how would it be a genetic problem with brothers?
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
how would it be a genetic problem with brothers?
Try reading the entire post. I never said it would be. And I suggested a potential problem in your, apparently, utterly hypothetical inquiry.
I also noted it doesn't help your non case against homosexual marriage. :thumb:
I am still not clear if you think it should be legal for brothers to marry
can you clear that up?
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . asked and answered . . . though perhaps not by me . . . you can find a relevant reply if you read back prior to page 117.
I'm not clear on why you aren't clear. Could you clear that up for me?
you mentioned incest, which would be a problem for a sister and brother
but
it wouldn't be a problem for brothers
do you agree with that?
I'm asking you
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . and I'm telling you . . . where to find the answer.
I am interested in your answer since you brought up animals
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . LOL . . . no . . . YOU brought up animals . . . I made a comparison that negated your assertion.
they won't address brothers marrying
or
a human and an animal
because
they would then have to come up with a reason
we can all agree that a brother and sister should not marry but only because it is possible for them to have a child
but
they do not like the implications
or
a human and an animal
because
they would then have to come up with a reason
we can all agree that a brother and sister should not marry but only because it is possible for them to have a child
but
they do not like the implications
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . addressed somewhere in the last 117 pages/1750 posts. . . go check.
. . . addressed somewhere in the last 117 pages/1750 posts . . . go check.
. . . why do you keep acting as though your assertions haven't been addressed?
. . . :doh: . . .
all you need to backup your views are reasons and they have to be consistent
so
if you allow some to get married and not others, you have to be able to explain why
so
if you allow some to get married and not others, you have to be able to explain why
Your reasons are not valid. You are insisting the reason to marry is to have children. You agree that many couples do NOT have children. By your own admission, you are conceding that reproducing is NOT the reason for marriage.
if homosexuals can marry, then brothers can marry because there is no reason to exclude them
and
if brothers can marry, why not brother and sister?
because that union can produce a child
and
if brothers can marry, why not brother and sister?
because that union can produce a child
Sure. That wouldn't be a ban and I didn't advance it as one.
I recall responding that as with any posit:
It's a case by case evaluation relative to a compelling state interest in interfering in two adults' right to contract. Make the state interest argument against a given consensual union. In the case of incest there's one regarding genetics and health issues. I'd think there might be a compelling argument against your (so far as I know) purely hypothetical coupling relating to mental health ramifications/inference, but I don't know of any studies...or anyone promoting the practice.
Doesn't help you with the OP though.
Doesn't help you with the OP though.
Your tactic here, else, is an old one. You're reaching to find something you understand is fairly universally repugnant to muddy the principle. But it doesn't unless you can advance why that repugnant inclination deserves the respect of law. Here, if your posit had an actual example (which it doesn't appear to) you might advance an argument in psychological parlance, had you the support of authority.
Yes, the larger principle can, now and again, lead to results that give some or even most the urge to grind teeth. In the South a few decades ago and for a large segment of that populace it meant having to eat in the same floor space as people of another race. Here it might mean that an even larger number of Americans will have to live with the knowledge that people whose sexual proclivities give them the willies enjoy the same rights to a private union that otherwise impacts them not one whit.
That's the theoretical cost of equality. And the Amish have to pay for bullets. There you go.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . you're starting over again chrys . . . we've . . . been there . . . done that . . . :yawn:.
what principle?
you have not established one that can be applied consistently
my principle is the child
and
I have been consistent about that
What child? Is there a written law that specifies individuals who wish to marry must bear children one they ARE married?
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . and your . . . er . . . "principle" . . . has consistently been shown to be invalid.
. . . give it up chrys.
. . . would it help if I went through TH's last post and reduced it to one syllable words you are capable of understanding?
. . . perhaps these words are a challenge for your intellect:
posit
evaluation
relative
compelling
interfering
contract
interest
argument
consensual
incest
genetics
hypothetical
coupling
ramifications
inference
repugnant
inclination
psychological
parlance
populace
proclivities
whit
theoretical
equality
- Status