If gay marriage is great, okay to marry your sister?

Your concern is a valid one, but it’s not so different from the status quo for teachers. Acts that could constitute grooming on minors is illegal. But if no sexual contact occurs before the age of consent, it’s fine. Just ask Macron (their age of consent is lower).

 

If two New York transgenders get married in Manhattan and later divorced in Los Angeles... are they still brothers?

 

If two underage children are involved, there is no illegal activity. If they are not related, or even if they are cousins, who live apart, seeing two little kids kissing, or laying in each other's arms, is adorable. But if they are going to be living together, in constant, close proximity, it seems too intense of a situation, to be allowed; there is just too much negative potential, in that. Imagine, even as an adult, that as soon as you started dating someone, you bought a house together, saddling the two of you with one another, for at least the next ten or fifteen years. Is that going to become awkward, if six months in, you want to break up, and start seeing other people?

As I'd said, I think the separation created by living with parents, while it may seem frustrating to kids, is actually useful, to allow their relationship skills the time to develop, within a buffered environment, before being thrown to the wolves. The intimacy of living together, combined with the still forming character of children, makes sibling romances highly subject to exploitation; also, to the exertion of a powerful habitualizing force, which would be highly pre-disposing of these children, to either being conditioned to that situation, early in life, or at least to a certain, narrow range of character, for all their future relationships. And if the two have a falling out-- with the intensity of feeling of "first love"-- this bodes troubling things, both for the psychological suffering of the spurned sibling, as well as possibly for the victimization of the other one, if that jilted sibling turns to thoughts of vengeance.

A very ill-advised idea. Something that parents should strongly discourage. So why work against that, by having society send a signal to kids, that this is OK?

 

Psychobabble like that just thrills the livin' bejeesus outta me!!!!

 

"Psychobabble?" Does that mean you do not see the potential downside, in having your first, young love, be your sister-- or hers, being her brother? No different, than anyone else, in your mind? The whole living together, and it being impossible to get any space from one another, even when you want to, doesn't strike you as potentially problematic, if things go south? And it doesn't seem like it could provide a fertile ground for coercion or manipulation, of young children, increasing the probability that they might be prematurely guided away from other potentials, to have their sexuality inextricably tied up with, fused to, their sibling? By the way, did you marry your own sister? Any kids? Do you let them go in each other's rooms, unsupervised? If so, how many grandkids do you have? Do they all live at home, with you?


Yeah, sure-- being against incest, makes me, the weirdo.

 

Marriage between close relatives is prohibited because of the chance for birth defects. That doesn't go away because same-sex marriage exists. However, if two brothers or two sisters want to get married, I couldn't care less. Or if a brother or sister want to get married and one is sterile, I couldn't care less. The only reason I oppose it is because it leads to extremely likely health(and mental) problems for any offspring.

 

Its all ok. They're all Democrats who have cut off their genitalia... so its ok.

 

Someone earlier mentioned bro/sis who had been married for years w/o knowing they are related. In such a case, the more serious issue of consent is null. That, in a day and age where we can screen for genetic anomalies, is the real problem with incest/family member marriage. The immediate family relationship is unique. One such family member can manipulate another as in no other couple pairing. So you never know if consent is really given.

The Left called it a moral panic when Elvis shook his hips on TV. The right warned of the slippery slope. We went from that to the Stones singing, "let's spend the night together" to Madonna simulating masturbation with a crucifix to a live audience, to some big black singer (Lizzo?) taking a huge wiz on the face of an audience member, to guy with great big tits stripping naked on live TV and playing a keyboard with his dick and the audience laughs and the camera does not cut away, to some pervert guy with big fake exposed tits bending over with his back side to an audience that included children and showing them all his butt hole.

Either a prohibition against the obscene and profane matters for the well being of a civilization or it doesn't. I fear we will find out. And it was, as you write, only the right that was worried about it.

 

Why is this thread ONLY for those who would vote for gay marriage?

As far as marriage between siblings goes, it’s against the law for good reason. In all but two States incest is criminalized between consenting adults. Marriage between siblings is forbidden in any state.

Comparing gay marriage to an incestuous marriage is absolutely ridiculous.

Another ridiculous comparison — consensual sex between siblings and rape.

The negative effects of inbreeding start with an incestuous couple even though there may be no overt signs. The point of mating is shuffling human DNA so genetic defects don’t occur. If you already carry a defective gene — eg gene for cystic fibrosis, the chances of genetic disease is greatly increased.

Inbreeding hugely increases the mortality rate the fetus during pregnancy, as well as spontaneous abortion. There is also a larger chance of premature birth. It decreases fertility in the offspring. Viable inbred offspring have a much increased chance of blindness, hearing loss, neonatal diabetes, disorders of sex development, malformations of the limbs, schizophrenia, congenital heart disease. Between siblings the risk is huge.

I don’t know why you have started this stupid thread because marriage between siblings will never happen. It seems to me you are just trying to make some point about radical lefties who will go as far as condone incestuous marriage. I have no problem with gay marriage as it doesn’t harm anybody except the discomfort and anger is causes to homophobes. However, marriage usually involves having children, I will never condone an incestuous marriage where the plan is to produce children who likely will have to suffer from health problems and live with the shame of having parents that most of the world is against.

I am pretty sure there must be some consenting adult brothers and sisters living in the same residence who might be doing the dirty deed on the down low. I don’t think any incestuous couples like that would come forward and admit it, after all it is a crime.

Here is a really bad example on incest right in the USA.

https://nypost.com/2023/04/03/meet-the-whittakers-inside-americas-most-inbred-family/

 

the right elected Trump, so I do not think they can take the high road on morality, family values or even Christian values

 

You can't change the definition of marriage after the Bible was written and then claim that the Bible encouraging marriage is an endorsement of homosexuality.

 

I don't support gay "marriage", per se, but I do support legally-binding "contracts" between individual American citizens. That said, I would support a "legal contract" between a brother and sister, or between any two people, or three people, or four people, etc., etc. (That's reflective of the "liberal" side of me, and no, I'm not a member of the LDS Church)

 

legal marriage is just that

 

God is all knowing right, thus he knew when he said that, what it would mean today... and now you are reading it

 

Trumps judges ended Roe, so, you aren't thinking straight. You don't seem to see the huge difference between voting for issues and a candidate that will carry them out vs voting for a lying whore that will do whatever his political John's pay him to do.

 

Okay, that doesn’t mean incest and gay marriage are the same thing, they never have been.

 

that was not due to Trump, that was due to the Senate changing the number of votes to 50 for SC judges, it use to me 60, which gave us more moderate judges

 

Oh. So, doesn't matter if we have Trump nominating judges that made this decision, or Biden, who has put on the USSC a Justice that doesn't know what a woman is. Gotcha.

 

Better question;
Brother + Brother

 

He didn't equate them.
He asked if you would support it, and why/why not?
Well?

 

Incest is human sexual activity between family members or close relatives.
Marriage does not necessitate sexual relations.

 

I think their point is that they see it as the same: Immoral unions. Recall that their sense of morality is warped by the Bible in many cases. Real morality involves harm to others. The fact that incestuous marriage can lead to harmed offspring is what makes it different. Though as I've said, there are plenty of risky child-bearing practices (for the offspring) that are completely unregulated, so it is arbitrary to treat this one differently.

 

Under common law, a marriage had to be consummated. In France, it was a custom for the wedding party to watch. Kinky.

 

Brother + brother.
What possible harm is there?

 

Meaning cripples and invalids and eunuchs cannot get married?