- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,857
- Reaction score
- 30,123
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
What if the old widows were cousins...or sisters?
They don't have to be identical, or near identical. Just similar.
Which would put it back in the famial relationship argument and go to my second post. They would still need to show why they should have the right to marry and that they are planning on spending their lives together.
I personally don't have an issue with such an arrangement, but I don't think marriage would be an appropriate term for it since they would already have many of the rights that come with marriage and it is quite possible that they could change their minds if someone else came along, a lot more likely than people in marriages, as it is supposed to be now, where the vast majority are pledging this.
A different contract that covered something like this would be more appropriate. Or being able to present this situation could work too.
As a side note, I have always had the position that all first cousins and further out family relations should be allowed to marry. It's not a bad idea to include genetic counseling in this, like many states that allow it do, but it should be completely legal.
They have to be very similar, and both polygamy and incest marriage involve some fundamental differences than same sex marriages. The arguments for and against are going to be different. The courts have to decide based on the individual arguments for particular cases. It is only when those arguments are going to basically be the same, where you find a precedent has been set.
That doesn't matter. Homosexuals are asking for a right that no-one else has, because they are homosexuals.
Of course I do....no other group is allowed to marry someone of the same gender. Equality is a two way street.
Only from a very narrow perspective. Right now, everyone is only given the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. When same sex marriages are legal, everyone will have the right to marry a person of either their own sex or the opposite sex. No sexuality involved unless it is by choice.
Plus, how do you know that it is just homosexuals that want the right to marry people of the same sex?
I would argue that there are probably at least some other people who want this right as well. Personally, I am married, but I can see the benefits to others who might be heterosexual, bisexual, or even asexual wanting to be able to marry a person of the same sex.
This is intellectually dishonest and you know it cause others are allowed to marry another consenting human they love and are sexually attracted too. Nice try but nobody objective will buy this dishonesty.
I mean damn handicaps wanting RAMPS and RAILS nobody else gets ramps and rails and parking spaces damn it! I vote to take this stuff away because equality is a two way street and we should ignore reality, logic and rational. Maybe I should do one of those eye roll icons that you like here
I already showed some of the possible groups, now, when you're done with your rant...go back and read.
Isn't a narrow perspective you're only defense to the "slippery slope"?
I'm sure there are, being Navy I bet you can come up with a few examples without thinking to hard about it.
I do too, that's the door that's being opened.
playing devil's advocate here - what is the rationale for being against incest marriage?
if i had a sister that was super-hot and I was madly in love with her I'd want to marry her too.
Genetic problems with offspring, and general icky-ness.
No, you're being dishonest, unless of course you consider homosexuality a handicap.
It allows diseased individuals another means of pretending they're normal. If fulfills their denial and prevents them from seekin much needed assistance.
Nice try what but thats not what I said I clearly said it involves reality, logic and rational.
Those things point out that handicap need ramps and rails even though others dont, so they also point out gays need to marry the same sex because, well, are you ready for this logical, rational, reality bomb, THATS WHAT THEY LOVE AND ARE ATTRACTED TOO and its is another consenting human just like straights
Do your tactics of avoiding logic and talking in circles every work on anybody?
playing devil's advocate here - what is the rationale for being against incest marriage?
if i had a sister that was super-hot and I was madly in love with her I'd want to marry her too.
I'm not talking in circles. The fact is homosexuals are asking for a right no one else has. That's just a fact, from a cold hard legal perspective.
That's kinda how I feel about SSM, funny that.
I agree, civil unions.
Talk about slippery slopes....
No they don't. For example, you are using people of different ethnicities as a precedent for marriage between people of the same gender. That's not identical.
Well if there was no gentic issue to worry about honestly I wouldn't stop you because its none of my business.
Lets not forget it used to be a lot more common back in the day and any religion that started with two people had to have lots of incest happening to get where we are today.
Guru, i'm getting a real kick out of your sig line.
Which would be a right given to everyone, not just homosexuals. So it will not be a special right to one group because everyone will be given the right to marry a person of the same sex.
Isn't a narrow perspective you're only defense to the "slippery slope"?
I'm sure there are, being Navy I bet you can come up with a few examples without thinking to hard about it.
I do too, that's the door that's being opened.
Then this really does make the notion of marriage absolutely meaningless.
Then this really does make the notion of marriage absolutely meaningless.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?