Why they lost in pictures.

Potential to procreate, my ass!!!!











Which states would have ever sought to deny them a license?

 

Exactly. Because they're trying to uphold a double standard in the law that has been proven to never be equal treatment.

 

The reason why the other side is losing is because more and more homosexuals in the last two decades are coming out of the closet. People who have been against homosexual rights or same sex marriage their entire lives are discovering they had a gay brother, sister, aunt, uncle, even parents the entire time. How do you tell your brother or sister that they don't deserve to be treated like you because of something they were born with? When faced with this decision, most people make the right choice and come to acceptance. Homosexuals are no longer "hiding" and this has been the greatest boost to the homosexual movement.

Edit- And yes, the arguments from the anti-equality crowd are laughable and indefensible in a court of law. They can be dismantled with relative ease and very little intellectual thinking on the part of the SSM advocate. No serious judge of the law could look at these arguments from the "pro family" crowd and accept them.

 

You are 100% correct. but there is more. The power of organised religion to drive its moral agenda is far less now. Fewer people partake of the weekly sermon, the control over media through threats of boycotts. etc has been diluted with the 172 channels on your TV, and an internet who's message no one can control and far more diverse sets of roll models and images. The Women's movement played a crucial role in broadening everyone's sense and definition of what a man or a woman must be or how they must act. Even the AIDS epidemic played a dual role, because it obliged the gay community to re-examine its own cultural and social values and the box it had built around itself in an effort to insulate itself from a premature co-opting of 'hetero-normative values'.

 

Plus there can be no denying that with the Pope and the Vatican now gravitating more and more towards accepting Gay and Lesbian parishioners, those who would formerly fall back on using church prejudice are having a much harder time now in using that same argument.

 

My first experience with homosexuals was watching Will & Grace with my family during our family time hours when I was in middle school. Then shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, the Ellen Degeneres Show, etc kind of made me think of homosexuals in a different light, as normal people and not what you see at the Parades.

For me it changed when my brother came out. I did not accept him, but I was not surprised by it when it happened. Unfortunately, he killed himself about five years ago and I wish I could go back and change the way I treated him. But I honor his memory by fighting for the homosexual community.

 

I am so sorry to hear about your brother. sadly that has happened to many people. But you are making the right move. There are teenagers out there that are coming out to their families and finding love, support and acceptance. He did not die in vain. Though I know you wish you could go back and fix things. But you are fixing things. I have a sixteen year old boy that came out, but found acceptance among friends. Just 18 years ago, I was terrified to come out. Now it's like saying you like cheese.

 

well, since procreation argument is off the table.... please tell us why a brother/sister can't marry, then

- - - Updated - - -

so when coming out didn't garner enough attention, he one upped it with an "I'll show them" suicide?

 

nothing, if you want to take that argument to the courts then please do so .. until then it has nothing to do with SSM.

what a disgusting comment to make, just shows the depths of the cesspool some people will swim in to spew their crap.

 

so I see true "equality" isn't a concern past your own nose, is it.... very telling

because this issue has NOTHING to do with "look at me" attention

 

I'll do nothing of the sort. If you want to debate that topic, start a thread in an appropriate forum about it. This isn't the brother/sister marriage forum, and it's not the topic of this thread.

A statement that is beyond callous. I would say more, but I'll stick to challenging the words, not the 'person'.

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3




I know it was callous statement..... but there is absolutely a chance that it was an attention seeking behavior. People do commit suicide as an "I'll show you " sort of thing....

 

Now I haven't taken the firmest of stances on familial marriage, but I am definitely leaning towards legalizing them, because I think the real reason is exactly the same as with gays. Its the 'icky' sex standard. If majority are revolted by the thought of them getting married and having sex, they disavow it, because you are right. It is absolutely inconsistent to say gays should not marry because they can't procreate, Polygamous relationships should not marry because they might procreate too much, and brothers and sister should because they might procreate and produce congenital defects when you don't vever test folks who don't ick you out for congenital conditions..

 

I just have to add that those old people are adorable lol.

 

nothing telling about it - if you had read my response and comprehended it you would have seen the answer "nothing" as the answer to your question. The issue facing the courts at this moment is one concerning SSM not brother/sister marriage .. If you feel you have the need to take incest marriage to the courts - for what ever reason - then you are perfectly entitled to do so, as far as SSM is concerned it has nothing to do with it.

From your septic point of view it may have. The fact that you have to try and demean any person for taking their life regardless of the reasoning is very telling about your empathy to your fellow human beings.

 

avoidance.... it's going to be the same reasoning. So 11 toed babies are on you.


This is the slippery slope that you said didn't exist. it's about economic affects of both groups, the increased possibility of birth defects.... but if we can't argue against children in gay marraiges, then you can't with incest marriages.

 

no avoidance at all, if you wish to start a thread concerning incest marriage then you are free to do so . .this thread is about why anti-SSM are losing and nothing to do with incest marriage .. you do know it is against the rules to go off topic don't you?

considering the fact that there is very little increase (around 5% risk increase) in birth deformities due to incest your "11 toed babies" is nothing more than emotional hyperbole. In fact smokers, drinkers, women over 40, people with a family history of cancer, workers in risky industries, hemophiliacs, drug users are far more likely to have children with birth defects than a brother/sister offspring.

It is your slippery slope not mine.

 

It's called not giving in to the attempt to troll and deflect. Post a thread about incest somewhere appropriate (in other words, not in the Gay & Lesbian forum, which has nothing to do with this). If someone else wants to send me a link to your thread, I'll state my on-topic opinion there.

But I'm not going to indulge it here, and I'm going to return to ignoring you, since you've just proved how completely unworthy of my time you really are.

 

no, because you avoid the callout that you don't want to address here. Tell you what though... until such time the forum adds a "incest rights" section to the human rights subforum, this is the best place for it since they use the exact same arguments to support their lifestyle as gays do.

 

marriage makes two unrelated people related, the brother\sister are already related

.

 

why do you add the arbitrary "unrelated"


you didn't like when I suggest "opposite gender"



again, your push for equality is just agenda if you don't really mean for everyone...

 

Let's pretend for a second that this argument is valid. That still means that you're opposing more equality because it's not enough equality. It also implies that you have such a poor grasp of politics that you think that advocating incestuous marriage wouldn't set LGBT activists back decades. That's completely incoherent.

You and I both know you don't want incestuous marriage to be legal. We both know you're desperately trying to dig at LGBT activists in any way you can, so I'd appreciate it if you were more up front about that.

 

no.... I don't believe gays are being denied any rights concerning marraige..... so my argument against incestuous marriages is not hypocritical....


you DO believe gays are being denied rights concerning marriage.... to you, 2 consenting adults, children are not a criteria for marriage, and the gross factor can not be used against gay marriage.... but yet, when a brother/sister make the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT.... you dismiss it as their problem


you preach and preach and preach about equality.... yet, only for socially acceptable lifestyles? do you oppose incestuous marriage because they are not consenting adults.... can't be that because they can be, just like gays. Are you opposing it because it's gross? Well, I think taking a penis in a hairy butt is gross, but that doesn't make it a valid argument concerning gay marriages.... so you can't use that either. Well maybe it's because of the possibility of flipper-armed children. Well, as this thread clearly points out, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, so you can't use that either.


Well, dang.... seems in your quest for forced acceptance.... you opened the door right up for other groups to also be forced accepted....


if not, you are the dreaded hypocrite.... lol

 

Quite plainly they are being denied equal rights.

and as has been pointed out to you numerous times, if a brother and sister want to go through the process of claiming the equal right to marry then that is down to them to do so through the same court process, it has no bearing (apart from in your fantasy) on the current issue of SSM. Should the brother and sister want to use the legal arguments put forward by the advocates for SSM, again that is their right to do so .. it still has nothing to do with SSM.

I personally don't oppose any group seeking equal recognition ... but ... each group are separate from the other dealing in separate issues and as such you are doing nothing but trying to derail the thread.

nothing forced about it, I'm sorry that your personal beliefs do not allow you to accept the legal reality of what your constitution means but that is your cross to bear not mine.

nothing hypocritical at all, you just can't understand that SSM and incest marriage are two different issues, and all you are attempting to do is derail the thread in order to cover up your own intolerance for equality.

 

Advocating for incestuous marriage is political suicide. It'd make getting votes difficult. I don't really care if relatives get married, although having incestuous children is cruelty and ought to be illegal. I'm just a pragmatist and I know that you need to pick your battles.

And it's interesting how you fixate on a vivid description of gay sex. Maybe you aren't as disturbed by it as you claim.

And it really is clear that you're just trying to derail the conversation and hurt gay people as much as possible. My inner Freudian suggests it might be a form of self loathing.