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.
Many people have said that gays should be allowed to be marry since as consenting adults who love each other they should have the same equal rights as heterosexual couples.
But with that logic, then shouldn't other non-traditional couples also be allowed to marry as well?
Here are some examples of couples who are not allowed to marry in any U.S. state but are nonetheless consenting adults who are in love and want to be together: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3
And then there are these couples who want to marry but it is illegal in about half the U.S. states: Example 4
(Some Law makers in the states where it is illegal are already attempting to legalize it.)
If the criteria is that any two people who love each other and are consenting adults can marry then there is no logical reason the above couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
(Note that I am not saying that I endorse or condone such relationships. I am merely stating that the logic which supports gay marriage would also support these other non-traditional marriages as well if one is consistent.)
Last edited by sonoranrat; 02-04-2011 at 02:49 PM..
Legalizing same-sex marriage will open the door to ALL non-traditional marriages--not just close relative marriages--including polygamy, polyandry and group marriage. Many people are opposed to gay marriage on this basis and not because they have an anti-gay bias.
Marriage shouldn't even be a state issue. This means anyone should be able to marry with anyone (or two or more) else, but also without the state granted privileges marriage may give you access to.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,409,483 times
Reputation: 2394
The only reason government is even involved is because they figured out that they can make money from the people (fees and taxing structures). It really isn't any of their business,
We'll just leave it up to society to decide who's acceptable and who's not to marry.
Who we want to discriminate against, don't want as our neighbor (the brother and sister next door who are married), who we care to socialize with, who we don't want our children going to school with, etc...
And, since nobody wants government in anyone's business regulating it, then government can't do anything about discrimination cases against them.
What about the birth defects that may arise? Just overlook them and let the child suffer or abort all attempts?
The birth defects only arise if there's generations upon generations of inbreeding. I.e.: Royal families. ONe random generation of direct incest (brother/sister, for instance) barely has a higher chance of genetic defects than two complete strangers going at it.
The birth defects only arise if there's generations upon generations of inbreeding. I.e.: Royal families. ONe random generation of direct incest (brother/sister, for instance) barely has a higher chance of genetic defects than two complete strangers going at it.
Is the chance worth it? Why would you condone incest? Have a crush on your sister or something?
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.
