alwight
New member
You seem to have a need to find something to ban and to prevent other people from doing or making their own minds up about in their own lives when no one else is affected?
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
if you were to allow brothers to marry
but
not a brother to a sister
how would you justify such a position?
but
not a brother to a sister
how would you justify such a position?
alwight
New member
The only thing I would object to enough to want to physically prevent it is incest if there is even a remote chance of pregnancy.
That doesn't mean I have to like or approve anything only that deciding for others how they should run their lives is their business unless it affects 3rd parties who had no say in it.
so it is the chance of pregnancy that concerns you
so who exactly is being protected here?
alwight
New member
Erm, 3rd parties, babies who had no say.
Because brothers are related. That's kinda the definition of incest.
No.
If this is going somewhere, get to the point or be ignored.
what is wrong with incest?
alwight
New member
Congenital dysfunction from inbreeding.
that wouldn't happen between two brothers
alwight
New member
Obviously.
It produces problematic and often abusive relationships, not only for the people involved, but for the people around them as well.
do you really think that is the reason the state will not allow close relatives to marry?
Not all of it. Certainly, inbreeding is destructive too. But that's already been mentioned, and isn't really relevant to the case of homosexuals.
WRONG. Homosexuals can be mothers and fathers, regardless of whether it is through a surrogate or stand in or via adoption.
IF this is truly about the value of couples being able to produce babies via the old fashion method, then apparently you see no value in all of the babies and children that are waiting to be adopted.
Why do you not value THOSE children, Chrys? Do you or do you not believe that reproduction should be monitored legally for couples currently married and those applying for a marriage license?
Because zip has routinely misrepresented my approach here I thought it might be worthwhile to go back to where our argument substantively began. I had stated that I was supporting the principle of the right of adults to contract and in defense of equality before the law. I made a series of answers, but I'm going to sum them here in response to that original posit by zip.
Here his mistake was in thinking that marriage is, with regard to the state, more than contract. It isn't. It's treated as one with particular rules regarding rights of parties and dissolution, etc. Marriage is just the sort of contract being entered into. It needs no religious affiliation and no inquiry is made into whether the couple contemplating the union plan to have children.
This is factually misleading. Every contract must follow statutory provisions establishing terms and parties and process, must conform, depending on the kind of contract, to any number of stipulations or provisions, or it may be held unenforceable at law. And many contracts, like incorportations, are drawn up with a great deal of involvement and greater scrutiny than the marriage contract, to say nothing of government involvement and benefits thereafter.
Untrue except in select jurisdictions.
As I set out, the government is "concerned" with any contract. And the government is more involved in business related contracts.
For the same sort of reasons it is involved in every contract, to one extent of another. It has a vested interest in equity and the protection of right.
Certainly the social compact has a vested interest in promoting its own stability. No question. A family unit's contribution to that also isn't in question. What zip insists must constitute it is another matter.
There are numerous studies that differ with that conclusion.
Untrue unless surrogacy is prohibited--and peculiarly focused in negating the value of adoption.
Agreed and noted above.
No. It doesn't. There's no objective argument that can make that case, only appeals to religious principle and cultural bias. Neither of those are sufficient to support discriminatory practice.
Last edited:
It doesn't matter whether or not you find it *practical*. You are arguing that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because they cannot produce children.
I, and others, have shown that homosexuals CAN, in fact, be parents. IF you want to use the ability to reproduce as a reason to deny individuals a right, then that reason would need to apply to all.
Now, how would you enforce such a policy?
Sure. Inbreeding is not a concern with incestual homosexual unions. The problem with these unions is that they confuse family relations in ways that harm not just the direct participants, but also other family members.
How about my solution proposed earlier. If procreation is really so fundamental to marriage as you claim, and no couple deserves the benefits of marriage if they aren't going to procreate, why not simply require that all couples applying for a marriage license sign an affidavit attesting to their intent to have children and that they know of no infertility or other problem that would prevent it. Simple enough, and very hard to break without deliberate misrepresentation, and yet it would discourage the honest but infertile from getting those costly marriages and taking up that government subsidy that you're so worried about guarding.
Or is that not really the issue after all?
- Status