and you don't think same sex marriage confuses family relations and harms other members?
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
and you don't think same sex marriage confuses family relations and harms other members?
let's turn this around just for analysis
would you agree to a brother and sister getting married
if
they would sign an agreement not to have children
and
would be forced to have an abortion
if
they should become pregnant?
I would put you in charge of enforcing it
Only to the extent that their reason is overwhelmed by their bias and not as an inescapable or biological fact, else the harm would be universal, which it isn't. So as much as it might pain your relatives in 1965 Alabama to bring home a new, black bride, their pain would be self inflicted and shouldn't govern your actions--and certainly not the law.
It's your obsession ... enforce it yourself.
Well, I think at least that denying these people the meaningful kind of union that heterosexuals enjoy is more destructive. I don't deny that some families don't handle having gay members in them well, but I don't think there's a fundamental reason that that should be so.
No. I've already explained to you that the risk of inbreeding isn't the only concern with incest, so this doesn't even address my concerns. Whereas, you seem to have this notion that marriage is all about procreation, and I offered a way to save taxpayers money on those expensive marriage benefits for childless couples, and I'd like to know if you would support this measure.
John Mortimer
New member
:up:
This is true. Religion as such cannot be classed as "fundamental".
I used to be fundamentalist Christian and I would seriously have been prepared to die for what I believed were the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Yet even though, in those years, I forced myself to condemn homosexuality I knew deep down there was nothing wrong or offensive to God about it.
It's that inner knowing that is truly fundamental.
"Let's defend the sacred nature of an institution half of us end and insist the world would be a better place with less, not more, marriage. Because the last thing we want are people trying to make stable long-term monogamous relationships work."
Brilliant work, folks...
Brilliant work, folks...
so you think two guys should be allowed to marry even though it may upset the extended family
but
two brothers should not be allowed to marry because it may upset the extended family
can you explain why
If the family objects to the fact that their son can't be happy but with another man, that's a bit unreasonable of the family. If the the family objects because their brother is becoming their father, for instance, that seems to be more unreasonable for the brother/father.
what would be the basis of this distinction?
Inwardness. An incestual relationship by definition turns inward toward the family itself, and forms loops where there should be branches. A normal homosexual relationship (or any relationship non-incestual relationship) mainly involves the individuals in the relationship itself.
so sisters and brothers should not live together?
Where do you get that?
He's baiting you. Don't fall for it.
I always assume he is. Seems to be his MO.
so they can live together as long as they don't have sex?
They can't have sex, and they can't get married. The rest of it, I don't really care about. Is this going somewhere?
why can't they get married?
- Status