Opponents. How has gay marriage negatively effected your life?

Then I really have no reason to listen to any of your comments or replies in your thread, because you've already determined that this thread isn't about "Opponents. How has gay marriage negatively effected your life?" it's about "Gays are icky."

I'm not making a "gays are icky" argument.

 

For the record there are recorded incidences of siblings or other wise related individuals marrying, and even having children (with no ill effects), before discovering they were related (separated at birth and all that)

With that said, let's look at your scenario. First they have already been having sex for 5 years, so it's not like the presence or absence of the legal paperwork is going to make much difference there. By your wording there is no coercion happening, so at this point they are legal consenting adults.

Noting that there are variations depending upon country, by and large legal marriage has no requirement for sex, children or even love. Therefore the only point of legal marriage is the benefits, which, in theory, helps to create more stable households (something that can be done without the legal status, but it's still an encouragement). So at this point, I see no reason not to provide them with the legal benefits, since they want to maintain a household.

A few points of interest to note. First generation inbreeding (no other inbreeding within the previous 5 generations) has a low probability of birth defects. In fact, many animal breeders use this as a way of maintaining certain traits they are trying to breed. Birth defects are more likely to arise and to do so more frequently if the inbreeding occurs over multiple generations. We have seen this in many royal families. However, the impetus to engage in multi-generational inbreeding is no longer present. Most of that inbreeding was done at a time when marriages were arranged and the procreation (and the sex necessary for it) were more a matter of duty, and not desire or preference. In the modern age, very few related people would desire to have sex with each other, Westermarek and all that.

Now let me twist your hypothetical around a bit. Brother and sister growing up together. By age 25, neither has found anyone that they wish to settle down long term with. They decide to get a place together (separate bedrooms) for financial and other pratical reasons and decide that they want to get the legal marriage for the additional financial benefits that are not available to them as just siblings.
You support them?
You do not support them?

 

History lesson, albeit US history. Abortion was a legal and expected (i.e. you got it if you needed it) practice in the US as well as in it's colonial days up until around the 1860's. That is when abortion bans started popping up in the law, with the majority being passed in the later part of the decade.

 

You misunderstood. His premise was that people are having more recreational sex today because of abortion techniques being better than they were. I too thought that he had meant BC, since he didn't mention what the modern improvement was, but it was his assertion, so he can't be wrong in it, that is to say, you can't tell him what his assertion was, even if the assertion itself is wrong.

 

The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, known as the Civil War amendments, were specifically and explicitly written to assure recently freed slaves, and by implication all blacks, had Constitution backing for being full-fledged citizens. (They are some of the very few places in the Constitution that explicitly applies to all states, BTW.) Any rudimentary perusal of their history and the writings and governmental discussions of them is very clear as to their purpose and intent. They didn't feel it necessary to explicitly state the purpose in the amendments (much like the framers didn't feel a need to put into the Constitution that the sun rises in the east.) They did debate much specificity (for instance the born in the US and under the jurisdiction thereof) but decided, like the framers, less specificity unless absolutely required makes a better constitution even though knowing full well that leaves possibilities of loop hole interpretations..

 

You really have to stop treating it as if it is an objective absolute. There are different opinions on what marriage equality means.

 

According to you there has not been enough time passing to know for sure, so it seems that what is happening now is the testing phase, yet you say that is not happening.

What is it exactly that you desire?

 

Again that is not necessarily an issue with SSM in and of itself, but a general attitude that would arise in several situations, such as transgender related events.

 

You are not making any argument at all,

 

That is a lot of words to just say that the 14th does not specify it is only for blacks and former slaves.

Seems that every Amendment should be for everyone in the country, do you not agree?

 

It's been at least a generation of kids - I photographed a gay couple with two kids 18 years ago for a magazine cover. We've had
time to see if there were any major problems (any more than with hetero parents) nothing has appeared. Time to get over your
fears and let people live their lives.

 

Agreed. The 2nd wasn't written with black people in mind, but even the weirdest Republicans wouldn't argue that the 2nd doesn't apply to black Americans.

 

I have no reticence. I think gays are icky. However, as I posted elsewhere, they should be afforded the same fundamental individual rights and liberties as everyone else. I don't think same sex marriages should be sanctioned (unless authorized by state governments), but "married" gays should get the same benefits accrued to real married couples.

 

I work with a lady in a same sex marriage. They have a 16 (might be 17) year old they have been raising together since her birth, even before they were legally allowed to be married. All that them being allowed to marry did was give them the same rights and benefits of any other married couple raising a child.

 

The 2nd Amendment wasn't written with black Americans in mind - do you think SCOTUS oversteps it authority
by applying it to black Americans?

 

I fully agree that many people, on both sides of a given topic, will present very stupid arguments without thinking on how that argument really applies. Hell, I have called out people who are on my side of the argument for making those kinds of mistakes. I've done it to you, calling you out on a fallacy even though we are agreeing on the same basic conclusion.

 

Thanks, it is good to see someone be honest with their feelings.

Though I do find it funny you do not consider same sex couples to be "real" marriages".

 

Marriage and adoption are the top two that come to mind. There might be other ways, depending upon local laws.

 

I do not understand why anyone would want to limit any amendment to a specific group.

 

Why only same sex marriages? How about heterosexual marriages that are damaging to children? Should those be outlawed?

You'd have to outlaw ALL marriages ....and procreation....if you want to save kids from bad parents...

 

I've not expressed any fears and am not interfering in anyone's lives. Thanks for the anecdote though. Sounds like scientific proof!

 

I'm already onboard with outlawing heterosexual marriage. I went through 10 years of hell during my divorce and lost EVERYTHING. I'd be a wedding crasher in a heartbeat if I had a plane and dates/times for all planned weddings.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Why only same sex marriages? How about heterosexual marriages that are damaging to children? Should those be outlawed?

You'd have to outlaw ALL marriages ....and procreation....if you want to save kids from bad parents...

That doesn't answer why you think same sex marriages should be outlawed if they don't raise their children properly.

 

Yes, I do agree. However, every SCOTUS decision on a constitutional question should take into account the actual context, meaning, and intent underlying the explicit words. (Or, on a similar but different note, SCOTUS should be subject to check and balances as the other two branches are.)

 

No, don't be silly.