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.
Lately I've been discussing this on another thread and to avoid derailing the conversation, I decided to post it in a different thread.
I've heard the argument made by those in favor of gay marriage, quite a lot in recent years. It boils down to equal treatment under the law, "it's only love", "to each his own", etc. One thing that has always escaped me is where the gay marriage supporters would "draw the line"... as in, where they would stop applying that rationale when considering other types of marriage. So I have a few questions for y'all, and let's see what type of response I get.
1) Should people who wish to marry their close relatives (sisters, brothers, children, parents, first cousins, etc) be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? After all, it's only love. It may even be heterosexual love, and the two parties may be at or beyond the age of consent! There has even been a "condition" named for some people who feel this attraction - they call it "GSA" or "Genetic Sexual Attraction".
2) Should people who wish to marry multiple spouses be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Heck, some people even claim that their religion commands them to do so. If they can have a happy marriage and support multiple spouses, why not? After all, it's only love, and in so doing, each spouse would be relieved from a pressure oft felt by an exclusive spouse - the pressure to singlehandedly meet all of his/her spouse's needs!
3) Should people who wish to marry "children" be permitted to do so (assuming the children also want it) because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Don't kid yourself... some kids know plenty about love. I've been a lover since age 2, and my development of feelings of romantic love was at least three years ahead of the average. I can't be the only one. Children can feel love too. The age of consent may be 16 but when people start dating, for real, around age 12 (or even younger, these days), that shows that they have an idea of what "love" is. And besides, many countries allow marriage of children for any number of reasons. It's legal on most continents in the world, and in most countries therein. American "children" engage in sexual relationships and get each other pregnant all the time. Why not legalize marriage of people under age 16 (without parental or judicial consent of any kind) in America?
4) Should people who wish to marry animals be permitted to do so, because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Let's face it... animals have a pretty deep capacity for showing love. Certain types of animals are much less inclined to cause problems for people than people are. (I read this one time - "Try locking your wife, and your dog, in the trunk of your car for a few hours. When you open the lid, which one will be happy to see you?") It's only love... and how could it harm either the person or the animal?
Now... if you answer "no" to any of these questions, I'd like an explanation as to why... and to be fair, you should know that I will be examining the explanations to see how they differ from the explanations commonly used to support gay marriage. And if you start name-calling, your post will be reported. Let's keep this civil. Obviously I am not a gay marriage supporter, but liberal-minded people who support gay marriage often use the word "tolerance". Let's apply that and be tolerant of my views, seeing as I am coming at this civilly.
Not that there aren't multiple threads out there on this....
1) Should people who wish to marry their close relatives (sisters, brothers, children, parents, first cousins, etc) be permitted to do so? Yes
2) Should people who wish to marry multiple spouses be permitted to do so? Yes
3) Should people who wish to marry "children" be permitted to do so? No, children can't consent.
4) Should people who wish to marry animals be permitted to do so? No, animals can't consent. Although not too long ago some guy on here gave quite the arguement that they could.
Heterosexual marriage is between 2 non-related, consenting adults.
Homosexual marriage is between 2 non-related, consenting adults.
Incest is not between 2 non-related, consenting adults.
Polygamy is not between 2 non-related, consenting adults.
Marriage to children is not between 2 non-related, consenting adults.
Marriage to animals is not between 2 non-related, consenting adults.
Though I don't have a problem with polygamy as long as those involved are consenting adults.
1) Should people who wish to marry their close relatives (sisters, brothers, children, parents, first cousins, etc) be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? After all, it's only love. It may even be heterosexual love, and the two parties may be at or beyond the age of consent! There has even been a "condition" named for some people who feel this attraction - they call it "GSA" or "Genetic Sexual Attraction".
No.
Just 'cause.
Quote:
2) Should people who wish to marry multiple spouses be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Heck, some people even claim that their religion commands them to do so. If they can have a happy marriage and support multiple spouses, why not? After all, it's only love, and in so doing, each spouse would be relieved from a pressure oft felt by an exclusive spouse - the pressure to singlehandedly meet all of his/her spouse's needs!
Yes.
I have nothing against this at all, really.
Quote:
3) Should people who wish to marry "children" be permitted to do so (assuming the children also want it) because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Don't kid yourself... some kids know plenty about love. I've been a lover since age 2, and my development of feelings of romantic love was at least three years ahead of the average. I can't be the only one. Children can feel love too. The age of consent may be 16 but when people start dating, for real, around age 12 (or even younger, these days), that shows that they have an idea of what "love" is. And besides, many countries allow marriage of children for any number of reasons. It's legal on most continents in the world, and in most countries therein. American "children" engage in sexual relationships and get each other pregnant all the time. Why not legalize marriage of people under age 16 (without parental or judicial consent of any kind) in America?
No.
Children are not consenting adults. You can go ahead and note the concepts of "love" for young children, but they are generally very simple for children and lack a sexual component, or at least one that's even remotely closely developed. Teenagers don't fully understand the concept and think that they've met the person they're going to be with the rest of their life after they hold hands the first time, and then threaten to kill themselves a week later when they get dumped; they aren't emotionally capable of consenting to all of the legal trappings of a marriage yet. Hell, they can't vote, buy cigarettes or booze, or join the military yet, either, also because they aren't recognized as being capable of handling their own lives. I don't think it's a stretch to realize this.
Quote:
4) Should people who wish to marry animals be permitted to do so, because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Let's face it... animals have a pretty deep capacity for showing love. Certain types of animals are much less inclined to cause problems for people than people are. (I read this one time - "Try locking your wife, and your dog, in the trunk of your car for a few hours. When you open the lid, which one will be happy to see you?") It's only love... and how could it harm either the person or the animal?
No.
Animals are not consenting adults. They are not even human. This shouldn't even really be a discussion. If you want to get into the literal, legal nature of the issue, well first off, they don't have the capacity to consent to marriage. Moreover, they don't have the same rights as humans and in many cases can be legally killed for sport or food. Opening up the door to them having the right to marry could potentially lead to it no longer being legal to kill and eat them, because the law would have to dictate that they are sentient creatures with inalienable rights to allow them to marry.
Quote:
Now... if you answer "no" to any of these questions, I'd like an explanation as to why... and to be fair, you should know that I will be examining the explanations to see how they differ from the explanations commonly used to support gay marriage. And if you start name-calling, your post will be reported. Let's keep this civil. Obviously I am not a gay marriage supporter, but liberal-minded people who support gay marriage often use the word "tolerance". Let's apply that and be tolerant of my views, seeing as I am coming at this civilly.
It is unfortunate there are some that that still make these sorts of associations. How many times does it have to be said, an animal can't consent? Likewise we generally think children can't make good decisions either.
To marry ones relative is for genetic reasons
Polygamy...who cares? Mormon's are a crazy cult anyway
My church wouldn't have married an interracial couple when it was established a couple of hundred years ago. At some point, the good people of my church realized that such a perspective was indefensible in the context of human decency. Love is love, and the fact that these people were from different races shouldn't matter. I'm sure at the time there was a question as to whether this would lead to something else. The false assumption is that such implications must be inevitable: The reality is that the decision to join homosexual couples in marriage was made deliberately, following the same path as our church took in deciding that we had previously been wrong about interracial couples, but still a deliberate consideration of the new context.
So what you're asking is for me to tell you what people fifty years from now will think. Let's go ask them. I can only speak for myself, right here right now. I am sure that something we all presume today is "worthy of discrimination" will, in the fullness of time, be realized as unworthy of discrimination, because for the last 350 years or so, society has been on a path of ever-increasing morality in terms of affirming and promoting the worth and dignity of others. That's not going to change, even though a lot of right-wing wackos and other reactionaries perhaps wish it would. So I'm sure that fifty years from now some of my perspectives will be considered, in 20/20 hindsight, inexcusably discriminatory against someone, just like your perspectives are inexcusably discriminatory against someone, today. But I couldn't tell you now, what growth, what new open-heartedness or what de-marginalization will take place between now and then.
I think the people who have the hardest time understanding this stuff are the people who can trace their lineage back to the lords of the manors and some such, perhaps still clinging to the hope of restoration of feudalistic social structures, with themselves at the top of course. Everyone else should be able to access some family memory of when they were the marginalized ones, when they - just being who they are - were devalued and disrespected because power allowed those in control to engage in such scurrilous discrimination. That should, but often doesn't, help such folks understand and grant the righteousness of acknowledging the worth and dignity of others, specifically in this case, homosexuals who wish to marry.
1. Incest has issues with increased genetic abnormalities. In the case of first cousins in most states that allow marriage require proof of the inability to reproduce. Also there are issues with coercion and "grooming" of a child until legal age.
If those two issues can be overcome, then I have no problem with consenting, non coerced, adults getting married.
2. Polygamy/polyandry. I have no issue, as long as they are all consenting adults. However our current legal structure of marriage only fits two people. There are issues of inheritance, benefits, tax law, medical decisions, etc that were built around two people. If of when that issue is fixed, go for it.
3. Pedophilia. A child can not give legal consent to enter into any legally binding contract.
4. Bestiality. An animal can not give legal consent to enter into a legally binding contract.
How does this work for homosexuals?
A same sex couple has no more issues with genetic abnormalities in offspring than a heterosexual non related couple.
A same sex couple has no more issue with coercion, or grooming than a non related heterosexual couple.
A same sex couple fits in the existing legal framework like a heterosexual couple.
A same sex couple who are adults can give legal consent to enter a legally binding contract.
Lately I've been discussing this on another thread and to avoid derailing the conversation, I decided to post it in a different thread.
I've heard the argument made by those in favor of gay marriage, quite a lot in recent years. It boils down to equal treatment under the law, "it's only love", "to each his own", etc. One thing that has always escaped me is where the gay marriage supporters would "draw the line"... as in, where they would stop applying that rationale when considering other types of marriage. So I have a few questions for y'all, and let's see what type of response I get.
1) Should people who wish to marry their close relatives (sisters, brothers, children, parents, first cousins, etc) be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? After all, it's only love. It may even be heterosexual love, and the two parties may be at or beyond the age of consent! There has even been a "condition" named for some people who feel this attraction - they call it "GSA" or "Genetic Sexual Attraction".
2) Should people who wish to marry multiple spouses be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Heck, some people even claim that their religion commands them to do so. If they can have a happy marriage and support multiple spouses, why not? After all, it's only love, and in so doing, each spouse would be relieved from a pressure oft felt by an exclusive spouse - the pressure to singlehandedly meet all of his/her spouse's needs!
3) Should people who wish to marry "children" be permitted to do so (assuming the children also want it) because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Don't kid yourself... some kids know plenty about love. I've been a lover since age 2, and my development of feelings of romantic love was at least three years ahead of the average. I can't be the only one. Children can feel love too. The age of consent may be 16 but when people start dating, for real, around age 12 (or even younger, these days), that shows that they have an idea of what "love" is. And besides, many countries allow marriage of children for any number of reasons. It's legal on most continents in the world, and in most countries therein. American "children" engage in sexual relationships and get each other pregnant all the time. Why not legalize marriage of people under age 16 (without parental or judicial consent of any kind) in America?
4) Should people who wish to marry animals be permitted to do so, because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Let's face it... animals have a pretty deep capacity for showing love. Certain types of animals are much less inclined to cause problems for people than people are. (I read this one time - "Try locking your wife, and your dog, in the trunk of your car for a few hours. When you open the lid, which one will be happy to see you?") It's only love... and how could it harm either the person or the animal?
Now... if you answer "no" to any of these questions, I'd like an explanation as to why... and to be fair, you should know that I will be examining the explanations to see how they differ from the explanations commonly used to support gay marriage. And if you start name-calling, your post will be reported. Let's keep this civil. Obviously I am not a gay marriage supporter, but liberal-minded people who support gay marriage often use the word "tolerance". Let's apply that and be tolerant of my views, seeing as I am coming at this civilly.
You compare loving committed gay and lesbian marriages to bestiality and child abuse and you think you are being "civil" and expect 'tolerance' from the people you are insulting?
Would you show tolerance to people who would equate your marriage (if you have one) to having sex with animals and children?
How about you explain why your relationship is any different to bestiality, child abuse ....or perhaps necrophilia? I'll be "examining the explanations"
This insulting slippery slope nonsense has been done to death ad nauseum. Try the search feature if you are looking for your cheap thrills.
Notice I didn't call you any names. I didn't need to.
I have gay friends (none that are married) but I dont agree with gay marriage. Does that make me homophobic? There are plenty of things about heterosexuals that I disagree with..does that make me heterophobic, lol? Not labeling certain people, there are just issues that I disagree with.
Don't agree with same sex marriage? Then don't have a same-sex marriage.
How. Simple. Is. That?
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.
I can only speak for myself, right here right now. I am sure that something we all presume today is "worthy of discrimination" will, in the fullness of time, be realized as unworthy of discrimination, because for the last 350 years or so, society has been on a path of ever-increasing morality in terms of affirming and promoting the worth and dignity of others. That's not going to change, even though a lot of right-wing wackos and other reactionaries perhaps wish it would. So I'm sure that fifty years from now some of my perspectives will be considered, in 20/20 hindsight, inexcusably discriminatory against someone, just like your perspectives are inexcusably discriminatory against someone, today. But I couldn't tell you now, what growth, what new open-heartedness or what de-marginalization will take place between now and then. 