Gay Marriage would Upend the Traditional Marriage

Your prejudice against gays has led you to make some very foolish leaps of logic.

You wise guy it would not have killed you to point out exactly what part of the logic was foolish. By the way, I am not prejudiced against gays -- I just pointed out that a "gay alliance" is very different from a "traditional marriage" like a "marriage" is different from so many other relationships. The comment you made about me may very well apply to you and so I am redirecting that toward you.

which tradition are you referring to?

what is its origin?

What?



The dictionary has updated it's definition of marriage....

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

perhaps so should you.

It's obvious you have no understanding of logic.

Besides the fact that you're a homophobic bigot, there are laws against marrying direct blood relations, because there are great odds that any offspring will have birth defects.

Your belief about gay marriage is based on your religious beliefs, not human beliefs. Several states now allow gay marriage, and many more allow civil weddings for gays.

I hear the Indian Ocean and Atlantic Ocean wedded each other just outside Cape Town last week.

Scandalous!

I don't mind when bodies mix, but marriage...?

Let's start with your first statement....
Sex between 2 sisters, 2 brothers or a mother and a daughter is incest. Incest is ONLY not an issue as long as the persons involved are not related.

Incest has nothing to do with gay marriage so your conclusion that somehow gay marriage allows incest is not logical. Incest isn't an issue in heterosexual marriages so does that mean heterosexual marriage leads to incest? Your logic would imply the same conclusion.

But don't you know that allowing the gays to have relations will lead to sex with animals!?!

Everyone has relations. We are born with them.


We just can't have sex with our immediate relations or it's incest.

I believe the reasoning here is that incest is prohibited because of the genetic risks posed to the children of incestuous unions. But since there can be no children born of an incestuous homosexual union, there would be no reason to prohibit such unions. And if homosexuals were allowed to enter into incestuous unions, it would be discriminatory to prevent heterosexuals from entering into such unions.

Or so the reasoning goes.


Well, that doesn't make any sense at all.

But would the animals be considered as relatives?

First of all, I would ask you to stay civil and not revert to name calling.
What you have written about incest -- that was the point of my original posting that gay marriage is very different from the heterosexual marriage. Incestous relationships are not allowed because that would cause problems with offsprings. But because there is no problem of incest in same sex relationships, it would be illogical not to allow marriages between close relatives of same sex.
After that, if gay marriages are at same level as heterosexual marriages, it would be discriminatory not to allow marriage between close relatives for heterosexuals as well. That is how it would upend traditional heterosexual marriages.
My point is that gay alliance is very different than a heterosexual marriage. So society should plan on calling gay alliances by a name different from "marriage."

1. what is wrong with that upending?

2. what are you basing your definition of traditional on?

Why are you so preoccupied with incestuous relationships? Hmmmm?

I realize that was probably the intent joe but offspring of incest is not exactly the same thing as incest, so I felt we should take the OP at his word.

He did ask where is logic was wrong.

But maybe it's just his thinking.

Sounds like he's the result of one.

I'm not at all sure that incest is prohibited because the odds are higher that it can lead to defective offspring. For one thing, empirically it usually doesn't. For another, incest prohibitions existed for millenia before we had any conception of genetics. I think it's more due to moral repugnance--this is something close relatives just shouldn't do. And that in fact DOES apply to homosexual relations just as it does to heterosexual ones. A father shouldn't have sex with his son, just as he shouldn't have sex with his daughter. So the OP's thesis is wrong however you look at it. So his conclusions are wrong too.

MJ, As a matter of fact, you are spot on! It has been shown through DNA that King Tut's parents were siblings.

I think that the hidden message here is a slippery slope argument. If homosexuals are allowed to marry, soon, Jews will be allowed to marry. Maybe even, God forbid, Catholics. What's next, civil rights for blacks ? ! ? ! ?