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.
Who are you to decide if they have a point or not? If they wish to marry, who are you to deny them marriage equality? So, if gay couples had " access to most/all of the legal privileges that marriage couples have" as you put it, would you be against gay marriage?
Here's the thing "sophia". Homosexual married couples DON'T have most/all of the legal privileges that heterosexual married couples have. That's the crux of the issue - like visitation rights at hospitals and all that.
Polygamists who are married to multiple people (being one man to many wives or one woman to many husbands) meet the requirements of being heterosexual so they have those rights. There's no argument for polygamy to be legalized because they aren't a social group being denied rights.
Again, you're arguing a slippery slope and attempting to build a straw man. Your argument has no weight and absolutely no merit, so why do you bother bringing that up?
Who are you to decide if they have a point or not? If they wish to marry, who are you to deny them marriage equality? So, if gay couples had " access to most/all of the legal privileges that marriage couples have" as you put it, would you be against gay marriage?
Let me frame this in a way that you can understand:
Marriage is a legal institution that creates legal bonds between married people.
Married people are recognized as legal family units.
Family members don't need to get married because in the eyes of the law, they are, essentially, already married!
For the record, I think it's unfair that married people have access to all these privileges that unmarried people don't. All members of society should be able to have access to these privileges. Quite frankly I have no interest in the institution myself. I'd only marry for the legal benefits.
Well... I guess people can do what they want. I dont think there are enough incestual romantic relationships to even worry about it. Also, since marriage between the same sex is legal in many countries, as well as many states in the US....it has all ready been redefined. It's not a case of "reaching you". It changed the moment it became legal and recognized. Fighting against marriage equality is like fighting to stop the sun from going down. Once the ball has started rolling, it's not going to stop.
I wouldn't support anything beyond cousin relationships, which are pretty worldwide relationships anyway. I wouldn't marry my cousins but it's really none of my business to tell other people what to do.
Yes, assuming that they are legally old enough to consent. Why? Since it is their bodies.
Are they really consenting?
Not to mentor the increased potential for birth defects in the event of a pregnancy and birth.
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.
