the Gay Agenda continued....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll give it a try...

The idea of the matter starts with the idea that incest with a child is wrong... not necessarily because it's incest, but because the child is not capable of consent and they are easily coerced by family members.

But what about adults incestuous couples? They are capable of consent, right?

And that's where the problem comes in... theoretically all adults (with mental capacity) are capable of giving their consent. But what if you've been groomed by your family since birth, basically trained and grown up with the expectation that you will be and should be married incestuously? Your family has the power to shape and effectively coerce you into consent, even into your adulthood.

Cases of polygamy are probably more well-known examples for this form of "grooming", where isolated communities groom children, marry them young, and the child never knows the difference - even into their adulthood.

So that's where some objection to incest and polygamy may come from - not necessarily that they are inherently wrong among consenting adults, but rather that their consent is often shaped and groomed in isolationist communities where they have little other choice in the matter.

 

but you base that on your own personal comfort level. Who is to judge whether it right or wrong if mom marries son; or even if mom marries daughter?

If you wish to have the govt continue to involve itself where it does not belong (marriage), then stop asking for rules for this sex act, or that group. Simply make it any 2 consenting adults.

If you apply a label then it opens pandora's box for frivolous lawsuits where those who are given a ruling based upon a label (gay) will have leverage for such frivolous lawsuiots.


nope, either get govt out entirely or make the rule as bland and generic as possible with no group being left out, despite how distasteful it may be to some.

 

Its revealing how, after Ive referred to the single mother and grandmother down the street, raising their children/grandchildren together for nearly a decade, never having sex with each other in their lives, as examples of a closely related couple that can benefit from the entitlements of marriage, about 100 times, and the first place they always go is to incest.

They insist marriage has nothing to do with procreation, while continuing to insist that it remain about sex. They want to ever so slightly change the distinction used to classify those who can marry, conveniently limited to homosexuals, and have the gall to argue they are fighting for equal protection. When what they want is slightly different, UNEQUAL treatment by design, changing only for homosexuals, the definition of marriage.

 

It's called not being able to see the forest for the trees.

When you are so myopioc and focused on what you want, it is difficult at best to see the big picture which may well be more damaging to the public as a whole.

Once we allow govt more room to segregate us based upon sexual acts, professions, body odor etc etc it is the point where we the citizens have lost complete control.

 

...

As for everyone being blind to what is infront of them - I have no desire to marry a man or a woman for that matter but I do believe since the government has decided to throw benefits at individuals of a certain group of people while denying those benefits to individuals of another similarly situated group then there is an injustice that should be rectified.
(Just for the idiots out there that say same sex marriages cannot produce children - reproduction is not a requirement of marriage - elderly individuals, sterile individuals, and non romantic individuals can and do marry everyday)
The best option would be to remove the government and the state from the marriage equation entirely but since our "masters" are power hungry and corrupt as (*)(*)(*)(*) I do not see this happening.


I have yet to see one proponet of marriage equality state that anyone should be denied marriage rights - instead, what they are arguing is that same sex unions should be recognized just as opposite unions are.

Polygamy is a separate issue
Incest is a separate issue (btw incest is illegal for numerous other reasons such as psychological damage as well as potential physical/mental disorders if a child is produced from such a union)

You statement that the government will be segregating us based on sexual acts is ssm is available makes absolutely no sense as this is what they are currently doing...

How is same sex marriage damaging to anyone other than the bigots? In places where it is completely legal they are having absolutely no problems... Some sources please - I will wait...

I am still waiting for the collapse of the US military since we allowed those evil perverse gays to join... Maybe it will happen this year

 

Revealing you dont have a problem with the potential of being groomed into marriage when it comes to homosexuality.

 

I do not see anyone stating that gays are evil. My position is clear as crystal. The gay movement wants new rules put into place based upon how they have sex. Since that is the only difference and not skin color, gender etc; that is what they seek.

That's just nonsense to have the govt even get involved and make rules for people who engage in sex with like gender partners. That is not the role of govt.

Get them the heck out of our bedrooms and stop condoning their involvement and allowing yourself to be played by pandering politicians

 

im worried about a relative or relatives training a child to marry a relative form an early age

 

it has no reason to have any bearing on marriage so gay marriage should be fine as well


don’t know where your getting this race bull(*)(*)(*)(*) from may be an attempt to legislate equality rather than bigotry that we have in the law now

 

as marriage has no requirement for procreation and we let the infertile do it and let the fertile that won’t breed stay married using procreation to deny someone a marriage is arbitrary

Now if you want to change marriage to acutely be about child making and raining and ban everyone who won’t do that from it

iron out how that effects the infertile and whether or not you can marry if you are willing to adopt

or if you can marry or remarry with preexisting kids and if you can marry someone who is not the parent of your child


You may have something but even then you have no grounds to ban all gay marriage

 

There’s no higher doubt in a gay marriage that everyone is freely consenting then in a hetero sexual marriage

so polygamist and relatives may be distastefully left out of marriage to ensure peoples safety and freedom form coercion if we can’t be certain about them but that’s no reason to exclude homosexual couples

 

im not convened all group marriage and incestuous marriage should be banned but its lees clear cut then homosexual marriage

 

i have a problem with that just as much as i and i assume you have a problem with being coerced into a hetero sexual marriage

There’s no higher risk of that between hetero and homosexual marriages

 

the government interferes with marriage based on the genders of the couples the rules are unfair to homosexuals changing them makes it fair

the government is already involved if you did not want it to be you would be calling for the end of legalized marriage

 

Riiiight. Single mother and grandmother raising their children/grandchildren for nearly a decade together, your just not sure, but two 18 yr old boys, young, dumb and full of come must be encouraged to marry because they might some day decide to adopt a kid.

 

For homosexuals. Not for the single mothers and grandmothers raising their children together. Not for the two platonic friends, sharing a home together, because the law allows for their marriage to be annuled for a failure to consumate.
No more "unfair" to homosexuals than it is for ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS who wish to marry. And yet, you want special rules for homosexuals for no other reason than the fact that they happen to be homosexual.
At least the limitation to heterosexual couples has a rational basis. Only heterosexuals procreate. Limiting marriage to sexual couples because only sexual couples have sex, has no rational relation to any legitimate governmental purpose.

 

the mother and grandmother wanting marriage rights doesn’t seem bad of itself if no one is coerced into the marriage and they both want to be married then i don’t see anything morally wrong with that marriage

 

that’s an argument for those kinds of marriage not against gay marriage

Procreation is not a basis for marriage as it is not required

 

And yet you dont mind them being discriminated against, but in the case of two homosexuals, for you is intolerable.

 

Actually it is. Discrimination against the mother and grandmother is perfectly acceptable as they have no potential of procreation. Make marriage available to gay couples and youve just lost the only justification there was for excluding them. Because every single rational argument made in support of gay marriage, applies equally to a marriage made up of ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS who desire it.

 

That might be a problem on my part but no reason to not have homosexual marriage

 

marriage has no requirement for procreation the infertile can marry and children that already exist could benefit from the marriage of the mother grandmother marriage

if there is no rational argument to exclude someone you should not

 

Thank you for the clarification. The thing is, a child can not give legal consent so can not become legally married. So, nothing to worry about there.

 

those two 18 year old boys are no different that an 18 year old boy and an 18 year old girl.

 

Strawman. The vast majority of what marriage does has nothing to do with what a mother and grandmother would want. I have yet to hear from anyone but you that the mother-grandmother scenario treats the couple unfairly. In fact, they're probably treated better because the benefits the single-mother receives, and at the same time the mother-grandmother don't have to deal with the legal tango that would be the binding of themselves financially and legally together. Marriage is not designed for that type of relationship, nor have I ever heard of anyone (other than you) suggesting that they'd want it.