Marriage Laws

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
MadelynIris said:


Time to get with the times - let first cousins have the same rights as homosexuals (in some states).

Wow, your hatred seeps through, this has nothing to do with homosexuals. Cousins have been getting married a lot longer than homosexuals.
 
pax said:


Let's debate this one on the merits.


Where's the merit when one is comparing incest to homosexuality from the start? When the article has nothing to do with homosexuality? When it's obvious someone's twisting the facts to make their own biased argument?

It's obvious this author of this posts has brought in homosexuality to twist this into a "see if we legalize homosexuals to marry, what's next?"

I see no merit in the original post, unless MadelynIris can explain what the two have to do with each other.
 
You forgot to start your post with "Wow."

***

Well, then, refute that argument. If you feel that MadelynIris is making an unfair or inaccurate comparison, say so, but there's no need to accuse him of motivations he may or may not have.
 
1) Are you saying that cousins marrying is incestuous?
2) You don't think there is any relevance in the law not allowing to consenting adults to marry in half the states, be it cousins or otherwise?
 
Wow, what a hang up. Perhaps they are fairly nontraditional marriages that are under legislation, is what they have in common.
 
how dare you even make the implied comparison that it's somehow equivalent to incest. no, there is no relevance, and there is no comparison to be made between gay people and cousins -- and your phrase "get with the times" is clearly gay-baiting. you're really straining here, and it's really starting to grate on me.

i'm so sick of this debate.

i'm going to say it one last time: homosexuality is EXACTLY the same as heterosexuality, only between people of the same gender. i think the problem is that heterosexuals still don't understand that "gay" isn't only about sex. people like you tend to think of homosexuals as defective straight people with uncontrollable sexual urges, and perhaps a flair for drama and interior design. you don't understand, nor care to understand, that the basis of homosexuality, along with physical attraction, is the emotional orientation towards members of our own sex. clearly, you can't identify with this, or else you're scared of it (I'm not sure which).

and so, like african-americans before me, i'm forced to explain that, really, we're not so different after all. it does take the minority to get the majority to understand that we're not sub-human, that our lives and loves are every bit as worthy and complex and joyful and agonizing as yours are and to rid you of your working assumption of the superiority of heterosexuality (the way that whites assumed racial superiority over african-americans).

don't worry, you'll come around one day. you're not necessarily a bigot, or hateful -- you're just uninformed. and this is why it's so important for people to come out.

it's for your benefit just as much as ours.
 
MadelynIris said:
1) Are you saying that cousins marrying is incestuous?
Grab a dictionary.

MadelynIris said:

2) You don't think there is any relevance in the law not allowing to consenting adults to marry in half the states, be it cousins or otherwise?
No, but you stand the burden of proof, you made the comparison.
 
Grab a dictionary

According to webster:

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin incestus sexual impurity, from incestus impure, from in- + castus pure -- more at CASTE
: sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry; also : the statutory crime of such a relationship

again - the article describes a situation in where about half of the states outlaw this kind of marriage, the other half don't.

They are trying to educate people who insist that this kind of relationship is incest. They are trying to inform those who are uninformed about the truth in these kinds of relationships.

There is a parallel in their legal argument. I'm upset that you guys are using words like hatred and bigotry in this thread at all.

Mark
 
MadelynIris said:


Irvine - did you read the article?

Why do you guys keep referring to this as incest?


yes.

had nothing to do with homosexuality -- yet you think we should keep up with "the times." first cousins = incest.
 
MadelynIris said:


And you insist their is no similarity in their legal argument?


i'm insisting there is no basis of comparison between incest and homosexuality. the legal argument is therefore moot.
 
Well two pages and you haven't shown the comparison, so I really don't see this thread going anywhere. Until there's merit, I'm out of here.
 
i'm insisting there is no basis of comparison between incest and homosexuality. the legal argument is therefore moot

I'm not comparing incest and homosexuality.

I'm comparing the legal and moral argument of this group who are denied marriage rights in certain states, with that of homosexuals' legal and moral argument who are denied marriage rights in certain states.

Both say it's an education issue.
Both say it's no harm to anyone else.
Both have factual, documented evidence to support their arguments.
Both are denied in some cases, in some situations.

Both are making headway politically in their movements.
 
MadelynIris said:


I'm not comparing incest and homosexuality.

I'm comparing the legal and moral argument of this group who are denied marriage rights in certain states, with that of homosexuals' legal and moral argument who are denied marriage rights in certain states.

Both say it's an education issue.
Both say it's no harm to anyone else.
Both have factual, documented evidence to support their arguments.
Both are denied in some cases, in some situations.

Both are making headway politically in their movements.


but you can't compare the two.

everything else is moot after that.

and so now you do admit that this is about homosexuality? what happened to your innocent face?
 
but you can't compare the two

?????????? What exactly can't we compare? I'm not comparing homosexuality to incest. I'm not saying they are the same thing.

I am saying that the legal and moral arguments are similar. That first cousins have been discriminated against in some states because people think that their offspring are likely to have birth defects. Apparently that is not the case. They are trying to inform the public of this, and educate people so that it's more acceptable, and get the laws changed.

I never said this wasn't about homosexuality. Hence the words used in the first post.

My offense was to BVS's comment - Obviously I have a position of ignorance and hatred.
 
Last edited:
MadelynIris said:


My offense was to BVS's comment - Obviously I have a position of ignorance and hatred.

I said nothing of ingnorance. I've seen your previous posts on the subject and the original post was obvious baiting so I apologize if you took offense.
 
MadelynIris said:


?????????? What exactly can't we compare? I'm not comparing homosexuality to incest. I'm not saying they are the same thing.

I am saying that the legal and moral arguments are similar. That first cousins have been discriminated against in some states because people think that their offspring are likely to have birth defects. Apparently that is not the case. They are trying to inform the public of this, and educate people so that it's more acceptable, and get the laws changed.

I never said this wasn't about homosexuality. Hence the words used in the first post.

My offense was to BVS's comment - Obviously I have a position of ignorance and hatred.


and i'm saying that because you cannot equate the two, the legal equivocation between the two arguments isn't possible.

on a personal note, i don't give a damn about first cousins marrying. but that's not applicable here.

the other fact is that heterosexuals have the option to marry any other heterosexual they wish, barring family members. these first cousins are protesting. they're free to do so. but they are wrong to make links to the gay marriage debate; this is an entirely separate issue. homosexuals are seeking to be able to authentically marry someone since they currently have no options.

you'd do well to view this as an expansion of the definitions of heterosexuality as opposed to equivocating incest with homosexuality -- you're taking the position that both wanting to marry your cousin and wanting to marry another homosexual are deviations from what is the "correct" standard, non-related heteroseuxals, and then constructing links based upon this false assumption.

this is where i'm spotting something akin to bigotry, and why as i said earlier that it's not about hate -- it's that you don't regard homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality.

ask yourself this: do you think two cousins are capable of loving each other in as profound a manner as you and your wife (making an assumption that you are married)? if so, then should they be allowed to marry?
 
Here's where the difference is and hence why the two can't be used for or against each other.

Heterosexuals can now marry anyone of consenting age who isn't a family member, it doesn't matter race, religion, etc. These cousins are still heterosexuals, the only legal reasoning for cousins not being able to marry is the once believed thought that offspring would be harmful to the children, and the traditional taboos. But we all know heterosexual taboos eventually change i.e. interratial marriage. Now that science is moving away from the idea that offspring won't be affected, things may change, we'll see.

This doesn't sound anything like the debate over homosexual marriage.
 
I found several cousin marriages in my own ancestry. I'm the family genealogy freak. I found several cousin marriages in a family that came from Ireland and settled in South Carolina in the late eighteenth century. I think it used to be fairly common in small communities when a heck of alot of the people were related to each other. They were members of the Presbyterian Church, a church that had really strict morals. There was nothing immoral about these marriages, from their point of view.
 
Back
Top Bottom