QUESTION: Same-Sex compared to Same-blood marriage

So "any sort of" couple is fine to seek legal recognition of marriage? Is that what you are coming around to?

It was in reference to your suggestion that related peoples have a claim on one another unlike unrelated couples don't. Even though people are related, the marriage relationship creates different rights and responsibilities than what, say, fathers have with their daughters.

ANY rationale used to justify legalizing same-sex marriage. Try it--you'll see. If you need help, give a reason as to why two people of the same sex should be allowed to marry, and I will give you the same argument tailored to consanguineous relationships.

 

What dynamic is the consanguineous relationship denied?

The "gender" argument is faulty in that the prohibition is not based on a person being a specific gender, it is on the relationship being an inappropriate match to qualify as marriage. It's not gender discrimination--neither gender is unequally discriminated against.

If the question were one of gender discrimination, there would be no question.


You presume that "sexual orientation" is a suspect class, and it is not.
"Orientation" isn't even a proved phenomenon--it's entirely on par with "preference." It is the same as you saying, "the object of their personal desire." THAT is their "orientation."

 

No and unless you fix your reading comprehension this will get tired very quickly.

Go read it again and if you can grasp the concept there might be some point in continuing. Otherwise, not so much.

 

A gay man cannot procreate a son. All procreation is heterosexual therefore, your example is made up (hence 'strawman'). There is also the fact that poking one of your kids is illegal...Did you know this? Yes? No? It was a stupid example which gets more ridiculous the more you try to support it.

Frankly using incest as an 'example' to somehow support gay marriage proves the warped mindset of some pro-gay marriage types.

 

So you're quitting too? Typical.

 

Well then blame the person who started the friggin' thread, not the person who's arguing against them!

I'm saying that the two classes AREN'T related not that they are.

Sheesh!

 

Good point which supports my view that homosexuality is essentially a fetish.

 

I'm quitting in the face of misunderstanding and the lack of basic comprehension which means this thread will not reach a workable dialectic.

Here's a clue: If men are permitted to marry women then a father (a man) has the beginnings of case to show that his desire to marry his adult daughter (a woman) should be recognised on the basis of similar situation.

He will have to confront many objections but he will not have to confront the objection that their marriage should be disallowed because they are the same sex because (drum roll) they're not the same sex!

Therefore the existence or not of legal same sex marriage has no bearing on his claim and doesn't even need to be referenced for him to make it.

I can see this is going to take a very long time.

 

Colombine wrote:

A father cannot marry his daughter it is illegal in the first place.

A gay father will not procreate with another man so his 'son' would be from a heterosexual mating. In any case, marrying his son will be illegal just the same as for a heterosexual.

Neither the heterosexual nor the homosexual father can marry their procreated offspring legally.

As I said, a stupid example in the first place and frankly, disturbing that you would use incest to somehow make a point. A gay man can marry a woman just the same as a hetero man. The only thing that keeps him from doing it is his orientation which is essentially his personal fetish. Last time I looked, marriage licenses did not include a fetish.

 

perhaps you should re-read the post you wrote and are telling me to re-read. It doesn't make much sense. I did the best i could with what I had to work with.

No commas makes this hard, but I'll give it a go...

Men can marry women..... check
fathers are men.....check
adult daughters are women....check
so....

.......

OH! I get it! You ARE supporting incest!


Gee...thanks for clearing that up!

 

You can't read.

 

What is YOUR interest in incestuous cohabitation?

 

Just go back take a chill pill and re-read the thread. Look for what it actually says not for what you want it to say. Try and get a sense of context.

 

Incest is not part of a 'workable dialectic' and was a poor choice in your example.

This is why society has morals and values. In our society there is no basis for a father to marry his daughter. You throw accepted societal traditions under the bus to make your argument. The same way you throw traditional marriage under the bus to support your sexual desires. One wonders what else the pro-gay-marriage types are willing to throw away to achieve their unreachable goal of 'normalcy.'

In the meantime, you completely steam-roll over incest. Amazing. Anything to make a point I guess. Weak at best.

When you start with an untenable and unsupported premise, the following conclusions are just sophistic as is this one.

 

I don't have to...I made a valid point to which you have not responded.

 

I'm interested in how the rationale for supporting same-sex marriage can be applied to other relationships that society has deemed deviant.

I am also interested in how far some people will go in supporting aberrant sexual practices just to justify supporting a practice they aren't so offended by.

As you can see--two pro-same-sex marriage people are willing to support incest. Well--Perriquine is, Columbine is having trouble coming to terms with the logic of her position and, that the thin line she is supposedly drawing is merely in her imagination. She thinks not condemning incest is enough to ride that hair's breadth.

 

It's in the title of the thread. The thread starter is inviting responses on why those who support same sex marriage MUST see incest as the same thing. How can you show that they're not without comparing the two.

And I'm saying the existence of same sex marriage does nothing to further a basis.

The thread challenges me to make an argument in this domain which leaves me with little choice other than not to respond.

I'm a middle aged, middle income, middle management guy with a newly married 30 year old son my "desires" are about as traditional as they get.

The thread challenges me to make a comparison to SSM, that's what I'm doing and attempting to show they are not the same thing.

The thread starter says that if you support one you MUST support the other. I'm saying that because the objections to the restrictions are formed on a different basis, you can indeed support one without automatically supporting the other.

Once again, tell that to the person who started the thread, not the person arguing with THEIR premise!

 

No you really can't read, can you?

 

What about people marrying their pet?

 

I offered to help.


Give me a rationale for why same-sex marriage should not be prohibited. Any one...go ahead....

 

Oh...c'mon--a pet can't consent.....

 

oH...I thought you were a woman...my apologies.

 

The point is, your example supports incest in order to support gay-marriage. Did you not see that?

 

Shhhh...Don't tell PETA that!

 

Because your thinking doesn't really stretch beyond "if we allow one bad thing, we have to allow all bad things".

I don't see homosexuality as bad, I see it as an intrinsic part of a person's make up.

Incest truly is an ACTION not a state of being. A homosexual is a homosexual whether or not they ever have sex. There is no noun to describe an incest only a noun to describe the act which is either a voluntary action or, likely more often, the result of coercion.

The law can only make rulings on how things affect us "as a class". There isn't enough time in the world to make a ruling on the basis of each and every individual pairing.

Let's look at two examples:

1, Man meets woman, falls desperately in love and marries. Six months later it is revealed to them that, although they are unaware, they are actually brother and sister who were separated at birth. On the one hand we can feel for them but the law must be consistent and annul their marriage because it's built on a crime albeit an unwitting one. Also should they split later would the law be able to determine if their marriage should be annulled or divorced, especially in the case that one wants one thing and the other the opposite?

2, Man serially abuses his daughter from age 7. By the age of 14 she is neurotically and sexually fixated with him. When she reaches the age of majority he seeks to divorce his wife and marry the daughter who "consents" to the contract. Should the law support that? No because he's essentially a pedophile who still sees his daughter as essentially the same prey she was when she was 7 and the whole relationship is built on the grounds of a heinous crime. Would she consent to marry him if she had never been abused?

These are just two examples from a plethora of possibilities.

On the other hand discovery has shown that marriage between two non-related partners can generally be considered to be a positive and life affirming experience regardless of the sex of the individuals concerned. They can also be treated administratively in exactly the same way if there is ever a question regarding family law, divorce etc. There may be some rare examples (like maybe the first here if the partners never found they were related) which also qualified as such but that's not enough to provide proof that they should be certified "as a class" which would also provide an umbrella of coverage to the second example.

There's enough of a difference to prove that sex based restrictions are a completely different thing from family based restrictions. You can prove this by making the two pairings above same sex pairings. They're still just as wrong but it isn't the sexual orientation of the participants that makes them so.

(Oh and by the way I'm not a she, I'm a middle aged man).