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

I couldn't tell you who penned the words, in fact that information may be lost to the sands of time, but it was the 14th Amendment that made it mandatory that all laws shall apply equally to all genders and races. Ergo, you can't make it illegal for a black and a white to marry, likewise you can't make it illegal for a black MAN and a white MAN to marry, yet it is a legitimate (or at least legal) use of governmental power to prevent siblings from doing so, as long as it applies equally to ALL siblings, no matter who you are, who you are related to, who you know, and so forth. Not to mention that the prohibition of same-sex marriages is a religious prohibition, and we cannot use religious rules to model civil law after unless the act in question has good reasons to outlaw that do NOT include, 'Because my HOLEY book said so!!'. In the case of marriages, the chances of genetic defects in offspring, especially if the interfamily marriages continue for generation after generation, is enough to satisfy that requirement, whereas there is precisely a ZERO chance of having genetically defective offspring from two people of the same gender, so that doesn't apply.

As for the idea of a 'civil union' being 'as good as', if it were, I would personally be okay with it provided one (or depending on how you might wish to count, possibly two) condition... And that is that, at least from the time of that law moving forward, ALL future romantic relationships being granted family status by the Law will be done via Civil Union, and religion can keep the word 'marriage' and do with it what they will. You can get civilly married and not be religiously married, but not the other way around. I am civilly married. I am not religiously married because I view all religions as cults and want nothing to do with them. But that doesn't change the legal aspects of my union whatsoever.

However, you are about a decade late on the issue of same-sex marriage, as it's now long-settled law, and no SCOTUS out there is going to invalidate millions of otherwise healthy, loving marriages because of some esoteric and irrelevant religious clause that isn't even universally recognized by religions and other cults.

 

Well the one thing that people who were against it feared has been neutralized.

 

That's not really true. Marriage is on the fast decline.

"fewer than 1 in 5 Americans now believe that it's essential to be married to have a fulfilling life. That's a huge cultural change."
Is Marriage Dying or Just Changing? | Institute for Family Studies (ifstudies.org)

"Marriage expectations are changing among Generation Z and Millenials. In a survey done by the Thriving Center of Psychology, two out of five people said marriage is an outdated tradition and is not necessary for a fulfilling and committed relationship."
Marriage Is Outdated and Unnecessary – These Are the Reasons Why (msn.com) by Emily Valdez
2 in 5 young adults surveyed say marriage an outdated tradition – The Hill

 

I thought it depended on how big a check you wrote to the local Priest. I mean his Parrish, of course...

 

And I ignored that.

Gay marriage only exists in the minds of gays. From the poll heading, I assume gays think incest is OK too.

 

Nope. I'm a gay and I don't think it's okay.

 

My condolences.

 

No need it's not a death sentence. It really isn't that bad at all.

 

Not the best life to have by any stretch of the imagination. I hope gays realise it took normal sex to conceive them. But with all gays, I sincerely hope they get all the psychiatric help they need to find a cure.

 

It's been fine for me.

by which you mean to say you hope gays realize that humans aren't parthenogenic? I guarantee you they all realize that before you ever said anything.

A cure for what?

 

Their infliction, their illness.

 

What illness?

 

This is such an incredibly stupid thread. These issues are entirely different, and even the constitutional questions involved differs because how the state asserts its compelling statutory interest in regulating this fundamental right to marriage, differs widely from same sex marriage to familial marriage and from either to plural party marriage. The arguments on familial marriage are frankly pretty dated and old in a modern information heavy cyber world of today. There have to be newer studies out there on these relationships. I'd like to read them.

We know exactly what those statutory and constitutional arguments were with regard to same sex marriage, because we read them in virtually every circuit court brief filed on this question in the 1990's and in the debates about the Defense of Marriage act on the Senate floor. The conservative arguments in favor of continuing to ban same sex marriage were not bashful about announcing to the legal world every imaginable negative impact to same sex marriage. All I had to do is read the arguments in favor of the defense of marriage act, and then read the legal briefs defending prior precedent . I decided fairly quickly there was no compelling state interest in stopping my potential marriage to another man. The moral and legal sky would not split assunder and the republic would function just fine.

So what I intend to do, is wait and read the legal briefs, and wait and read any congressional or state legislative debates with information on the dangers, to see what they claim reflects a compelling state interest, and decide after I have read the arguments. I want to find out who has the better arguments before I decide for myself.

Sometimes common sense means waiting to learn, before you wait to pontificate! I will avail myself of the opportunity provided by public testimony, and public legal arguments because I am smart that way. I will get back to you folks when there is something intelligent and recent to read on the topic of familial marriage.
.

 

As you well know this question thread and the question it asks is almost completely driven by prejudice. People of the same sex being married to one another doesn't really harm anything.

 

I know that half of the question. There has been absolutely no harm whatsoever to same sex marriage. The other half of the question may or may not also be similar, depending on how modern studies on these adult familial relationships reflect on some real negative impacts either on its participants, and the larger society. Our biases on which we have decided brother/ sister or uncle/ neice sexual relationships are predatory and unhealthy and may have valid state interests for a ban behind them, or they may not. That's what I want to learn more about from some more objective sources than our gut reactions and historic moral quandaries suggest.

 

what other reasons, come on, give examples

 

Oh I'm sorry I was referring specifically to same-sex marriage. I don't think that there are people that really advocate for brothers and sisters marrying each other or if they are they're extreme minority.

I think it's used as a I don't know if there's a word for this and maybe equivocation but I'm not sure.

Where they say if this is okay why not that. Another thing I've noticed with this kind of argument is they'll say something to the effect of we can use the same argument to argue for something that was used for our to argue for something else and that's true but the argument for something versus something else depends on the subject.

I think people think of same-sex marriage the same way they think of incest it's the same level of taboo and because they think that everyone else must think that too.

 

Truth this is about consensual sex why is your opening post about marriage?

 

I think that, unfortunately, you are being overly confident of your security, on this front. Senator Whitehouse, in the confirmation hearings of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett, showed the wires, manipulating GOP Court nominees, and pointed to the 3 or 4 main issues/decisions, in which they were working to remake our law. One of those, was the Roe decision, which had 50 years of precedent. As you know, that objective, about which Whitehouse had warned, has already been achieved. The second one he had named, was the Obergefell decision, on gay marriage, which only came in 2015. So I think you are being naive, to feel this is already too well established, for our current Supreme Court, to get rid of it.

 

Marriage as idealized by people like you has been on the decline for decades, possibly generations. Same Sex Marriage has made no difference to that. It was never going to.

 

t
My original post in this thread suggested how stupid the entire line of thinking behind this was. There is zero logic to suggesting that there should ever be a comparison. The entire arguments for proposing any of this are completely disimilar because the rationale for opposing them is entirely different. All they have in connection is the word 'marriage'. The number of proponents who are trying to sell incestuous marriage must amount to next to nobody as you will ever find.

 

I think I understood your post my response wasn't really an argument or anything like that it was just me trying to understand where some of this comes from. It seems like this question is some sort of logic trap but as you pointed out two siblings marrying each other and two people of the same sex marrying each other are not the same thing.

I agree with you. I'm just trying to diffuse the logic trap.

 

Oh, how are they different?

I mean, how are the two different in a way that matters to the issue?

 

Sounds like you just moved the goal post in the argument.

 

No. My argument is that SSM didn't have any negative impact on marriage, despite claims it would 'destroy' it. Same goalposts, same result.