Gay marriage - is it any of your damned business?

[Dingus]

Go on then, explain the reasoning behind that bizarre statement.

 

Would it be acceptable for a man to marry his own sister?

 

Would it be acceptable for a man to marry his own brother? If not why not?

[Jessica23]

So would it be acceptable for someone to marry their own brother.

 

Yes, absolutely. That's the logical next step, along with sisters marrying their sisters and parents marrying their children. Then I think there should be a determined push for the rights of uncle-nephew and aunt-niece liaisons (it's becoming a very vocal lobby), followed by - why not? - marriages that include three to ten people. Then we can really concentrate on ending discrimination against people who have sex with animals and make sure that those unions are treated with the respect and dignity that they fully deserve.

 

This really is the just the start of a very exciting time for those of us who want to entirely destroy everything through the medium of marriage. I for one can hardly wait until the entire social fabric of the country collapses.

[MrSmith]

Right, as some posters on here find it really, really difficult to actually make things clear I'm going to pose an open question to those who are against same sex union.

 

I promise I wont call anyone bigoted or homophobic for their opinion (although I can't guarantee that other posters wont, although I would implore other posters not to so there can be no excuse for not answering), but what I would like is you sticking to the rules of the question to allow for easy analysis of the answer.

 

If you are against same sex marriage, or you think those that are have legitimate reasons for being so (to make this clear this means you agree with some of their reasoning)* would you mind detailing those reasons in a list format so we can go into each one on its own merit.

 

For example;

 

1. first reason

 

2. second reason

 

etc.

 

and (this is the important bit) sticking around so that when I pose follow up questions to establish the rational behind those reasons we can have an actual debate.

 

*This distinction is important to avoid those who agree with some of the reasoning behind being anti same sex union but wouldn't claim to be anti it themselves (anyone in particular ) claiming that they respect the right that opinion.

 

I fully respect their right to hold that opinion, but this is totally different to agreeing with specific elements of it, a distinction some apparently find difficult to make.

It is possible to understand their reason without agreeing with it.

My wife likes Brussels sprouts and thinks they are very tasty.

I think they are disgusting and wouldn’t want one on my plate.

She has a very good reason for liking them and eating them.

What doesn’t make sense about that statement?

 

Not sure what the word is for that, it could be empathy .

 

I understand why my wife likes Brussel sprouts, which doesn’t mean I agree with her or think she is anything other than normal for liking them.

[PaliRichard]

Would it be acceptable for a man to marry his own brother? If not why not?

 

I don't think so.

 

Why?

 

Because their are legitimate medical reasons for nor allowing immediate family unions from the reproduction perspective.

 

Based on this it would be discriminatary to forbid a brother/sister union and not a brother/brother or sister/sister union.

 

Maybe in the future when the genetic 'problems' of sibling marriage have been ironed out it would be feasable - but now, due to the resulting inequality that would allow same sex but not opposite sex sibling marriage I would say no.

 

Now what relevance has that to same sex marriage?

[MrSmith]

I don't think so.

 

Why?

 

Because their are legitimate medical reasons for nor allowing immediate family unions from the reproduction perspective.

 

Based on this it would be discriminatary to forbid a brother/sister union and not a brother/brother or sister/sister union.

 

Maybe in the future when the genetic 'problems' of sibling marriage have been ironed out it would be feasable - but now, due to the resulting inequality that would allow same sex but not opposite sex sibling marriage I would say no.

 

Now what relevance has that to same sex marriage?

 

So marriage is about having conceiving a child.

 

They might not want children or like a gay couple might choose to adopt instead of having their own.

[PaliRichard]

It is possible to understand their reason without agreeing with it.

 

 

I understand why my wife likes Brussel sprouts, which doesn’t mean I agree with her or think she is anything other than normal for liking them.

 

What is the very good reason for your wife liking brussel sprouts?

 

You see this is where your terrible analogy falls down.

 

What is a very good reason for being against same sex union? x

 

Why is x a very good reason - you have yet to answer this point.

 

I think x is a very good reason because...

 

You haven't done this - your answer thus far has been 'because I respect their right to hold that opinion'

 

That doesn't answer the question 'Why is x a very good reason'?

 

To legitimately answer why 'x' is a good reason you need to agree with that reason - otherwise you are in no position to say why it is a good reason.

 

So you need to either retract your point that you think both sides have good reasons and change it to I respect the opinion of both sides but don't necessarily think they have good reasons behind those opinions or you need to do what I've been asking you to do and actually quantify why you think those against same sex union have good reasons for being against it - which inevitably means you agree with elements of that position.

 

---------- Post added 16-02-2013 at 10:35 ----------

 

So marriage is about having conceiving a child.

 

They might not want children or like a gay couple might choose to adopt instead of having their own.

 

No, it's not about concieving a child, but it's perfectly reasonable to assume a brother/sister union might concieve one - and due to potential genetic defects this is currently illegal - so it would be discriminatory against the straight siblings to allow same sex siblings to marry.

 

I really can't believe you've pulled me up on such a blatantly obvious point.

[MrSmith]

What is the very good reason for your wife liking brussel sprouts?

 

 

It doesn't matter what her reason is, she is different to me and has a good reason for eating Brussels sprouts, if she was the same as me she would find them disgusting but life would be crap is everyone was the same.

[Dingus]

I don't think so.

 

Why?

 

Because their are legitimate medical reasons for nor allowing immediate family unions from the reproduction perspective.

 

Based on this it would be discriminatary to forbid a brother/sister union and not a brother/brother or sister/sister union.

 

Maybe in the future when the genetic 'problems' of sibling marriage have been ironed out it would be feasable - but now, due to the resulting inequality that would allow same sex but not opposite sex sibling marriage I would say no.

 

Now what relevance has that to same sex marriage?

 

 

So the only reason for banning it would be in case the PC brigade claimed it discriminated against other couples. Isn't that a bit like not allowing men to use the gent's urinals.

[PaliRichard]

So the only reason for banning it would be in case the PC brigade claimed it discriminated against other couples. Isn't that a bit like not allowing men to use the gent's urinals.

 

It would dicriminate, exactly the same way in which not allowing same sex union discriminates.

 

I notice you are yet to answer my question

Would it be acceptable for a man to marry his own sister?[/Quote]

 

Are you going to have a go or are you insistant on using counter questions to avoid having to justify your own argument?

[Dingus]

It would dicriminate, exactly the same way in which not allowing same sex union discriminates.

 

I notice you are yet to answer my question

 

Are you going to have a go or are you insistant on using counter questions to avoid having to justify your own argument?

 

So in other words all those marriages that have happened for a thousands years or so shouldn't have been allowed because they discriminated against gays who couldn't marry. What a wonderful fantasy world some folk live in.