Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think those who are pro-gay marriage should include incest marriages as well. After all, why constitutionally infringe on the rights of two consenting adults to marry their siblings or first cousins?
I say let the court rulings open up all of the doors...allow anyone and everyone who is of consenting age to marry whomever they want...poligamy, incest, gay etc... remove all boundaries, and just let the entire deck of cards fall over.
I completely agree, and that's what I'm aiming for.
I think those who are pro-gay marriage should include incest marriages as well. After all, why constitutionally infringe on the rights of two consenting adults to marry their siblings or first cousins?
You are aware first cousins can already marry in 3 times as many states as gays can right?
Quote:
I say let the court rulings open up all of the doors...allow anyone and everyone who is of consenting age to marry whomever they want...poligamy, incest, gay etc... remove all boundaries, and just let the entire deck of cards fall over.
Slippery slope fallacy. Most people here are not in favor of polygamy or incest. In fact, there is a strict divide between countries that support same-sex marriage and those that support polygamy. The 1st World supports same-sex marriage and opposes polygamy, the 3rd world is the opposite.
Fiyero You are aware first cousins can already marry in 3 times as many states as gays can right?
I'm aware that several states allow incest marriages depending on the degrees of distance between the parties. It isn't defined in hard print equally across the board--however, just as those who are enthusiastic and federalizing gay marriage; they should be just as open to federalizing incest marriage to cover all states and degrees so that they can also enjoy the full range of benefits and protection under the US constitution. No?
Quote:
Slippery slope fallacy. Most people here are not in favor of polygamy or incest. In fact, there is a strict divide between countries that support same-sex marriage and those that support polygamy. The 1st World supports same-sex marriage and opposes polygamy, the 3rd world is the opposite
I'm not talking about what "most people" are in favor of. Everyone is to be protected regardless, right? How can anyone argue that gays should receive "equal protection" under the law but deny incest and polygamists couples the same opportunity should those individuals wish to engage in those types of relationships for their own personal benefit?
I personally think that the left-wing and/or liberals have to accept the entire package deal.
If the argument is that gay marriage is to be constitutionally protected against DOMA, then so should incest and polygamous marriages. The precedent has been set and established. I say make them own the entire lot and agree to it all.
I'm aware that several states allow incest marriages depending on the degrees of distance between the parties. It isn't defined in hard print equally across the board--however, just as those who are enthusiastic and federalizing gay marriage; they should be just as open to federalizing incest marriage to cover all states and degrees so that they can also enjoy the full range of benefits and protection under the US constitution. No?
I'm not talking about what "most people" are in favor of. Everyone is to be protected regardless, right? How can anyone argue that gays should receive "equal protection" under the law but deny incest and polygamists couples the same opportunity should those individuals wish to engage in those types of relationships for their own personal benefit?
I personally think that the left-wing and/or liberals have to accept the entire package deal.
If the argument is that gay marriage is to be constitutionally protected against DOMA, then so should incest and polygamous marriages. The precedent has been set and established. I say make them own the entire lot and agree to it all.
The problem with your scenario is that you can make logical, secular arguments for prohibiting marriages between relatives and polygamy. That's pretty much impossible to do as far as gay marriage is concerned.
The problem with your scenario is that you can make logical, secular arguments for prohibiting marriages between relatives and polygamy. That's pretty much impossible to do as far as gay marriage is concerned.
There is no secular morality. Without God, man decides for himself what is right or wrong. Without God, there is no morality.
A) My god is fine with homosexuality
B) This is a discussion about legal arguments. The law is (or at least supposed to be under our 1st Amendment) secular, therefor your argument must be secular.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
