Two consenting adults, including relatives?

[Lion IRC]

I propose that Christians should not be allowed to marry, because it is disgusting and immoral and demonstrably harmful to children. If we continue to allow Christians to marry, we'll have to allow people to marry horses and dogs.

You don't HAVE to allow inter species loving relationships.
You can fight the moral crusade against it. You can be intolerant.
Nobody is going to force you to accept other people's idea of marriage.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

I know. That's why we reject yours.

[Walking Void]

Lion, no! Watch out for that-!

Slippery... slope...

(what, did you think that I was going say tree?)

[Lion IRC]

If SSM advocates think their cause will lead to more tolerance and less bigotry, where is the downhill slope?

[Esquilax]

The Marriage Equality lobby says homosexuals are entitled to exactly the same marriage as heterosexuals.

Is it exactly the same or not?

And again, your wish to strawman every argument presented against you is noted with interest, but it won't work here. Gay marriage should be the same, in a legal sense, as straight marriage, and I've never once argued differently; my position, my dishonest man, is that gay marriage is not inherently the same as bestiality, because there are differences there.

All this time I've been advocating the idea that one considers these cases on their own merits, and that as a consequence of that one would find gay marriage the same as straight marriage. You're literally arguing against thinking, here.

Relax! Dont be scared. There won't be any requirement for people to be allowed marry their sisters, fathers, pet dog. If you find that yucky you can lead the morality campaign to stop it.

...because as everybody knows, THAT'S NOT REAL MARRIAGE.

Do you even read other people's posts?

What, now you are saying that if people want a certain unique form of marriage they have to wait their turn?

No: I'm saying that those other kinds of marriage would bring their own arguments to the table, because there are differing considerations one would need to take into account there that aren't present in discussions of straight and gay marriage alone.

"the issue"? "It's own set of contentions"?


You completely misunderstand the concept of marriage equality.

And you're mistaking "equality," for "complete, unthinking permissiveness." It's exactly the slippery slope fallacy.

People accuse me of slippery slope reasoning, but if gay 'marriage' campaigners help eliminate intolerance and bigotry that's supposed to be a good thing - especially for bisexual people who are discriminated against because they can only marry one gender at a time.

How sad for them that bigotry and intolerance means they have to pick only one person/gender.

Did you miss my post just above yours where I mentioned my past with polyamory and my support of free polygamy?

If you dont think two men getting married is 'exactly the same' as one man and one woman getting married then I haven't strawmanned you.

I do think gay marriage and straight marriage are the same basic concept. Strawman.

If you think SSM can't be compared to heterosexual marriage then I haven't strawmanned you.

I do think they're comparable. Strawman.

If you think your/his clumsy 'own-goal' about this type of marriage versus that type of marriage (inequality) needs to be reworded, that's your problem. But a strawman argument is not what's going on here.

I think you are, as usual, being profoundly simplistic in your thinking, or just outright dishonest. If you really can't see the additional issues involved with, say, polygamy, or incest, or bestiality, that aren't present in a vanilla straight or gay relationship, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

As it happens, I just think you're being an obtuse dick to avoid admitting that you made a mistake earlier.

[Ryantology]

I propose that Christians should not be allowed to marry, because it is disgusting and immoral and demonstrably harmful to children. If we continue to allow Christians to marry, we'll have to allow people to marry horses and dogs.

You don't HAVE to allow inter species loving relationships.
You can fight the moral crusade against it. You can be intolerant.
Nobody is going to force you to accept other people's idea of marriage.

I don't have to allow followers of apocalyptic death cults to marry, either. If you're going to insist that restricting marriage to legally-consenting adults is on the same level as your arbitrary nastiness, well, I figure I might as well deserve it.

Pray to your god that I'm never in a position to change the rules. : )

[max-greece]

This topic is getting very confused, very quickly.

The OP asks a fascinating question on incestuous gay marriage and I'd say we need to address that one before we go off all over the place on who else should be allowed to get married, have sex, express their sexuality and so on and so forth.

IMHO the whole point of the gay marriage issue was that a same sex couple should be allowed the same rights as a heterosexual couple in that they should be allowed to marry.

If this is the case then I would say that the same sex couple, if they wish to marry, have to accept the same restrictions, rules and guidelines as a heterosexual couple if they are to marry.

If society deems that relations can't marry then it applies equally to both homosexual couples as it does to heterosexual ones.

Whilst the original rules for marriage probably did have a basis in the potential impact on progeny of close relations marrying I don't think that is the issue.

Conversely if same sex marriages were to allow incestuous relationships then denying the same right to heterosexual marriages is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The issue here is marriage - not the sexual acts themselves.

I'm just reposting my original reply on page 4.

To me the key issue is that marriage has been redefined to allow same-sex marriages.

That's it. No further changes are being requested or approved.

Should other issues come up (polygamy/polyandry etc.) they should be treated separately and independently. If society deems them, at some later date, to be acceptable then marriage can be redefined again.

As marriage laws generally do not allow relations to marry that still stands until such point as society wants them changed.

Therefore, as it stands today SSM and heterosexual marriage are now the same in countries or territories that have passed such laws.

[Lion IRC]

Everyone has their own basis for conscientious objection.
Some doctors won't perform abortions.
Some priests/pastors won't perform gay 'marriages'.
Some religions won't take part in wars.
etc. etc.

If we really DO live in a pluralistic society, religion is entitled to the same 'tolerance and respect' that we hear chanted like kumbaya, by the supporters of abortion on-demand and SSM.

[Esquilax]

If we really DO live in a pluralistic society, religion is entitled to the same 'tolerance and respect' that we hear chanted like kumbaya, by the supporters of abortion on-demand and SSM.

Agreed, but that tolerance ends the moment those people feel they can dictate the rights of others based on their own group's internal rules, like religions so often enjoy doing.

Moreover, this doesn't absolve you of being called out on bad behavior, either; if you're going to be intolerant, perhaps you (general you, not you specifically, Lion) should be prepared to be called intolerant. Especially when the views that cause you to express that intolerance are based on unverifiable magic claims, not readily demonstrable facts.

[NoraBrimstone]

Why should religion be tolerated and respected when it's proven itself unworthy of either tolerance or respect?