
Between two brothers or sisters? Not holding water there. |
Justifying bad behavior by citing other's bad behavior is no basis for an arguement. I guess a better role model would be Bill Clinton, huh. |
Show me some examples. If there are none then your point is moot. God may not have created any. |
Google has lots of hits for "gay incest", if that's what your question meant. But since the question has been raised, would marriage give a pair of co-habiting brothers or sisters any rights they don't already have? |
Apparently you did not actually read those sites. They are primarily porno ie fake, with a few that deal with father son sex abuse. Try again. |
Pls correct me if I'm wrong but one of the big issues is if gay marriage is made legal, a church can be forced to perform the ceremony. |
You are wrong. The government cannot force any church to do any marriage. |
Yes, it would. 1. I would give them the rights under the law afforded to married couples, such as tax treatment, etc. 2. It would allow them to call their union "marriage". This seems to be the biggest issue to the gays who are not satisfied with having all the rights of marriage but having to call it a civil union. |
The problem is that a civil union does NOT provide all the rights of marriage. The fact is, a gay couple (or any couple) could call themselves whatever they want. My fiance and I could refer to each other as husband and wife and no one could stop us. We wouldn't reap the legal benefits of marriage, but we can call ourselves whatever we damn well please. The primary problem, largely stemming from DOMA, is that gays are denied certain privileges that are currently allowed only to married couples at the federal level. Health insurance, inheritance, taxes... all are privileges explicitly reserved for married couples, thus denying them to gays and lesbians. |
The DC "marriage equality law says: to ensure that no priest, minister, imam, or rabbi of any religious denomination and no official of any non-profit religious organization authorized to solemnize marriages shall be required to celebrate any marriage if doing so violates his or her right to the free exercise of religion". In fact, the official name of the law, "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND CIVIL MARRIAGE EQUALITY AMENDMENT ACT OF 2009", puts religious freedom first, and specifies that it is about civil marriage equality. |
It's about the "degradation" of our society. Traditionalists are alarmed at the changes they see in our society. A black President. Women in power, not dependent on men. Disrespectful teenagers (like that's new). Drugs (ibid). Homosexuality being accepted instead of shunned is, to some folks, condoning an immoral society. If we keep going on the path we are on we will have a country where there is no right or wrong, just "do whatever makes you feel good". This threatens the social order which threatens their standing in it. Just like civil rights did, and immigration does.
I don't agree with any of this. It is just what I think they are thinking. I live my life by the motto, "do whatever makes you feel good - as long as you harm none". |
it doesn't threaten me, but I still don't like it, and wouldn't vote for it if I had a chance.
I think marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't like gay adoption either. |
Actually many states do allow marriages between 1st cousins and other states that do not still recognize those marriages. More on point though to the principal is that several states that allow first cousin marriage do so under the restriction that one party must not be able to bear children. There is no protection of a religion belief going on or even moral issue. The restriction is about the high likelihood of genetic disorders. In a gay marriage, clearly both parents can not bear children so the principals for establishing a restriction on first cousins in some states would not apply. |
I don't like allowing Republicans to vote. But most people, quite correctly, don't give a damn how I feel about their right to vote. Unfortunately, most Republicans don't want me to vote, and for some strange historical reason, they get to keep me from doing so, since I live in DC. They have as much moral right to deprive me of my right to democracy as you have to deprive gays of their right to happiness. You have a right to your opinion of how someone else lives their life. But not to impose your opinion on them! And if you are one of those DC people who wants to use your limited voting rights to deprive others of their marital rights, I really think you ought to look around for someone grinning as he says "Let's you and him fight." |
Great. Then give gays a 30% break on state and local taxes. They shouldn't have to pay for schools if they can't ever make use of them. |