What Rights (If Any) Should Be Awarded To Homosexual Couples #2?

Because the EFFECT of allowing related people the right to marry is increased legitimacy for incestuous couples no matter how you paint it. Their relationships - those that have a higher potential for birth defects and abuse - suddenly become a LOT easier thanks to the government.

The undesirable effect trumps the (lack of) demand for marriage for platonic couples who are related.

 

Way to expose Dixon. He always denies things he's said and accuses people of strawman arguments.

 

Because they don't need to: a legal kinship already exists between two closely related people.

This has been explained to you several times, yet you continue to ask your ridiculous question.

Do you have a learning disability, or are you just a troll?

 

Next of kin rules apply in a "chain". Your brother still has rights under that law, since if they could not reach your mom and he was the only person present, he would likely be able to make decisions for you. Unlike a gay person's unregistered partner in over 30 states....

 

You people cant seem to grasp the concept of a "requirement". Ive never claimed that procreation is a requirement of marriage. That is your strawman. And never claimed sex was a requirement of marriage, that is Devils

As if sex were "inevitable" in marriage and somehow justification for excluding brothers from marrying.

 

Respond to dixon for the sake of visitors/lurkers... but know that he/she has not actually had a new argument for 1000+ pages.

 

There is no potential for birth defects between my brother and I, leaving only your old fashioned biblical morality that prohibits marriages between closely related couples. Prohibitions of heterosexual marriages, because of the potential of procreation, with no application to marriages of the same sex.

 

3 of them on the previous page on this thread alone.

 

Like I said, "legal kinship" creates none of the entitlements of marriage. Do you have a learning disability, or are you just a troll?

 

Well there's our answer: you seem to be a troll with a learning disability.

I thought as much.

I've never seen someone proven wrong as many times as you, who keeps coming back for more.

Perhaps you get a kick out of it

 

You two subjects of the crown dont have a clue as to inheritance rights in the US. And in the UK, you simply appoint anyone you like to be your next of kin. Just what is it you think Ive been proven wrong about?

 

??? Made up lies. I never said this. What IS being highlighted is that you can't invoke procreation to limit marriage rights (which you have) then claim that a particular gender formation ALWAYS warrants 1000's of rights it grants based on that fact alone. Sometimes it doesn't produce kids - the union of a man and a woman isn't the deciding factor in that, procreational ability is. If you grant marriage based simply on gender you are violating the Equal Protection clause. If you grant marriage based simply on procreational ability then that is a different story, but that is not the story of marriage as it exists in most states. The sad and discriminatory reality of marriage laws is that certain couples can attain thousands of state-level and federal benefits for no other reason than the type of sex they have. Saying "marriage is granted to heterosexual couples because they are the only couples that produce children" is a blatant unconstitutional overreach if we are to believe marriage exists simply to regulate procreation. But the purported evidence for that is obliterated when we consider elderly and sterile/barren opposite-sex couples. Procreation is wholly irrelevant based on the actual criteria necessary to enter the contract.

That is not what I'm saying. The result is that incestuous couples would be able to marry. That's why the government would avoid it at all costs.

 

Its a quote, an accurate one.

You are the one using procreation to deny these rights to brothers

 

Siblings marrying is its own thread; most people would realize that. Yet to make some irrelevant point (generating intellectual heat/noise) YOU persist with this inane line of reasoning.

 

Erm, nope. Explaining why the government would not wish to grant marriage licenses to closely related individuals is not the same as saying procreation is a requirement - that is NOT what I believe. Try and quit the lies if you can.

I'm not trying to deny anyone anything.

 

I quoted what you said

 

Answer my question. How many people, and what proportion of the world population does SSM legislation actually cover"

If you just don't know,or unwilling to answer my question, please let us all know, If however, it's because of your poor command of the Engish langauge (maybe it's not your first language)please let me know, so I can do my utmost to make it, to the best of my ability, comprehensible to you by rephrasing the question.

 

Six states have legalized same sex marriage.

The only one here who is delusional...is the person trying to deny that fact.

 

Same sex marriage is currently recognized by:
Argentina: 40,412,376
Belgium: 10,879,159
Canada: 34,108,752
Iceland: 317,398
Netherlands: 16,612,213
Norway: 4,885,240
Portugal: 10,642,841
South Africa: 49,991,300
Spain: 46,081,574
Sweden: 9,379,116
Mexico: 113,423,050
Israel: 7,624,600
Brazil: 194,946,470
US States: 35,829,276

Total currently recognized: 575,133,365 or about 12 percent of the world population - I am not sure what this has to do with ssm in the US though? Maybe I am missing something... I thought the US was about freedom and equality for all - surpassing our neighbors, allies, and enemies - guess that doesn't apply in this situation though.

Homosexuals are also put to death in some countries, again, not seeing how this has anything to do with what is going on in the United States. Same sex marriage will likely be recognized by several other large countries and US states by the end of 2013, especially as the 60+ population lose power (they are the only demographic age wise that the majority rejects ssm along with a host of other issues).

 

It doesn't matter.

If only one country, with a very small population, has SSM ... it's not a "delusion".

SSM exists in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden, therefore it's not a "delusion".

The 'proportion of the world population' that SSM legislation actually covers does not determine whether it's a "delusion" or not.

Your "delusion" comment was wrong. This has been pointed out to you already.

Time to move on.

 

You misinterpret what I'm saying. Legalising related marriage inevitably allows sexual, incestuous couples to marry and officialise their relationships. No where in this am I saying sexual activity is a requirement for marriage.

 

I never asserted you did say it was a requirement. I quoted and you clearly said is was

 

Correction, six states had given special rights to homosexuals.