the Gay Agenda continued....

That's fine, marriage would be between two consenting adults.

But that still leaves the question about what a "consenting adult" is, and that's where there's a problem with incest due to the ability to groom and manufacture consent.

In theory, I'd have it handled similar to how marriage with children is handled in many states... many states require the consent of the parent(s) AND a review of the potential marriage before a judge/counselor.

With sufficient evidence that...

A: The couple is infertile and can thus not pose a risk to children (aka non-consenting third parties) And

B: The consent by both parties is considered legitimate, and not groomed as in an isolationist community

Then fine, I would not stand in the way. Such a law protects third parties and ensures consent.

Consider that this is basically how it works in various forms around the USA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#United_States_2

Thus there is precedent for these kinds of consideration, asking if the couple is capable of reproduction, assessing the risks, and considering if it's a prevalent in your culture (which implies that it wasn't manufactured consent created in isolation). This is all consistant with the idea that 2 consenting adults should be allowed to marry, provided legitimate consent is assured and the risks to non-consenting third party children are considered.


That all aside, I'll still contend that the joining of two families contributes more to society than the joining of a family to itself. If the aim of government is to promote this building block of society, then incestuous couples would not be on par. But this takes a value judgment to decide if, and how important this is which is not easily debatable unless some math genius can calculate the financial benefit (which is likely quite substantial).

Most importantly, marriage between same-sex partners does not suffer from any of the complications of determining consent and the genetic risk to children involved, so from the standpoint of similar situation, same-sex couples are much closer to opposite-sex couples than incestuous ones.

Finally, on a side note, if the main-stream doesn't have to justify why they include or exclude whomever they want, why do we? Seems like we're being held to a different standard than even society.

 

Agreed. We're not dealing with cases where everything is black and white. There's gray area in the middle. In principle, I support any two consenting adults being able to marry provided they pose no risk to a third party. But some situations, it may be more difficult than others to determine that the consent was not coerced or manufactured in isolation.

And within that gray area where we evaluate the risk of consent and coercion, same-sex adults present to more risk than opposite sex. And therein lies the distinction where same-sex couples are not similarly situated.

 

What if the two adult women getting married are sisters. The same arguments i see for gay marriage can be made for them.

How about mother and daughter?

Two consenting adults who love each other .....who are you to say no.

 

Such a novel argument.

You can see my response to your nearly-itentical post on this thread:

http://www.politicalforum.com/1061022656-post64.html

This post also attempted to describe the issue of "groomed consent"

http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-lesbian-rights/238160-gay-agenda-continued-6.html#post1061017773

 

But you are still keeping the shackles of govt or perhaps you use govt as a crutch to hide behind because you do not approve of incestuous relationships. That is hypocritical.

My whole point is that govt needs out of it all. If you wan tto "marry", then go to a church, social club or whatever but the govt has no involvement. If you buy RE then do it as JTWRS just as any other 2 people can do

 

And?

Nobody's business.

Exactly.

 

18 yr old girls and boys have the potential of procreation. For the two boys it is an impossibility

 

So fracking what then?

 

Not if either partner is infertile - yet they can still marry... No difference...

Infertile people make up 5% of the male population and nearing 12% of the female population - by your logic they should all be denied marriage benefits as they have no way to have children - similar to same sex marriages.

 

but the adult raised to believe and feel a certain way about it by its family since it was a small child to the day it became an adult that could give legal consent

Can choose to marry

Worry remains

 

Well once you are an adult you are responsible for your own decisions. Certainly some environments are better for children than others. But short of 24/7 government thought control, there's really not much you can do about it.

 

Not at all, I've already given my support to processes that would allow incestuous marriage if risk of harm to non-consenting third parties is minimized and legitimate consent is reasonably assured.

Part of the government's job is to protect the rights of people, to protect the property of people, and to enforce contracts. These are often considered basic functions of even the most bare-boned government. Even then, in such a small, bare-boned government that doesn't even include Marriage, the question of consent would still be an issue when evaluating a JTWRS, the consent to sexual relations, and the risk of harm to non-consenting third parties.

 

Certainly you can't do 24/7 thought control. But you can take basic steps that are designed to achieve the best possible result with the realistic resources available. Lack of a 100% success rate doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't try.

 

It's a crime to engage in sexual relations with a minor. Seems to me that should about cover it?

 

Irrelevant since procreation is not required. Making them no different

 

The question of consent applies to adults as well. The only difference is that the question is not automatic with adults as it is with minors. It takes an evaluation of circumstances to decide if an adult's consent was implied, coerced, or explicit.

 

??? Only a man and a woman can become husband and wife and father and mother to their children. Of course.

 

quite simple goals actually....

1. Go against God laws against same sex intercourse.
2. Corrupt and twist the minds of impressionable kids
3. Think to change laws in favor of gays in a society that abhors it.

Like I've stated earlier, India is the best country for gays to live in. Gays will rule that country if they would only pack their crap and haul.

 

There is still a lot that you won't accept. So be it.

 

Anyone who accepts a perverted sexual lifestyle has a perverted mindstate and has no business near children.

I put gays in the same league as pedophiles and should be put on an official watch list in the same manner. because they are just as detrimental to kids.

 

irrelevant. mother and father have nothing to do with marriage, since procreation is not a requirement of marriage.

 

you'll need to prove the existence of your god if you want that line to have any relevance what so ever.

 

can you provide a source for this claim?

we both know you can't, but it will be fun watching you dodge and run for the next few pages.

 

I don't need to prove a thing to YOU. because whether you or I believe there's a GOD or not, there is one and his judgement is swift. just ask the people of Japan and New Orleans.or go read the story of Sodom and Ghomorrah. History don't lie.

 

So YOU say. You vilify those you don't even know; that is simply disgusting. Even so, I would wonder why those with YOUR mindset are any better for children. I can't see how those who are homophobic and irrational in they animus toward others, would be at all good for "children".

And that to me, is 'dangerous' thinking. Pardon me, if I say that is neurotic and homophobic. Do your beliefs stem from your religion?

As I suggested... that is a dire, uninformed, fearful and dangerous way of thinking.