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

Yes. Also polygamy. In the case of incest, there is probably a social welfare argument to be made for regulating against procreation, probably. But adoption, artificial insemenation and surrogacy are things, so theres no logical reason to prevent incestuous marriages. Theres moral reasons of course, but thats no basis for law.

 

any President that controls the Senate going forward will only require 50 votes - we will never have moderate judges again

 

If they cannot consumate. I think someone typically has to complain first for it to matter. In the Catholic church you can get an annulment which differs from a divorce as a divorce dissolves the marriage while annulment is saying it never actually happened to begin with.

 

Oh okay sure. Though I've been arguing incestuous marriage in general is okay.

 

Legally recognised marriage isn't necessary between siblings since the legal relationship between them is already defined. The point of legal marriage, certainly in the modern era, is the standardised recognition of the relationship between two people who are otherwise formally connected.

 

You might would have a point if evangelicals didn’t push to ban civil unions and marriage like contracts prior to the major push for same sex marriage.

Y’all don’t want them to have anything and now are trying to act like the term marriage was all you wanted this entire time.

Trying a rewrite of history when people can easily google is just embarrassing.

 

This seems to be a very disingenuous argument.

 

But Progressives support Abortion, even rather late-term ones. So obviously the self-actualization of the woman and sexual desires of the couple takes precedence over the future of the child. So why not support marriage between brother and sister? Isn't that the ultimate form of equality?
Doesn't this send the message that you ARE okay discriminating among persons?

Any arguments that it would not truly count as discrimination seem very similar to the arguments that were used against gay marriage.

 

Why exactly?

 

Saying that two people don't have any need to get married because they are already siblings together in a family.

Obviously all those factors are not the same, as you most certainly already know.

How about gay people don't truly need to get married, because one of them could just officially adopt the other? See how absurd that would be?

 

marriage makes two unrelated people related, a brother or sister is already related

 

And that's the only reason anyone would want to get married. (sarcasm)

Do you see how ridiculous your argument is, FreshAir?

 

No I wouldn't.

 

Don't you think the claims of risk of genetic defects are overblown and exaggerated?

 

I don't think they support bestiality or incest I think what's happening there is if gay marriage why not incestuous married and I would say because gay isn't incest.

It seems like an attempt at a logic trap but it only works if you think of same sex marriages the same as marriage between siblings and I don't.

 

Well we're not talking about inbreeding here we're talking about marriage. People can inbreed without being married. People can inbreed while being married to other people so I don't think that plays into it at all.

 

Banning a man from marrying a man but not a woman from marrying a man is discrimination on the basis of sex. If a man can marry a woman a woman must also be able to marry a woman you can't forbid one but at the other it's still be not discriminating on the basis of sex.

If nobody was allowed to marry her brother or sister then it's not discrimination you're treating everyone the same.

 

So your objection to same-sex marriage is about the sacred words?

 

They don't seem to want gay or lesbian relationships on the same level as heterosexual relationships. They want special recognition by the government. Essentially a gold star for not being a homo. I've heard them argue this. Remember laughing at Michael Knowles trying to explain why he deserves a special pat on the head for his relationship.

 

Not exactly. I said they don't need a legal marriage because their relationship already has legal recognition. Any other factors can be managed beyond the simple concept of legal marriage. Maybe a better question would be why would two siblings need to get married? What would be gained by that legal change/addition of status? Also, what legal principles could be contradicted or duplicated?

Because you generally can't legally adopt someone of similar age or a sexual partner.

The simple fact is that marriage is legal union between two legally unconnected people. It is distinct from the social and emotional questions of the practical nature of relationships between different people. What you're trying to do is use people's instinctive reactions to the social and emotional aspects to challenge the established legal ones.

 

It's not discrimination to prevent birth defects and since I can't assume that every brother-sister would choose abortion, I don't think there's anything to be gained by condoning actions that will all but intentionally condemn a child to live a life with whatever ill effects it happens to be born with. In those situations I would say abortion is the right choice, but it's not my choice to make. I would actually suggest abortion in every case where birth defects or some kind of serious genetic condition is discovered, but thereagain, it's not my choice to make. It's the mother's. It's one thing if birth defects and genetic problems happen naturally. It's quite another when your actions will knowingly lead to it.

No they don't. Same-sex marriage was an unequal situation and the restrictions were 100% arbitrary. There were nothing objective being protected by limiting marriage to one man and one woman. There was nothing gained, whatsoever. The discrimination existed purely to appease bigots. And likewise, if one or both of a brother-sister coupling is sterile and can't biologically reproduce with the other, there is no chance for harm and thus, no reason to prohibit the marriage. But if that isn't the case, then there IS the chance for harm.

Not once during the entire argument over same-sex marriage was even one single objective harm identified as a reason to keep the limitation. Not once. Everything was purely subjective discomfort.

 

The widely claimed destruction of marriage that was supposed to follow SSM doesn't appear to have eventuated. Marriage seems to be about as strong, or weak, as it was before.

 

@kazenatsu

What are your views on sibling marriages and why?

 

give examples, most marry to create a family with the one they love

 

The arguments Democrats like you in this forum try to use to justify your argument to brush away logical inconsistencies that are pointed out are ridiculous.

I don't think you actually even really believe that argument. Or you are just intentionally are not putting much thinking in.

It's totally obvious that is not the main reason or anywhere near the top reasons that a non-conventional couple would want to get married.

You're just coming up with a BS reason to use as a roadblock to try to justify your position, which on some subconscious level you know has a glaring inconsistency and doesn't make logical sense.
I won't be wasting the effort or time to argue about it, since anyone who's being honest with themselves can see it for what it is.

If conservatives had said, instead of gay marriage, let's recognize them as "brothers in the same family", people like you would have never bought that.
(remember, you were not even satisfied with the title "domestic union")