sundevil777 94
QuoteQuoteQuoteThis also means that the prohibition against the marriage of people that are related to each other should be removed.
Not feeling you on that one. That's a case of potential mental and physical defects, which will have a direct impact on the rest of society through taxation and the increased burden placed upon our medical infrastructure.
Not true. There is no increased chance of genetic mutation in say a brother / sister pair. If neither one of them have negative genetic traits, they won't magically create one at a rate higher than the general population. Even if the brother / sister pair were both carriers of something, are you going to forbid their love because of it? Are you also ready to start requiring DNA testing for all couples to insure that the gene pool isn't further damaged? etc.
Quite right!
Since people with known, well established genetic traits that will without doubt be passed on to a high percentage of children are allowed to produce children, why should an ordinary blood related couple be prevented from doing so?
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
labrys 0
QuoteThere is no increased chance of genetic mutation in say a brother / sister pair.
Genetic mutation isn't the issue of concern. The fact that they have a much higher likelihood of possessing and passing on negative recessive genetic traits is the issue.
Now, imagine homosexuality is caused by a genetic trait and a mother has that recessive trait but the father does not. There's a pretty good chance that 2 of their children may also possess that recessive trait. Those 2 siblings have children and...
...BAM... soon we've got little gay kids everywhere.
Before long, the entire country will be swarming with left-handed, red-headed, well-dressed men who spend too much time at the gym.
Owned by Remi #?
bqmassey 0
QuoteExactly.
Marriage is a religious/spiritual event. It shouldn't be made into a legal one.
It may be a "religious/spiritual event" to you but others see it as a promise made in front of the entire community.
That promise or contract does have legal ramifications if either party violates the contract.
Considering the legal ramifications how could government not be expected to be involved and set criteria pre- wedding?
And those people have every opportunity to get married in a church in front of their community.
There is a difference between a promise and a contract, a huge difference. Putting a ring on someone's finger is a promise, but it's no business of the state to regulate that promise.
If those two people want to, in addition to being married in a church, draft and sign some sort of contract saying they'll share income or some other thing, fine. If one of them breaches that contract they should be able to sue, just like any other contract. And, just like any other contract, any two, or three, or ten people should be able to contract with each other.
The government has absolutely NO business trying to regulate marriage.
[replyThere is a difference between a promise and a contract, a huge difference.
Quote
Really? Could you explain the difference?
[replyEnd the legal ramifications.
Marriage is a contract.
To "end the legal ramifications" would mean either that contracts are from now on unenforceable or that no marriages can occur.
bqmassey 0
Quote[replyThere is a difference between a promise and a contract, a huge difference.
Quote
Really? Could you explain the difference?
If I promise my girlfriend that I will love and cherish her forever, and I don't, she can't take me to court.
If I sign a valid contract with my girlfriend saying that I'm going to pay 1/2 of a mortgage on a new house until the house is paid of, and I don't, she can sue me.
[replyNow, imagine homosexuality is caused by a genetic trait and a mother has that recessive trait but the father does not. There's a pretty good chance that 2 of their children may also possess that recessive trait. Those 2 siblings have children and...
...BAM... soon we've got little gay kids everywhere.
...BAM... soon we've got little gay kids everywhere.
Quote
LOL! Homophobic much? LOL!
Well at least we'd be whipping that overpopulation problem!
Quote[replyEnd the legal ramifications.
Marriage is a contract.
To "end the legal ramifications" would mean either that contracts are from now on unenforceable or that no marriages can occur.
Yup, I understand that. Marriage is quite a few different things to different people. For some it is a sacred religious institution, even a sacrament. For most, even those who are not religious, it is a promise or series of promises tied to a relationship. For all those who are legally married it is also a legal contract. There is no reason it has to be. Eliminate the nanny state nonsense of government regulating personal relationships between adults.
People will still get married, it just won't be a contract any more.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
QuoteQuote[replyThere is a difference between a promise and a contract, a huge difference.
Quote
Really? Could you explain the difference?
If I promise my girlfriend that I will love and cherish her forever, and I don't, she can't take me to court.
If I sign a valid contract with my girlfriend saying that I'm going to pay 1/2 of a mortgage on a new house until the house is paid of, and I don't, she can sue me.
When in front of an audience you swear an oath "till death do us part" that "I do" isn't just an indication of your pussywhippedness.
It is also a legaly binding contract between you.
What you don't seem to understand is that oral contracts(or promises) are just as legally binding as written contracts. Generally they are harder to proove and therefor enforce as there aren't many witnesses.
Marriage vows infront of a church full of friends and family and recorded on video or dvd , not so tough to prove.
Quote
When in front of an audience you swear an oath "till death do us part" that "I do" isn't just an indication of your pussywhippedness.
It is also a legaly binding contract between you.
When I was young and foolish I thought that 'til death do us part thing was actually binding. It wasn't.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
labrys 0
QuoteLOL! Homophobic much? LOL!
Yeah. I scare the living shit out of myself on a weekly basis.
Owned by Remi #?
bqmassey 0
Quote
When in front of an audience you swear an oath "till death do us part" that "I do" isn't just an indication of your pussywhippedness.
It is also a legaly binding contract between you.
Enforceable in court?
It may be a "religious/spiritual event" to you but others see it as a promise made in front of the entire community.
That promise or contract does have legal ramifications if either party violates the contract.
Considering the legal ramifications how could government not be expected to be involved and set criteria pre- wedding?
End the legal ramifications. Legal marriage is just nanny state nonsense anyway.