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

First you seemed to argue that the institution of marriage was not hurting, and was still running strong.

But you are willing to concede that marriage has been on the decline?

 

I have made my point - SSM didn't damage the institution of marriage. If you didn't understand that before I have repeated it for you several times. If you can't understand that then its not my problem.

 

Conservatives have seen many American institutions being destroyed through excessive inclusivity.

Look at just any church now that decided to go the inclusive route during the 70s. Their members are dying off. (I mean to an even much more obvious degree than churches in general)

During the SSM debates of the 90s, one of the arguments that was actually used was that SSM would actually result in an increase in the overall marriage rate. That has obviously not been the case, as we can see now.

 

Let’s look at the legal reasons for allowing gay marriage. The abiding one was to affirm the relationship in cases of death or disability. I know so many who were distraught that a parent had more say in end of life care than a loving partner. This is not the same with siblings because there is already a legal relationship in operation

 

Conservatives are still griping about having to use a paper straw (gasp!)

 

Do you need it explained?

 

There did exist other legal avenues to go around that.

Plus, siblings still don't have all the legal rights that parents have.

 

Not really - the easiest and best way was marriage.

 

Such as?

Churches are dying off because they are more about profiting and less about worship than they have ever been. The youth is one of the main reasons though as they demand more evidence than a book written by man and edited by kings. Many of the people that are leaving the church are not doing so because of “too much inclusivity” but rather because they represent hate.

Same sex marriage has absolutely increased the marriage rate. Without it there would have been some 700,000 fewer marriages in the Us alone.

 

they are different because same sex marriage did not involve the subtext of 'inbred' kids or the potential long term and preexisting power differential within family members of an older sibling and a younger one or between an uncle and a niece etc. Those arguments simply did not exist as representing a compelling state interest in regulating a marriage between Alex and John or Sally and Kate.
We don't know more because we haven't read any of the legal or policy arguments on familial marriage pro or con that is not based on dated lines of argument that go back to the 1950's or even earlier. That's my point . Why should anyone take a blind stance on incestuous marriage when a blind stance is going to be by definition an uneducated stance. Why not wait and do some serious reading from the caselaw and legislative arguments when they come up - if they come up?

We don't need to pre-judge any of this. We can each wait to be persuaded.

 

Then why have the more inclusive churches been dying off at a much greater rate over a longer (30 years) period of time?

 

If you're a man and you marry another man that isn't your brother, he isn't your brother.

Matters to whom?

I can list differences but whether they matter to you or not I can't say.

 

Are we to understand that because you are posting on this thread that you are in favour of gay marriage?

 

that's true for heterosexual couples so why recognize their marriage?

Too bad. Out of the 7 billion people on the planet you can pick from there's no reason to pick a sibling.

 

I think that's 100% the fault of straight people. What are the statistics some 50% of marriages and in divorce. I've only done it once but my cousins my uncles and my aunts they've all had four or five each. It was wrecked a long time ago.

 

Equality of unions between individuals before the law did not necessitate changing definitions of long-standing terms. Homosexual relationships are, by definition, not the same as heterosexual. Obviously, then intention of subverting language was for some other reason.

 

Can't hurt your chances.

 

You are incorrect, not only has the divorce rate in the US been improving, in the latest year I could find data for (2019), the 14.9 divorces per 1,000 marriages is a 50-year low, and it's been decreasing since about 1979. It's likely that it fell sharply during the 2020-2021 period due to the pandemic, even if circumstances dictated that a bunch of people who do not like each other anymore at ALL have been in legal limbo because the backlog spiked when all the pandemic shutdowns happened. Where it goes from here is a complete unknown. I'd expect to see a spike while the backlog is worked out, followed by a return to the baseline. It'll never be 0, and it will never be 100%, aside from that, my crystal ball seems to be on the fritz.

So, there is no reason for anyone to concede that point because it is entirely untrue.

 

You completely lost me. Paper straw??

 

What the **** does supporting "gay marriage" or hetro marriage for that matter have to do with your asinine question?
NOTHING!

 

She was Einsteins first cousin on mother's side and 2nd cousin on paternal side.
Double whammy. lol
Rudy Giuliani married his 2nd cousin,forbidden by the Catholic Church.

 

Do you have a source for this?

It is also strange that homosexuality didn’t even exist in the Bible until the 60’s — it was never once mentioned by Jesus — yet you seem to be indicating it alone is destroying churches, marriage (although you seem to have deleted that section of my prior post, how typical of you) and everything else that is ill with the world.

 

Not a very good case......murder, lying, cheating, deception etc. etc. are ALL part of the human condition!

 

Jesus had no problem working with the prostitute even though she was claimed to be sinning.... heck, if anything, Jesus seemed to be bisexual

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 7:36-50

Jesus Anointed by a Sinful Woman

36 When one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, he went to the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. 37 A woman in that town who lived a sinful life learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, so she came there with an alabaster jar of perfume. 38 As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.

39 When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.”

40 Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to tell you.”

Christians really need to read their bible more...... ironically, he also mentions Simon not giving him a kiss...

Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46 You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. 47 Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”

Moral of the story... don't be a simple Simon.... IE the Homophobes

 

All of those have a victim (someone that is harmed) in 100% of the case.

Can you identify who is harmed in a same sex union?