Applying the definition of marriage to real life application.

@Val Killmore,

Val Killmore wrote:

Quote:
They wouldn't be "gay proponents."

They'd be "incest proponents."

Gay does not equal incest. Incest does not equal gay.

Gay proponents stands for a prevalent definition as I mentioned in my original proof, that allows for gay marriage.

So just tell me clearly if this definition has a "clause" that incest is not supported?

I must admit I have no idea what you are talking about. What does a recognition of the rights of homosexuals have to do with incest? I fail to see any connection whatever and wonder why you'd somehow pair the two.

1 Reply

@Val Killmore,

You would have to go to each state and read the individual bills that were passed in each state to see if it has the fine print you seek.

That's the problem with this being legalized only on a state level rather than on the federal level. One state's bill may not have exceptions while another state's bill will have all sorts of exceptions.

1 Reply

@Butrflynet,

Quote:

would that new word that represents gay marriage have equal legal status as the word that represents multi-sex marriage?

Yes, but kicked out from the church.

Quote:

What customs and traditions of the people are not being thought of when same-sex marriage becomes legal?

Most cultures have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman for hundreds if not thousands of years.

2 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Tell me again Lustig, on what meaning of marriage is gay marriage allowed?
Is it not under the meaning that marriage is a union of love between two consenting adults?

1 Reply

@L1n1o,

L1n1o wrote:

Most cultures have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman for hundreds if not thousands of years

Horseshit. I'll bet you anything if you do some research you'll find that polygamy has been far more common worldwide historically than the one man-one woman idea. You're talking about a Western European tradition, not a human tradition. And even that European one was more often honored in the breech than the observance.

"Most cultures" my royal arse.

0 Replies

@L1n1o,

Quote:

Yes, but kicked out from the church.

So you object to the religious equality of same-sex marriage with multi-sex marriage, not the legal equality?

If so, then there is no problem. None of the same-sex marriage laws that I am aware of are requiring religions to recognize the equality of the marriage. I could be mistaken, but I believe it is all about an equal legal status so that same-sex marriage has an equal legal status as multi-sex marriage.

0 Replies

@Butrflynet,

I didn't mean legally speaking but in people's mind.

Quote:

Will gay right proponents support such relationship?

Say in year 2020 it is federal law and that it's ok for gay couples to marry. Now if a rise of couple populous rises that are of incest in nature will they use this definition and will people rally for the rights for incest couples to marry?

1 Reply

@Val Killmore,

Val Killmore wrote:

Tell me again Lustig, on what meaning of marriage is gay marriage allowed?
Is it not under the meaning that marriage is a union of love between two consenting adults?

The point is that traditional marriage, as we know it in Western culture, has always been a business arrangement, nothing more, nothing less. Pre-nuptial contracts, a fairly recent innovation, are simply extensions of this concept of a legal obligation. The reason that a committed pair of gays should be allowed to marry is, essentially, that they deserve the same rights as "straight" people. Being married often confers certain benefits to a couple that they, as individuals, could not enjoy. It's really that simple.

All this talk about "love" is, I think, a smoke-screen. It's an appeal to the sentimental, romantic side of people. The real point is the sharing of wealth and inheritance rights. Something else: the church (any church) does not marry a couple. The priest, minister, rabbi etc. is merely empowered by the state to perform a ceremony. That ceremony has exactly zero to do with the marriage contract, the form of which is dictated by the state. Marriage licenses are not issued by the Bishop but at the City Hall. In my personal opinion I beieve it is any clergyman's, and any church's, right to refuse to marry gays because all they are doing is refusing to perform a specific ritual. They have the right to cancel the 11 a.m. worship service; this is no different. The important papers are not religious but secular.

1 Reply

@Val Killmore,

If there is a rise in incestuous couples seeking marriage in 2020, it will have nothing to do with same-sex marriage equality. If there are proponents of incestuous marriage in 2020, it won't be because there were proponents of same-sex marriage equality in 2012.

To personalize it, I would not be a proponent of incestuous marriage in 2020 just because I am a proponent of same-sex marriage equality in 2012. I may have other reasons to be for or against it, but it won't be because I was a proponent of same-sex marriage equality.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

So I was correct in my first thinking that marriage is a joke.

Politicians decide depending on the itch frequency of the people. If people want gay marriage they get it, if they want incest couples to have the right to marry, they get it.

And I'm never again supporting gay marriage or the marriage of man or woman as L1n1o, cause the definition of marriage I guessed is too general and too slack.

Politics don't suit well with me.

3 Replies

@Val Killmore,

I still don'tsee why you're bringing incest into this. I don't see the connection between what amounts to a legal contract and incest.

1 Reply

@Val Killmore,

Quote:

Politicians decide depending on the itch frequency of the people. If people want gay marriage they get it, if they want incest couples to have the right to marry, they get it.

In the case of same-sex marriage law, this is not correct. As with the interracial marriage laws, the legalization of same-sex marriage has been achieved by court rulings and legislative action, not through voter popularity.

If you want to read up a bit on the history of same-sex law making, you could start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

Read up on interracial marriage law making here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

I used the same definition that the college kids used, in their "philosophy" chatter in a cafe.

So I was suggesting wouldn't incest be also ok with such definition.

0 Replies

@Butrflynet,

Quote:

court rulings and legislative action

Which are pressured and molded by the public.
This is a Democracy isn't it?

Wikipedia wrote:

November 2000: Voters in Nebraska approve Nebraska Initiative Measure 416, a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman

What does that say?

0 Replies

@Val Killmore,

Quote:

But what matters with incest couples and gay couples is that they love each other and it is a consented relationship, right?

I'll tell you what Val. When you find siblings that want to marry and did not start any kind of physical relationship when one of them was not an adult, then we can discuss this. Until then it is a mirage that you are attempting to create out of thin air to make your slippery slope argument.

Hint - I can find historical gay relationship between adults that started when they were both adults going back a long time in history. I'll bet you can't find any incestuous relationships that meet the same criteria.

1 Reply

@L1n1o,

Quote:

Just wait a century and see where this heads.

http://media.smithsonianmag.com/images/centenarians_4.jpg

0 Replies

@Val Killmore,

Val Killmore wrote:

Politicians decide depending on the itch frequency of the people. If people want gay marriage they get it, if they want incest couples to have the right to marry, they get it.

I don't know where you get that strange phrase "itch frequency." What you are describing is actually the principle behind a democratic form of government,. i.e. the principle of majority rule. Of course, if the majority of the population desires a certain social condition, in a true democracy their will shall be respected by the respresentatives that they have elected to formulate laws. That's how a representative government works.

Do you honestly see it as possible that a majority of the population would somehow approve of incestual marriages? 100 years from now or a 1,000 years from now? That's just a silly (not to say downright stupid) red herring thrown into the mix to absolutely confuse the issue.

1 Reply

@parados,

Please read the original post parados.

I used the most extreme scenario, because that would also include marriage between first cousin, and all other possibilities.

And there have been cases in the past.
Caligula, the roman emperor committed incest with his three sisters: Agrippina, Livilla, and Drusilla.

Cleopatra was the product of an incest relationship.

As well as many other monarchs.

By the way, Isn't it legal for first cousins to marry in UK?

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

If that was so, gay marriage would never pass.

In a democracy, minority can not be oppressed by a "tyranny of the majority"

1 Reply

@Val Killmore,

You are so full of ****, Val, that I suspect your eyes must surely be brown. Will you stop prattling nonsense please about things of which you apparently have absolutely no understanding and stick to something that you know something about, whatever that might turn out to be? It's getting awfully tiresome trying to get even simple facts throough your two-inch thick skull.

Just one more time, then I'm leaving this idiotic thread and let you stew in your own juices.

Look, the tide has turned sufficiently for public opinion now to accept that gays have the same rights as straightsand that these rights should include the right to enter into certain types of contractual obligations, e.g. marriage. It is that simple.

Your last sentence displays the most ignorant horseshit imagineable. In a democracy, the minority is virtually always oppressed by a so-called "tyranny of the majority." In fact that term was invented specifically to help describe what some of the shortcomings of pure democracy are. It is not a perfect system; it just happens to be the most perfect that we have available.

Now go play in traffic or do something else equally constructive. I've tried to be patient with you unlike some others on these threads, but you don't make it easy for anyone.

1 Reply

Applying the definition of marriage to real life application.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know