Recommended Posts
I don't have time to read the whole thread, but here's the traditional reason:
Marriage between closely related people can cause genetic problems with offspring due to the prevalance of the same recessive genes. (example: both brother and sister are carriers for sickle cell and hemophilia. They both have one recessive gene for the diseases, passed to them by their mother. If they have a child, they have a 1/4 chance of having a child with one or both of those diseases, as opposed to if they had children with someone not genetically related to them, as the chances of meeting someone with the same genetic defect is remote).
However, now, with the technology we have, there really is no reason other than moral "squickiness" to forbid it.
Marriage between closely related people can cause genetic problems with offspring due to the prevalance of the same recessive genes. (example: both brother and sister are carriers for sickle cell and hemophilia. They both have one recessive gene for the diseases, passed to them by their mother. If they have a child, they have a 1/4 chance of having a child with one or both of those diseases, as opposed to if they had children with someone not genetically related to them, as the chances of meeting someone with the same genetic defect is remote).
However, now, with the technology we have, there really is no reason other than moral "squickiness" to forbid it.
rehmwa 2
QuoteHeterosexual marriage costs me plenty. You don't hear me bitching. I pay for your tax breaks for being married. I pay to put your kids through public school. I pay higher health care costs so you can get your family discount. You don't hear me bitching because I know it's for the greater good.
edited to add: My response isn't aimed at you, but society in general.
Keith - THANKS. This is about as close to a good answer so far and I very much appreciate a real attempt. But none of these seems to apply, though.
1 - Married tax breaks - We don't get tax breaks, I end up behind, not ahead, when comparing separate unmarried tax forms. But I bet there are services that only married can use which could be quantified so that isn't too bad, I'd like to know those breaks, though and what we pay for them. It would be no more right to have those special breaks/programs for marriage as it would be for income level, race, sex, etc....
2 - Education - Eliminate public schooling and let me pay my own way to private school my daughter. But that's a digression: You pay for kids of non-married people also. It doesn't tie to marriage, it ties to those people having kids. No dice here for a marriage discussion. (But I agree not fair)
3 - Health care discount for families - I can't speak to this. But private companies like insurance companies should be allowed to defined cost vs risk based on real actuarial stats, if that provides a discount to a certain group at least it's based on statistical data and not subjective/discriminatory feelings..... So they should be allowed do just that. Married people could also state they are paying for your insurance since you are a higher risk they pay more...... No Dice. Is higher insurance rates mandated by federal government for single people? Doubt it. It's off issue also.
4 - I don't know if marriage is for the greater good of society, it's just a theory by people with social study degrees or religious bias or whatever. Subjective 'science' sucks and leads us to bad decisions.
I like Karen's thoughts. Create a general term for governmental/contractual partnership and apply that across the board. Leave "marriage" as a sacrament or whatever. Let the social/subjective issues sort themselves out as those are people issues, not government issues.
We'll find out real quick if the increase in social security payouts, foreign spouse (green card immigration due to gay contractual marriage), etc ends up costing the average guy enough to change those rules. But then maybe they would be change in a more even handed manner since they would affect all, not just specific groups.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
If people want to jump off their houses and call themselves skydivers thats fine with me. If they want to flap their arms, jump and run around their yard chirping they can go ahead and tell people they are an experienced bird man pilot. Whatever, it doesn't affect the fact that I AM a skydiver.
Yes, but everyone would think that you flap your arms, jump and run around the yard chirping, when you tell people that you are a skydiver.
never pull low......unless you are
Jayruss 0
QuoteMaybe not, but it can and does lead to AIDS and other nsty things. There is what a doctor called an epidemic in Gay syphillus going on right now, but it is being kept reasonably quiet.
What is next .
you've got to be kidding me . . . oh that's right straight sex prevents AIDS and syphilis, look at al the people in Africa
so because gay sex leads to STD's we should discriminate. Oh, I’ve got an idea we should start colonies to put these people in . . .
__________________________________________________
"Beware how you take away hope from another human being."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes
why does what others think matter?
I really don't care what anyone else thinks of me. Their opinion has no effect whatsoever on how I live my life.
I really don't care what anyone else thinks of me. Their opinion has no effect whatsoever on how I live my life.
QuoteI do not think that the concept of marriage should be abandoned. I think that the legal rights that are given to a spouse are important for a significant other to have. I do think that we should have a legal definition of marriage that does not include religious bias.
So you want to change the definition of the word, marriage?
never pull low......unless you are
rehmwa 2
Quote
If people want to jump off their houses and call themselves skydivers thats fine with me. If they want to flap their arms, jump and run around their yard chirping they can go ahead and tell people they are an experienced bird man pilot. Whatever, it doesn't affect the fact that I AM a skydiver.
Yes, but everyone would think that you flap your arms, jump and run around the yard chirping, when you tell people that you are a skydiver.
But don't a lot of people, when they suck at RW, go and do a couple solos and call themselves Freeflyers? How do real Freeflyers feel about that?
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Keith 0
QuoteI like Karen's thoughts. Create a general term for governmental/contractual partnership and apply that across the board. Leave "marriage" as a sacrament or whatever. Let the social/subjective issues sort themselves out as those are people issues, not government issues.
We'll find out real quick if the increase in social security payouts, foreign spouse (green card immigration due to gay contractual marriage), etc ends up costing the average guy enough to change those rules. But then maybe they would be change in a more even handed manner since they would affect all, not just specific groups.
These are things we can both agree on. I don't need to be married. What I need is the ability for my partner to be able to make decisions for me should something horrible happen. Call it what you want but allow me the same rights as everyone else.
Keith
Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville
Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville
The111 1
Consenting adult siblings who want to sleep together, can.
Consenting adult homosexuals who want to sleep together, can.
Marriage, however, is a union for the purpose of building functional families. In functional families, non-consenting, non-adult people (children) are brought into the picture. Non-consenting non-adults do not have a say in who their parents are. This is why the law must enter the picture. It is up to adults who have the ability to think analytically to determine who can and can't raise a child, thus creating a family. Truthfully, the answer is so obvious it's painful. Regardless of how much anyone hates the "procreation" argument, our biology makes it very clear who is fit to raise a family. A fertile man an woman. There are all sorts of exceptions to the rule: infertile couples, adoption, artificial insemination. I don't think those are relevant to the core of the argument.
Biological ability to produce a family is not the only reason for my belief. It is my belief based on my experience in life, that a child needs a mother and a father to develop, grow up, and mature. Children build their core values based on their parents. To provide a child with two mothers or two fathers would be giving them an incomplete set, and in my opinion would be teaching them that something wrong is acceptable (though society does a fairly good job of that today). To provide a child with sibling parents (even if they adopted the child and he was not deformed) would be again teaching the child that something wrong is acceptable (I'm thinking everyone agrees with me on this one).
This is why sibling and gay marriages should not be valid. Which means, in short, that in my opinion, neither sibling couples nor gay couples should be allowed legally to raise a non-consenting non-adult (which they couldn't produce on their own anyway) and call themselves a family. Though can can fuck or co-habit all they want.
Consenting adult homosexuals who want to sleep together, can.
Marriage, however, is a union for the purpose of building functional families. In functional families, non-consenting, non-adult people (children) are brought into the picture. Non-consenting non-adults do not have a say in who their parents are. This is why the law must enter the picture. It is up to adults who have the ability to think analytically to determine who can and can't raise a child, thus creating a family. Truthfully, the answer is so obvious it's painful. Regardless of how much anyone hates the "procreation" argument, our biology makes it very clear who is fit to raise a family. A fertile man an woman. There are all sorts of exceptions to the rule: infertile couples, adoption, artificial insemination. I don't think those are relevant to the core of the argument.
Biological ability to produce a family is not the only reason for my belief. It is my belief based on my experience in life, that a child needs a mother and a father to develop, grow up, and mature. Children build their core values based on their parents. To provide a child with two mothers or two fathers would be giving them an incomplete set, and in my opinion would be teaching them that something wrong is acceptable (though society does a fairly good job of that today). To provide a child with sibling parents (even if they adopted the child and he was not deformed) would be again teaching the child that something wrong is acceptable (I'm thinking everyone agrees with me on this one).
This is why sibling and gay marriages should not be valid. Which means, in short, that in my opinion, neither sibling couples nor gay couples should be allowed legally to raise a non-consenting non-adult (which they couldn't produce on their own anyway) and call themselves a family. Though can can fuck or co-habit all they want.
www.WingsuitPhotos.com
Sounds like prior restraint to me. What if they don't want children?
never pull low......unless you are
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites