Marriage Equality

[Rosy]

I truly hope this an attempt at banter or gentle trolling Gia? You really do like to put things into black or white categories. Marriage equality does not have to include doormats or incest. Why would it? Nuance is a thing and it is possible to have a thoughtful discussion without nonsense appeals to the margins isn't it?

Doormats is a stupid concept. As is animals as someone on here once raised. It has to be consensual. Homosexual relationships, incest, polygamy, heterosexual monogamy etc can all be desired by different people. I don't see why they should be exempt from discussion. Not saying I agree with it by a long shot but I wonder why incest is so taboo. I see it as a moral issue but who am I to judge consenting adults based on my values.

 

[1eyedtiger]

Doormats is a stupid concept. As is animals as someone on here once raised.

If people want to go down that slippery slope, at least start at the top -

Heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married as it will only lead to gay people getting married.

 

[Rosy]

If people want to go down that slippery slope, at least start at the top -

Heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married as it will only lead to gay people getting married.

What is the slippery slope you refer to. How does heterosexual marriage "lead to" gay people getting married? I couldn't care about marriage of any type really. Hardly seems worth the effort in many cases.

 

[Ian4]

If people want to go down that slippery slope, at least start at the top -

Heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married as it will only lead to gay people getting married.

:hihi

 

[1eyedtiger]

What is the slippery slope you refer to. How does heterosexual marriage "lead to" gay people getting married? I couldn't care about marriage of any type really. Hardly seems worth the effort in many cases.

It was mentioned earlier in the the Rosy. It fact, it's mentioned just about anywhere where gay marriage is being discussed. First it's the gays wanting to get married and from there its a 'slippery slope' as people will be wanting to marry their cats and dogs and all sorts of other things. I'm agreeing with you that it's a stupid concept.

I'm just pointing out that this slippery slope doesn't start with gay people wanting to get married, it starts with heterosexual people wanting to get married. Which leads to gay people wanting to get married. It's exactly the same argument that the opponents to gay marriage use, but applied to heterosexuals.

I can't help with your question 'How does heterosexual marriage "lead to" gay people getting married?'. If anyone here can explain how gay marriage leads to marriage with animals and inanimate objects, then you'll have your answer.

 

[Rosy]

....
I can't help with your question 'How does heterosexual marriage "lead to" gay people getting married?'. If anyone here can explain how gay marriage leads to marriage with animals and inanimate objects, then you'll have your answer.

Piffle. :hihi How does a cat or a pumpkin or a hotted up falcon say "I do"?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Doormats is a stupid concept. As is animals as someone on here once raised. It has to be consensual. Homosexual relationships, incest, polygamy, heterosexual monogamy etc can all be desired by different people. I don't see why they should be exempt from discussion. Not saying I agree with it by a long shot but I wonder why incest is so taboo. I see it as a moral issue but who am I to judge consenting adults based on my values.

As far as I know it was thought until very recently that the children of an incestual relationship had a very high likelihood of having disabilities. I think the current science says the risk drops off very quickly once you exclude immediate family (brother/sister). In general people are attracted to other people who look like them, so familial attraction shouldn't be that surprising. And until relatively recently (say a few hundred years ago) we lived in extended family groups within isolated populations so most pairings probably had a familial element. My family in Ireland have lived in the same village for hundreds of years. I've almost gone out with a cousin (3rd cousin or something like that), as have 3 other family members before someone realised the connection. It can't believe that that wasn't just normal but unavoidable until cities and transport changed the way we live.

Gia brought up doormats. I don't know why.

 

[poppa x]

I can't help with your question 'How does heterosexual marriage "lead to" gay people getting married?'

Maybe because...
A gay couple can only come into being as a result of a hetero couple having a willy wonka behind the chocolate factory.

???

 

[Giardiasis]

As usual you are overstating things. It doesn't have 'nothing' to do with equality'. It simply applies in a way that is incomplete in your eyes. There are other ways to see things than only through your eyes Gia.

In general I probably agree with you. In addition I think discrimination is too broadly defined and doesn't necessarily apply in a lot of the places it is used. I think you should be able to show some material or physical impediment in order to claim you have been 'discriminated' against (refused access to a public service or employment for instance). Not being able to buy a cake isn't discrimination. It may be annoying or even hurtful but that can't be allowed to be called discrimination IMO. You could bake your own cake.

It is however a structural element of society that the collective know who is 'married' to whom in case there is some grievance that threatens to disrupt that collective. Your extreme libertarian anti collective view might not value those collective elements, but that is an issue for you. The rest of us either blindly or knowingly find comfort and value in the collective nature of society. Hence when the laws either by anachronism or design exclude certain members then at some stage there will probably be a reckoning. That needn't break the whole system. It can be done by increment. You don't go from only wealthy land owners can vote, to all members of socety can vote, for instance. Baby steps. Incremental adjustments that hopefully lead to a more cohesive and mutually beneficial society.

Fair enough replace nothing with little.

I'm not concerned with the political reality, I am trying to figure out the issue in my mind, and the way I see it is that the government has no place telling anyone who can and can't get married. Individuals on the other hand is a different thing, and I think people confuse the issue because of this. For example, if a group of people (e.g. a religious group) don't want to recognise others as married, then that's up to them to decide. It's not the government's place to force them to accept marriages they don't personally recognise as valid. Another example, I think most people would consider a marriage between a doormat and a person as ridiculous, hence they wouldn't recognise it as such. However the government has no place to make such a determination.

 

[1eyedtiger]

Maybe because...
A gay couple can only come into being as a result of a hetero couple having a willy wonka behind the chocolate factory.

???

Must have found a golden ticket ;D

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Fair enough replace nothing with little.

I'm not concerned with the political reality, I am trying to figure out the issue in my mind, and the way I see it is that the government has no place telling anyone who can and can't get married. Individuals on the other hand is a different thing, and I think people confuse the issue because of this. For example, if a group of people (e.g. a religious group) don't want to recognise others as married, then that's up to them to decide. It's not the government's place to force them to accept marriages they don't personally recognise as valid. Another example, I think most people would consider a marriage between a doormat and a person as ridiculous, hence they wouldn't recognise it as such. However the government has no place to make such a determination.

For the most part, I agree.

 

[Harry]

Doormats is a stupid concept. As is animals as someone on here once raised. It has to be consensual. Homosexual relationships, incest, polygamy, heterosexual monogamy etc can all be desired by different people. I don't see why they should be exempt from discussion. Not saying I agree with it by a long shot but I wonder why incest is so taboo. I see it as a moral issue but who am I to judge consenting adults based on my values.

Agree

 

[Brodders17]

Fair enough replace nothing with little.

I'm not concerned with the political reality, I am trying to figure out the issue in my mind, and the way I see it is that the government has no place telling anyone who can and can't get married. Individuals on the other hand is a different thing, and I think people confuse the issue because of this. For example, if a group of people (e.g. a religious group) don't want to recognise others as married, then that's up to them to decide. It's not the government's place to force them to accept marriages they don't personally recognise as valid. Another example, I think most people would consider a marriage between a doormat and a person as ridiculous, hence they wouldn't recognise it as such. However the government has no place to make such a determination.

i possibly agree with your argument governments should not be involved in marriage. but, as others have pointed out, your other arguments are ridiculous, unless you don't believe consent should be a necessary.

 

[Giardiasis]

your other arguments are ridiculous, unless you don't believe consent should be a necessary.

Can you elaborate on what you think these ridiculous arguments are?

 

[tigertime2]

According to scientific studies the human brain is fully developed by our early 20's How on earth can a child make an informed decision about their sexuality when in all likelihood they are being coerced or groomed by an adult?

 

[tigertime2]

We are at the end of Western Civilization, what replaces it? History will show that reason and logic give way to who has the biggest guns?

 

[Rosy]

According to scientific studies the human brain is fully developed by our early 20's How on earth can a child make an informed decision about their sexuality when in all likelihood they are being coerced or groomed by an adult?

I haven't read all the comments but surely nobody is referring to children here?

 

[tigertime2]

Sorry Rosy I saw Incest, which is generally referred to as Children. If you are referring to Adults Well it has been generally accepted that in a male and female relationship it can lead to offspring having abnormalities.

 

[Azza]

Doormats is a stupid concept. As is animals as someone on here once raised. It has to be consensual. Homosexual relationships, incest, polygamy, heterosexual monogamy etc can all be desired by different people. I don't see why they should be exempt from discussion. Not saying I agree with it by a long shot but I wonder why incest is so taboo. I see it as a moral issue but who am I to judge consenting adults based on my values.

Except for the likelihood of genetic disorders.

 

[Harry]

Marriage doesn't equate to having children. So why can't consenting adult siblings or mother and son or father and daughter or father and son get married?

And why can't a man have 2 or more wives or 2 or more husbands if they are all consenting adults?

They need to add an I and P in LGBTQAI