to their lunch hour.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[turtlespeed 221]

Until "Biological Changes Over Time" occurs.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[nathaniel 0]

quoting phillykev on another thread

Quote

Turner v. Safley
Over time, restrictions on marriage have become more and more suspect. IN 1987, the last time the Unites States Supreme Court considered the claim of a group of Americans about restriction on their right to marry, the Court articulated four attributes of marriage common to this group and all other Americans. These attributes are:

expression of emotional support and public commitment;

spiritual significance, and for some the exercise of a religious faith;

the expectation that for most, the marriage will be consummated; and

the receipt of tangible benefits, including government benefits and property rights.
Looking at these attributes of marriage, the Court decided that these Americans - incarcerated prisoners - shared with other Americans the freedom to marry. Because prisoners, too, can enter into a marriage with these characteristics, the Court invalidated Missouri's' virtually complete ban on marriages of prison inmates. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 94 (1987).

I think it's busted on Phillykev's third bullet point.

Sibling and parent/child sex is already prohibited by other laws on the grounds that it is likely to produce offspring with deformities/defects.

Until recently gay sex was also prohibited, but I think we can all recall a recent Supreme Court ruling on the subject. The timing of the whole gay marriage thing is not just coincidental, imo.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[karenmeal 0]

Quote

I have addressed your question. It's just that I don't believe gays or siblings should be allowed to marry.

It's nothing to do with discrimination, it's to do with gays, just as siblings, do not fullfil the requirents for marraige ( the joining together of a man and a women in holy matrimony).

You did not address my question and thats a horrid definition of marriage. It excludes anybody who is not religious. So, since god would have nothing to do with our union, my boyfriend and I cannot get married?

And my question is what is the difference between gay marriage and sibling marriage? (no opinions..)

True, siblings can reproduce and this may lead to developmental disorders. Is that the only reason (besides your own personal religious views) why siblings shouldn't be affforded the same rights as others?

"Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

[happythoughts 0]

Isn't the major flaw in sibling marriage a problem in genetics?

In the British royal family, there is a lot of distant relations getting married, so the recessive gene for hemophilia came out. I believe that Prince Charles was Dianas second cousin.

Among Hawaiian royalty, brother/sister marriages were common. Fortunately, they weren't that strict on fidelity, so kids weren't necessarily those of your marriage partner. There was a high incidence of insanity by age 30 among some of the children though.

[riggerrob 643]

Me? I'd rather discuss the monetary aspects of the situation and if those will directly impact me or my family as someone in a traditional marriage.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There are monetary arguments against inbreeding and in favor of gay marriage.

Since inbreeding carries a high risk of producing deformed children and tax-payers have to pay for their life-long medical care, inbreeding can be expensive for the nation.

On the other hand, sexual promiscuity (straight or gay) is the fastest way to catch nasty venereal diseases. However, marriage (straight or gay) reduces promiscuity and medical expenses.

Furthermore, since fewer gay couples have children, that further reduces medical expenses on the national level.
Since gay marriage is a "no harm, no foul" scenario, you should find something more important to worry about.

[turtlespeed 221]

Ya know - this is as senseless as girls wanting to be admitted into the Boyscouts. Look The definition of a boyscout - Um first off it requires that you be male. Definition of marriage requires one male and one female. GET OVER IT.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[velo90 0]

Quote

and thats a horrid definition of marriage. It excludes anybody who is not religious.

Wouldn't be a bad idea in my opinion. However, the state seems to have got in on the act. If you don't get married in a church, then marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people.

Quote

And my question is what is the difference between gay marriage and sibling marriage? (no opinions..)

In my opinion, both are just plain wrong. But if I must pick a difference then I am afraid that I can only come up with what has been said already, the problems if siblings reproduce.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Definition of marriage requires one male and one female.

Actually... In Florida, for years, all that was required was to get married in a church or say that you were married a bunch of times (common law, still exists).

Then it moved to the new version. A marriage license. A license is a formal legal document with responsibilities and priviledges. That is what the argument is over.

Medical signatures, property rights, widow/widower rights, pensions. Marriage has a legal effect that is huge.

[karenmeal 0]

On a side note, I remember when I was a little girl asking my mother if inbreeding was the reason royalty was so screwed up.. She paused and said, "yes."


Back to the discussion. That procreation between siblings produces genetic defomities is a strong argument, it is especially convincing when you tie it in with their offsprings costly health care burderning the economy. Which seems to make my argument for gay marriage even stronger, they are less likely to contract VD if encouraged to pursue monogamous relationships, so in effect less likely to burden the economy. And in addition to this, they are likely to adopt children who would have been economic burdens on the country and help them to become productive members of society.

"Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Since gay marriage is a "no harm, no foul" scenario, you should find something more important to worry about.

Thanks but, until you can tell me the net impact instead of just a couple unquantified (and subjective/theoretical mental masturbation) aspects, I'll decide how I evaluate this particular issue.

tax payers have to pay for medical care - (general statement, not related to your incest slant) only if we make the horrible move to social health care. In the meantime, let individuals purchase health insurance and live with their personal decisions....

also, "no harm, no foul" is not a given. At best, I'd say innocent unless proven guilty in regards to that statement.

You are stating your opinions as fact here instead as opinion.

I just want to know IF (or how much) legal gay marriage will cost me (in terms of dollars, not subjective "social costs" - I think (opinion) that's true junk science). I doubt anyone has quantified that - since both sides of most all social issues are violently opposed to any hard data. Shouldn't that be part of picking a position? Which I haven't yet.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnischalke 0]

I agree with you and disagree with you.

First off, I think that the institution of marriage is burned to the ground almost anyway, so if homosexuals want to call themselves married--go for it. Brothers and sisters: same. Moms and sons: same. Old men and little boys: same. Everybody can get married and try to live a happy (if not totally disfunctional--they would be doing it anyway without the formality) life.

Secondly, the only caveat I have to the above is that all benefits of marriage are removed. No more insurance benefits for spouses (except in the case of the old man and the little boy, because he can't get a job). No more tax incentives or breaks for married couples. No more federal spending on marriage counseling or research. If you are married, you are treated just like the single people. Period.

Who wants to get married now? Step on up!

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[karenmeal 0]

Quote

Quote

***and thats a horrid definition of marriage. It excludes anybody who is not religious.

Wouldn't be a bad idea in my opinion.

Whoa!!! You think it wouldn't be a bad idea to exclude the non-religious from marriage? Hang on there, now you are suggesting that its ok to take away my rights for even a heterosexual marriage! That would encourage even more wide spread hypocrisy! Hypocrisy I could see being a threat to the institution of religion. I cant however see why gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage. Can someone clarify this one?

"Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Secondly, the only caveat I have to the above is that all benefits of marriage are removed. No more insurance benefits for spouses (except in the case of the old man and the little boy, because he can't get a job). No more tax incentives or breaks for married couples. No more federal spending on marriage counseling or research. If you are married, you are treated just like the single people. Period.

Sounds good provided the benefits removed are only those supported by the governement. As far as insurance as an example, private industries should be allowed to discriminate however their business/profit models directs them.

However, then we can eliminate the term as far as government is concerned - GOOD
Now leave it to private and religious ceremonies and call it whatever you want.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

However, marriage (straight or gay) reduces promiscuity and medical expenses.

No shit? Where'd you come up with this one? Was there a study done or something that proved that marriage stopped promiscuity? I'd like to see that one! HA.

Having spent a lot of time with friends who were homosexuals to the extent of going with them to "gay bars," I came to one quick conclusion. Women are the gatekeepers from wanton promiscuity of straight men. If a man could fuck every woman in the world, he would. It's in a male's genetic code. Men want to propagate the race. Between two men, there is no gatekeeper. Both want the sex. It's simple really. Relationship or no, I have seen gay friends go off with others at the drop of a hat.

You think a piece of paper is gonna stop that?

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[velo90 0]

Quote

I cant however see why gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage.

Because, as far as I am concerned, getting married is something than a man and a women does.

Can I marry my office cup to my keyboard?

Can I marry my pet cat to the next door neighbours cat?

Tell me, what is marraige? Where did the word come from?

[JDBoston 0]

That's disingenuous. We're talking about consenting adult humans here, straight or gay. It's just plain silly to compare that to objects or animals.

Joe

[karenmeal 0]

Quote

Because, as far as I am concerned, getting married is something than a man and a women does.

So its not religious then?

You still aren't explaining what the actual threat is. Would it take away your rights? If gays are marrying, then are straights less married? Is there only a certain amount of married people rights that are allotted and you don't want the gays taking away from your rights?

"Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

[velo90 0]

I don't think you understood my point.
How would you feel if a group of people suddenly started calling themselves skydivers because they jumped of the highboard at the local swimming pool. You would argue that's not skydiving.
A man and a women get married, gays do something else.