Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thread title says it all. If you support redefining marriage, do you support a mother marrying her daughter, if they both are consenting adults? Or a father and son? Why or why not? Thanks
What a phenomenally specious argument!
When heterosexual incest is permitted by law, then we can revist the idea of mothers marrying their daughters and fathers marrying their sons, mmmkay? After all, fair is fair.
Until then, it's an entirely moot point and isn't even worth deliberating.
You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel, mommy.
Thread title says it all. If you support redefining marriage, do you support a mother marrying her daughter, if they both are consenting adults? Or a father and son? Why or why not? Thanks
I said this to Bideshi, so I'm going to present the same to you:
Nice point, but here's where you fall short:
Marriage ought to be boiled down to three requirements which are as follows:
(1) Both persons who are to be married MUST be over the age of 18. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. No waivers signed by the parent, no exceptions, no shifting on this. 18 or older, that's it.
(2) Both persons who are to be married MUST be of sound mind and judgment. This mean that they are in relatively good mental health and can, without coercion or prodding, give their consent to be married.
(3) Both persons who are to be married MUST sign a marriage certificate, which is effectively a contract, thus bounding them together until they either get an annulment, get divorced, or they become deceased, whichever happens first.
Now with those requirements this makes it to where ONLY adults can get married and ONLY those who know what they're getting into are allowed to be married. Now obviously these requirements will allow, if they really felt obligated to do so, family members to get married to one another (unless further requirements were put down to prevent this). If that's their wish, then who are we to deny them that? Sure I don't agree with such mindsets of incest-type relationships, but I won't deny them the right to be married...just so long as they keep their private lives just that: private.
You may not agree and that's fine, but is there anything inherently flawed with any of my proposed requirements?
(1) Both persons who are to be married MUST be over the age of 18. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. No waivers signed by the parent, no exceptions, no shifting on this. 18 or older, that's it.
You may not agree and that's fine, but is there anything inherently flawed with any of my proposed requirements?
How have you unilateraly and arbitrarily determined 18 to be the age of consent? People are eligible for enlistment in the military to go to war at 17. Many states already allow marriage earlier than 18. Just because you think 18 is the minimum means nothing. Some countries allow marriage as early as 6 years of age. They do not allow homosexual marriage however. If same sex marriage is OK in the US then anything goes. Equality for all.
How have you unilateraly and arbitrarily determined 18 to be the age of consent? People are eligible for enlistment in the military to go to war at 17. Many states already allow marriage earlier than 18. Just because you think 18 is the minimum means nothing. Some countries allow marriage as early as 6 years of age. They do not allow homosexual marriage however. If same sex marriage is OK in the US then anything goes. Equality for all.
The age of 18 is the recognized age at which a person living within the United States officially becomes an adult. With a waiver being signed, yes you are correct: someone can enlist in the military at the age of 17.
My proposal of sorts is just that - a proposal. In that, it's both fair and balanced with the minimum age requirement being 18 as that's when adulthood, as I explained prior, officially begins.
And no - if same sex marriage is ok, then anything does NOT go. Homosexuals are just as much a citizen as you or I, so why are they being denied rights when it's granted to them by the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
I get you don't agree, but try not to argue with a slippery slope. You'll only fall in the end.
And no - if same sex marriage is ok, then anything does NOT go. Homosexuals are just as much a citizen as you or I, so why are they being denied rights when it's granted to them by the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
I get you don't agree, but try not to argue with a slippery slope. You'll only fall in the end.
If the arguments for same sex marriage are valid, then the arguments for incest, polgamy, polyandry, bestiality, and pedophilia are equaly valid. The Supreme Court already decided against Polygamy when it defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. If it now reverses it's own decision in the case against polygamy by endorsing gay marriage, then polygamy is again legal.
If the arguments for same sex marriage are valid, then the arguments for incest, polgamy, polyandry, bestiality, and pedophilia are equaly valid. The Supreme Court already decided against Polygamy when it defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. If it now reverses it's own decision in the case against polygamy by endorsing gay marriage, then polygamy is again legal.
One more time: consent is required.
Why do you choose to post such ridiculous opinions.
What does polygamy have to do with gay marriage?
Nothing.
Since you have some fetish with beastiality, perhaps you can start a movement for it.
You might have a problem with the "consent" part, but your level of interest may be just what the movement needs.
If the arguments for same sex marriage are valid, then the arguments for incest, polgamy, polyandry, bestiality, and pedophilia are equaly valid. The Supreme Court already decided against Polygamy when it defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. If it now reverses it's own decision in the case against polygamy by endorsing gay marriage, then polygamy is again legal.
When did the Supreme court ever define marriage?
There was a polygamy case that made it to the SCOTUS that stated a religious belief was not defensible against a criminal indictment. The SCOTUS also held, in a separate case, that anti gay laws were unconstitutional.
Animals and children cannot give consent so the beastiality and pedophilia arguments are null and void.
When they ruled against polygamy citing marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
