Printable View
There's a difference. Homosexual acts between consenting adults don't harm anyone, whereas sex with minors or relatives is extremely damaging to those involved.Quote:
Originally posted by DocFrance
OK, but what about sister and the eight-year-old girl? By this logic, you could say that because incest is usually forbidden by religious tenets - just like homosexuality - that any goverernment laws forbidding incest should be thrown out?
And what does fear have to do with this?
incest is bad because it heightens the risk for genetic defects. homosexuality doesn't heighten the risk for anything genetic at all.
Yes, but if it's between two consenting adults, who are you to decide that they can't do it, even with the risks of genetic defects? It is a free country, after all.Quote:
Originally posted by eestlinc
incest is bad because it heightens the risk for genetic defects. homosexuality doesn't heighten the risk for anything genetic at all.
I'm not stopping them.
Too bad the US isn't a free country. Cause then homosexuals could marry. :D
A truly free country would be anarchy, really :p
Quiet, you. :DQuote:
Originally posted by Guu
A truly free country would be anarchy, really :p
But anarchies are no fun. They lead to dictatorships, cause you know someone's going to do it. :D
As I've said before, Bush is merely representing the way that the vast majority of Americans feel, including a high number of democrats. This country is too young to be ready for legal gay marriage yet. You can't blame the guy for representing the vast majority.
The fact that someone as conservative as Bush is, is endorsing this kind of amendment is something I find odd. Republicans are traditionally the ones who scream "state's rights!" (think of past environmental regulations). And amending the constitution is definitely NOT something that a conservative would do, especially on a transitory social issue such as this one. He labels himself "compassionate", yet is trying to push for discrimination in the Constitution. It's a weird mess of contradictions.
And, since we're re-venting our feelings on gay marriage here, I'm with eestlinc. Marry whomever you want. If you want to marry your sister, then there's something wrong with you, but that doesn't mean I can stop you.
Well, I think, that the main reason Bush is doing this, is to divide voters. He vents a strong opinion about this, and now he stands out. Not only the media, but Bush himself is making quite a big circus out of this. Probably to make his name heard more often. He's now pretty sure that the majority of people who are against gay marriages vote for him by defualt. Which is quite a lot. It really doesn't matter what side he chooses in this matter, he's only doing this to stand out in the crowd with something which will be talked about a lot.
I doubt he is doing this out of principles. I think he's doing this for votes alone.
There is nothing wrong with marrying your sister. However, I take it that you mean a young girl, right? In that case, marriage is illegal because she would be a minor.
Whoever made the marrying chairs joke-that's bad taste. Man can love each other. So can women. Deal with it.
I said that I equate that comment with racism (i.e. it's just as bad). I wasn't saying that Bush was a racist.
Being married is not a Christian tradition, even though you may see it like that. There are many other cultures that have had unions of two people that far predate Christian traditions.
Unless you are married to your partner, you are seen by the government as a 'long term partner'. This is an important legal distinction. Long term partners have no right to bury there partner, and if the person dies suddenly, the money goes to the family (both of these are true in many countries and states).
This is not a law that can be changed-it would be a Constitutional Amendment. If the vote passes, that is very hard to revert. If it does pass, it may take several generations of people to set it back.
When you put it in the constitution it is seen as an important part of your day-to-day culture. Do you want your country to be shamed by putting discrimination on your constitution? I can't think of any other democratic country that would ever consider a law of that kind.
No, I'm talking about two legal, consenting adults who are brother and sister. If a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman, why can't a brother marry his sister? If you ask me, that's discrimination. Why should anyone think that they don't deserve the same rights as anyone else?Quote:
Originally posted by Harmless Pigeon
There is nothing wrong with marrying your sister. However, I take it that you mean a young girl, right? In that case, marriage is illegal because she would be a minor.
So far as the thread topic, I think Bush is representing the majority on this issue, and I think the majority is wrong. I don't think an Amendment would pass, if anyone even has the guts to actually go through with it.
They can marry - there's no law against it (that I know of).Quote:
Originally posted by DocFrance
No, I'm talking about two legal, consenting adults who are brother and sister. If a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman, why can't a brother marry his sister? If you ask me, that's discrimination. Why should anyone think that they don't deserve the same rights as anyone else?
edit: In fact, two did marry in the UK. They were both adopted, but went to two differnet parents. They later met and fell in love. Then they found out they were brother and sister. Sometime after that they got married.