The sacred institution of marriage...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
From a logical standpoint I have no problem with such a relationship however sick it may feel, they are not by definition harming anyone and they are each consenting to it and there is no risk of damage to offspring, from the no-harm principle I can't think of a strong reason to prevent such unions. You are trying to make a case against gay marriage by conflating one form of banned or frowned upon relationship (incest) with homosexuality and gay marriage.

Your case seems to rest upon the relationship itself and not it's sanction, it is saying that homosexuality at it's core is wrong and therefore it follows gay marriage should be banned. But what makes homosexuality wrong? it is merely people engaging in sexual activity with other people. Gays pay their taxes same as the rest, why shouldn't the same rights be extended to them as free citizens?

Gays are no threat to domestic peace in and of themselves or their relationships, we have more or less stripped away sodomy laws in the free world, why should relationships that are treated as equally legal be given such division when it comes to marriage.
 
A_Wanderer said:
From a logical standpoint I have no problem with such a relationship however sick it may feel, they are not by definition harming anyone and they are each consenting to it and there is no risk of damage to offspring, from the no-harm principle I can't think of a strong reason to prevent such unions. You are trying to make a case against gay marriage by conflating one form of banned or frowned upon relationship (incest) with homosexuality and gay marriage.

Your case seems to rest upon the relationship itself and not it's sanction, it is saying that homosexuality at it's core is wrong and therefore it follows gay marriage should be banned. But what makes homosexuality wrong? it is merely people engaging in sexual activity with other people. Gays pay their taxes same as the rest, why shouldn't the same rights be extended to them as free citizens?

Gays are no threat to domestic peace in and of themselves or their relationships, we have more or less stripped away sodomy laws in the free world, why should relationships that are treated as equally legal be given such division when it comes to marriage.

I have not stated I'm against Gay Marriage, I'm only trying to resolve certain questions that many people have not discussed on the whole issue of what marriage is and who has the right to enter into marriage. Who does an individual have the right(or no right) to enter into marriage with and why?
 
There is also the option of not having civil "marriages" at all. Any consenting adults can enter into any civil union they choose with binding legal ramifications, each person filing a separate Federal Tax Return if the government will not allow the filing of joint returns on civil unions.

This would allow polygamy. However, in order to not stretch the benefit program of employers that offer "family benefits" and the many that already allow for domestic partners, only one adult partner can be designated for benefits. This allows the freedom of the relationship without the obligation of the employer, etc., to finance all the participants in that relationship. The individual himself/herself has the sole discretion to name the person who will have all the legal rights to make financial decisions, medical decisions, etc. in case of incapacitation or death.

Child support decisions are handled as they are handled now between unmarrieds and marrieds alike. As for what are now marital property/etc. rights, those are handled in contract.

One may consider one's self married or not as it has no legal meaning. If a couple wants a church blessing, it is up to the church.
 
Maoilbheannacht said:


I have not stated I'm against Gay Marriage, I'm only trying to resolve certain questions that many people have not discussed on the whole issue of what marriage is and who has the right to enter into marriage. Who does an individual have the right(or no right) to enter into marriage with and why?
I would say anyone below the age of consent, anyone who cannot give consent or anyone who does not give consent.

That excludes bestial marriage and marriage to inanimate objects.

Marriage is an economic contract between the two individuals. I would go furthur and say that polygamous marriages should be allowed on the basis that they can be equally as consenting.
 
:| :| :| :|

Why is it that in every single gay marriage thread someone has to bring up incest and polygamy as being a result of legalizing gay marriage and then go on to assure us that they aren't really against gay marriage, they're "just asking?"

What a load of crap disgiused as "thought." :rolleyes:

Write the law describing gay marriage just like the law describing straight marriage is written.


There hasn't been any logical reason in this thread or any other to deny homosexuals the right to marry. NOT ONE REASON.
 
martha said:
There hasn't been any logical reason in this thread or any other to deny homosexuals the right to marry. NOT ONE REASON.

Indeed...which is why all homophobes are morons.

For all those afraid of incest, polygamy, and bestiality, pass a constitutional amendment against those three.

Melon
 
martha said:
:| :| :| :|

Why is it that in every single gay marriage thread someone has to bring up incest and polygamy as being a result of legalizing gay marriage and then go on to assure us that they aren't really against gay marriage, they're "just asking?"

What a load of crap disgiused as "thought." :rolleyes:

Write the law describing gay marriage just like the law describing straight marriage is written.


There hasn't been any logical reason in this thread or any other to deny homosexuals the right to marry. NOT ONE REASON.

So how would you explain to an adult Gay Uncle and his adult Gay Nephew that they are not allowed to get married? Wanderer already stated that he could not oppose such a marriage, but if you write the law describing gay marriage just like the law describing straight marriage, such a union would be illegal.

Oh, and whats wrong with people being uncertain about how they stand on certain issues and asking questions?
 
Maoilbheannacht said:
So how would you explain to an adult Gay Uncle and his adult Gay Nephew that they are not allowed to get married?

The same way that you explain to an adult hetero Uncle and hetero Niece that they are not allowed to get married.

But who knows. It's probably legal in Kentucky.

Melon
 
melon said:


The same way that you explain to an adult hetero Uncle and hetero Niece that they are not allowed to get married.

But who knows. It's probably legal in Kentucky.

Melon

Well, the main reason that an adult hetero Uncle cannot marry his adult hetero Niece is because of the birth defects any potential offspring would have. In the case of the Adult Gay Uncle and the Adult Gay Nephew, its impossible to have any offspring and the main reason for preventing such a union cannot be used. You can claim its just not good for "domestic peace or tranquility" but those general arguements have been used against any gay marriage as well. So the question is, how do you tell an adult gay Uncle that he can't marry his adult gay nephew when the arguements of "birth defects" and "domestic peace" cannot be used?
 
Maoilbheannacht said:
Well, the main reason that an adult hetero Uncle cannot marry his adult hetero Niece is because of the birth defects any potential offspring would have. In the case of the Adult Gay Uncle and the Adult Gay Nephew, its impossible to have any offspring and the main reason for preventing such a union cannot be used. You can claim its just not good for "domestic peace or tranquility" but those general arguements have been used against any gay marriage as well. So the question is, how do you tell an adult gay Uncle that he can't marry his adult gay nephew when the arguements of "birth defects" and "domestic peace" cannot be used?

You explain that heterosexuals are a vindictive and hateful people whose laws are not based on rational or logical thought, but, instead, a perceived idea of "fairness." That is, letting an uncle and nephew marry would have an implied notion that homosexuals are superior to their heterosexual counterparts. Heterosexuals would never allow such a thing, and, as such, they'd rather perpetuate nasty stereotypes that homosexuals are diseased, dangerous to children, and are an all-around threat to society--basically, the same charges levelled against Jews for nearly 2,000 years.

Melon
 
Maoilbheannacht said:


So how would you explain to an adult Gay Uncle and his adult Gay Nephew that they are not allowed to get married? Wanderer already stated that he could not oppose such a marriage, but if you write the law describing gay marriage just like the law describing straight marriage, such a union would be illegal.


Wow I come back a day later and this ficticious nephew still wants to marry his uncle.:rolleyes:

Why is it you don't get it? How do you explain it to heterosexual couples? The fact that you can't treat the two the same speaks volumes.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Wow I come back a day later and this ficticious nephew still wants to marry his uncle.:rolleyes:

Why is it you don't get it? How do you explain it to heterosexual couples? The fact that you can't treat the two the same speaks volumes.

If you don't like the discussion, why are you participating in it?

You explain it to heterosexual couples by explaining the whole issue of birth defects of potential offspring. But in the case of Gay couples, this is never an issue. So the question remains, how do you explain to an Adult Gay Uncle and his Adult Gay Nephew that they can't get married when arguements about "birth defects" and "domestic peace" cannot be used?
 
Maoilbheannacht said:


If you don't like the discussion, why are you participating in it?

You explain it to heterosexual couples by explaining the whole issue of birth defects of potential offspring. But in the case of Gay couples, this is never an issue. So the question remains, how do you explain to an Adult Gay Uncle and his Adult Gay Nephew that they can't get married when arguements about "birth defects" and "domestic peace" cannot be used?

I like the discussion, I just don't appreciate the combining of homosexuality with incest.

The problem with your analogy is that the likelyhood of birth defects between a nephew and aunt are actually pretty low probably the same as non related couples.

But like I stated before what if they go before the state and prove they can't reproduce? This makes your comparison moot. Why can't you figure that out? Your whole line of questioning become moot.
 
Maoilbheannacht said:
Oh, and whats wrong with people being uncertain about how they stand on certain issues and asking questions?

Nothing's wrong with it. But your questions are ridiculous and have nothing to do with gay marriage. You couch your fear and bigotry in "questions" that have nothing to do with two people wanting that same kind of marriage that I have. Like most bigots, you want to make a link between the behavior you fear and behavior that has nothing to do with the real issue.
 
Maoilbheannacht said:
the question remains, how do you explain to an Adult Gay Uncle and his Adult Gay Nephew that they can't get married when arguements about "birth defects" and "domestic peace" cannot be used?

Here's a better question: How do you explain to two men who have been in a loving relationship that they can't get married because one of them isn't a woman?
 
martha said:


Here's a better question: How do you explain to two men who have been in a loving relationship that they can't get married because one of them isn't a woman?

You would expain it's illegal.....
 
toscano said:


You would expain it's illegal.....

But when they ask why, what do you say?

Hmmm, let's see...

So far we got; status quo:| , it will lead to incest:rolleyes:, what else?

Nothing not one damn logical reason.

Just bigotry...
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I like the discussion, I just don't appreciate the combining of homosexuality with incest.

The problem with your analogy is that the likelyhood of birth defects between a nephew and aunt are actually pretty low probably the same as non related couples.

But like I stated before what if they go before the state and prove they can't reproduce? This makes your comparison moot. Why can't you figure that out? Your whole line of questioning become moot.

Birth defects for offspring of first cousins and nephew/ aunt and uncle/niece are common enough that such unions are against the law. Even Amish communities have come to understand this, and now make significant efforts to get their young people to meet up with Amish from different communities.

Whats far more questionable and rare is finding, first cousins or uncle/niece aunt/nephew situations where they could prove that reproduction was 100% impossible. People who have had surgery to prevent reproduction as well as people have been found to be infertile have had occurances where reproduction does in fact occur. The probability may be 99.99% that it won't happen, but I'm not sure if its ever 100% unless the person has essentially changed their gender. With Gay persons, it is always 100% impossible.

But lets just say that it could occur, that there could be say an uncle/niece pairing where reproduction is 100% impossible. How would you argue that they could not get married? That situation does not make mine line of questioning moot, all it does is add another group of people to the whole issue, provided they can prove that reproduction is 100% impossible.
 
martha said:


Nothing's wrong with it. But your questions are ridiculous and have nothing to do with gay marriage. You couch your fear and bigotry in "questions" that have nothing to do with two people wanting that same kind of marriage that I have. Like most bigots, you want to make a link between the behavior you fear and behavior that has nothing to do with the real issue.

What makes you think that I'm afraid of a certain type of behavior or that I'm a "bigot"? Who does an individual have the right(or no right) to enter into marriage with and why? Thats the issue. If you think thats a ridiculous question and it has nothing to do with the issue of Gay marriage, I don't understand why you even bother to respond.
 
Maoilbheannacht said:

But lets just say that it could occur, that there could be say an uncle/niece pairing where reproduction is 100% impossible. How would you argue that they could not get married? That situation does not make mine line of questioning moot, all it does is add another group of people to the whole issue, provided they can prove that reproduction is 100% impossible.

Yes it does make it moot. How can you not see that?!

Because given this example you just gave the argument of incest marriage between heterosexuals stand on it's own!!! It takes homosexual marriage out of the equation and makes your line of questioning completely useless. I don't know how to make that any clearer...
 
Maoilbheannacht said:


What makes you think that I'm afraid of a certain type of behavior or that I'm a "bigot"?

Because you've gone so totally out of your way to create this rediclous line of questioning that doesn't even stand up.
 
martha said:


Here's a better question: How do you explain to two men who have been in a loving relationship that they can't get married because one of them isn't a woman?

Its essentially the same question, not a better one. I don't have an answer for it.

Once again though, can you explain to an adult uncle why he can't marry his adult nephew? You've already stated that the law in regards to this type of marriage should be the same for both straight and gay people. That means your against an adult uncle marrying his adult nephew. So how would you explain to them that they can't get married?
 
Your entire line of questioning basically only works if you A) are a bigot, B) do not believe that homosexuality is a natural human condition (ie, you believe it is a choice), C) are extremely cynical and want to deny the freedom of others because someone may try and take advantage of it or D) a combination of the above.

So quit dancing around the issue and clouding the dialogue with ridiculous slippery slope arguments and come clean. For or against?
 
Maoilbheannacht said:


Its essentially the same question, not a better one. I don't have an answer for it.
No it's a better one.

Maoilbheannacht said:

Once again though, can you explain to an adult uncle why he can't marry his adult nephew? You've already stated that the law in regards to this type of marriage should be the same for both straight and gay people. That means your against an adult uncle marrying his adult nephew. So how would you explain to them that they can't get married?

You treat it the same way as straight marriage. Why is this so hard for you. Two CONSENTING adults that don't have any predisposition to reproducing children with birth defects should be allowed to get married. How's that?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


But when they ask why, what do you say?


You say "because not enough people care enough about the issue to vote to change the law"

Now, I have no idea what the voting demographics are out there, but if they are anything like me (middle income white male married homeowner with teenage kids and aging parents) there are tens if not hundreds of issues which are given higher priority.

I would not campaign for or against gay marriage, let 'em get married if they want, but quite frankly it's not something that gets most of my voting demographic (the ones I know anyway) terribly fired up either way. With so many issues which directly affect the voting public a lot more immediately and personally, I think it's at least part of the reason why it's not yet legal. Bigotry by omission ? If you want, I really don't care what you call it.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Yes it does make it moot. How can you not see that?!

Because given this example you just gave the argument of incest marriage between heterosexuals stand on it's own!!! It takes homosexual marriage out of the equation and makes your line of questioning completely useless. I don't know how to make that any clearer...

No, all you've done with this example is added one more group of people to the list of those that currently do not fall under what many consider to be a traditional form of marriage, that being an adult man and an adult women who are not immediate family members.

Any adult immediate family members capable of reproduction would never be allowed to marry because of that fact.

You claim that there could be immediate family members 100% incapable of reproduction. So, if such a case could occur, would such family members be allowed to marry? Why or why not?

Everyone agrees that you need to have consenting adults for it to be considered a marriage. This means you could have 5 different groups of people, of which only one would fit under what is regarded as the traditional form of marriage. Each of the 5 could be in a polygamous form as well.

Hetero
Gay
Hetero immediate family(reproduction possible)
Hetero immediate family(reproduction impossible)
Gay immediate family

Polygamous form of any of the above 5


Everyone would agree that Hetero immediate family marriages where reproduction is possible should be banned because of the birth defects that could happen to offspring. This of course would also include a polygamous form of this type of marriage which would be banned as well.

For the remaining four:

Hetero
Gay
Hetero immediate family(reproduction impossible)
Gay immediate family

which if any would you ban and why? What about polygamous versions of those types of marriages?
 
toscano said:


You say "because not enough people care enough about the issue to vote to change the law"

And that's about the dumbest "reasoning" I've ever heard. Would this have been an accptable answer to tell a black person why they can't sit in the front of the bus?


toscano said:

(middle income white male married homeowner with teenage kids and aging parents)

I could have guessed this...

toscano said:

I would not campaign for or against gay marriage, let 'em get married if they want, but quite frankly it's not something that gets most of my voting demographic (the ones I know anyway) terribly fired up either way. With so many issues which directly affect the voting public a lot more immediately and personally, I think it's at least part of the reason why it's not yet legal. Bigotry by omission ? If you want, I really don't care what you call it.

It shouldn't be a campaign issue. It should be legalized and then we can move on with real issues.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

No it's a better one.



You treat it the same way as straight marriage. Why is this so hard for you. Two CONSENTING adults that don't have any predisposition to reproducing children with birth defects should be allowed to get married. How's that?

So your saying that all of the following four consenting adult groups should be allowed to get married?

Hetero
Gay
Hetero immediate family(reproduction impossible)
Gay immediate family

Martha seemed to indicate that only the first two should be allowed to get married and the last two should be banned.

Wanderer has already said he does not have an objection to three of those groups. He also does not object to polygamous forms of those types of marriages. Not sure how Wanderer feels about the hypothetical "Hetero immediate family(reproduction impossible)" group.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom