gay marriages

[Delicate_Torture]

I want the right to nullify other people's rights.

[Crying_Crimson_Tears]

The right to marry is one right no one should mess with.

[Delicate_Torture]

We refuse to let siblings marry.

[Crying_Crimson_Tears]

In some states I think you can, or in some states incest isn't illegal. But to mess with the right of love, for those who are gay, it's wrong.

[Godslayer Jillian]

That's the thing. You are arbitrarily assigning what's right and what's wrong.
What if the two siblings love each other?
What if the guy takes a leak in the water supplies as an act of love? (weird as it seems)
They, too, are arbitrarily assigning what is right and what is wrong. And so far, gay marriage is wrong.

[Crying_Crimson_Tears]

Maybe we should all get married. I think love is love, and I don't care if siblings want to get married, I don't care if people who are gay want to, I think that anyone should be allowed to marry if they want to. The government has bigger issues anyway, like the war.

[Delicate_Torture]

Siblings aren't allowed to marry because when they do any children of that union have an enormous increase in the risk of genetic abnormalities. It is a good thing that siblings can't marry so that this will not happen.

There are some laws that are created for good and right reasons.

We are talking about whether not allowing gay marriage is one of those laws.

[Crying_Crimson_Tears]

To me, I can see where as siblings not marrying is something that could be good, I can not see in any way how taking away the right of gays being able to marry is right. In ANY way what-so-ever.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I understand that, I'm just arguing against anyone that makes an arbitrary statement of what is right or wrong.

[Crying_Crimson_Tears]

Maybe if I was a straight-homophobic-not-so-nice person I would see the reason, but I still can't. Because I am a bisexual-non homophobic-loves almost everyone type of person I can't see it.

Let people marry damn it.

[son_of_putrefaction]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

That's the thing. You are arbitrarily assigning what's right and what's wrong.

Don't forget that's religion's work.

[Delicate_Torture]

Can we not religion-bash, please? There are a lot of very spiritual and religious gay people who are trying to deal with balancing their inability to marry with their faith... I don't think that comments like that are terribly helpful.

[PersephoneX]

They made it leagl here!!! I'm so happy...

[CptSternn]

The gay marriage issue has been a tactic to pull attention away from Iraq since the republicans put it out there. To get the people to look the other way and not see their dismal failure in Iraq. They are keeping it high on their current agenda because it causes so much controversy people stop complaining about the war and focus their resources on stopping the bush administration from trying to add a new constitutional amendment, which at the end of the day we know would be tied up in legal battles all the way to the supreme court, which more than likely would stand behind gay marriage, as the arguments against it are purely biases based on religion, not on law.

That process however will tie up protestors, civil rights laywers, and media outlets for quite sometime, which is why they keep pushing that (and to a lesser extent the stem cell research) in the media right now instead of the stuff people continue to claim is more important in poll after poll

http://news.**********/s/ap/20070122..._union_ap_poll

<remember - replaced the * with NEWS DOT YAHOO DOT COM since the y STILL have it censored here)

Less than 15% of americans support banning gay marriage, and of that small percent, even less think that it is an imporant issue in comparison with current events (not even one percent selected it as an important issue in any of the recent polls). Yet gay marriage and stem cell research are plastered all over the news and the republicans cant stop talking enough about it.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Originally Posted by Delicate_Torture

We refuse to let siblings marry.

If they're two consenting adults, I don't think the government should get involved. I don't like it, and I don't agree with it, but if they, as two consenting adults, are willing to risk the genetic abnormalities that their children could have, or if they acknowledge those abnormalities and elect not to have children together, I don't think it's our government's business what they do. A union between two consensual adults should be legal.

[Delicate_Torture]

Originally Posted by DarkHeartedDemoness

If they're two consenting adults, I don't think the government should get involved. I don't like it, and I don't agree with it, but if they, as two consenting adults, are willing to risk the genetic abnormalities that their children could have, or if they acknowledge those abnormalities and elect not to have children together, I don't think it's our government's business what they do. A union between two consensual adults should be legal.

I agree with you in theory. I think that the government often over steps what their role should be in the name of protecting their citizens... a case in point would be the Homeland Security laws that have been put in place since the WTC disaster. Even here in Australia the government put in place a lot of laws in the name of protecting us poor little citizens, but which really are wonderfully effective at chipping away at our civil liberties.

However... I'm a nurse, and through work I have been involved with the care of newborns who were the product of first cousins getting married... and some of these childrens disabilities were horrific. Some didn't survive past a few days, some survived a few weeks. Some of them were diagnosed with Downs Syndrome. I have never seen a child born of sibling parents, but I imagine that the chance of having a baby with disabilites would be increased exponentially.

The civil liberties proponent in me agree with you wholeheartedly.
The nurse in me is a lot more wary.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

We don't prevent people with genetic mutations/deformities from procreating. Preventing siblings from marrying isn't preventing them from procreating. Allowing siblings to marry isn't saying that they're going to procreate. We can't protect people from themselves.

Basically, I'm interested in getting rid of double standards, first and foremost. Marriage should be a loving union between two consenting adults.

[LaKeesha]

Originally Posted by DarkHeartedDemoness
If they're two consenting adults, I don't think the government should get involved. I don't like it, and I don't agree with it, but if they, as two consenting adults, are willing to risk the genetic abnormalities that their children could have, or if they acknowledge those abnormalities and elect not to have children together, I don't think it's our government's business what they do. A union between two consensual adults should be legal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have to say that I agree with her on this. (above)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think that the government often over steps what their role should be in the name of protecting their citizens... a case in point would be the Homeland Security laws that have been put in place since the WTC disaster. Even here in Australia the government put in place a lot of laws in the name of protecting us poor little citizens, but which really are wonderfully effective at chipping away at our civil liberties.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I also agree with what this lady says. (above)
Also, I would rather NOT a government take a roll as a "nanny".
Homeland Security laws with various employers here in the United States can be pretty damn intrusive on the privacy of their employees and people who apply to these employers as well. It irritates me.
Yeah, some of it might be necessary but just damn.
One place I applied at a job at wanted all past W2s from some other job I had. Now, I don't know really, if this had anything to do with any U.S. Homeland Security laws out there but I suspect that they gave the CEO (or whomever) of this firm some ideas.
Also, my husband applied at a Lowe's just for part time work.
Sounded simple, huh?
Not.
He said he was asked a litany of questions that he felt would have nothing to do with the job there that he was applying for.
Also, he did not approve of the barrage of "personality tests" they put him through over there. He basically told them (cordially) to forget he even asked.


I have also heard stories like this from others who have applied for jobs at various firms.

I am sorry, I know I went off on a tangent here on modern employers and such rather than focusing upon the subject at hand which is gay marriage. My point is that the government ... ANY government should not be so darn intrusive. Gay marriage is just a case in point. I just added another. Bear with me.

[Crying_Crimson_Tears]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

The gay marriage issue has been a tactic to pull attention away from Iraq since the republicans put it out there. To get the people to look the other way and not see their dismal failure in Iraq. They are keeping it high on their current agenda because it causes so much controversy people stop complaining about the war and focus their resources on stopping the bush administration from trying to add a new constitutional amendment, which at the end of the day we know would be tied up in legal battles all the way to the supreme court, which more than likely would stand behind gay marriage, as the arguments against it are purely biases based on religion, not on law.

I agree, it does seem like that's what the government is doing. I also agree with DHD on if they are two consenting adults, the government shouldn't interfere nor should they assign what's right and what's not.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

The gay marriage issue has been a tactic to pull attention away from Iraq since the republicans put it out there. To get the people to look the other way and not see their dismal failure in Iraq. They are keeping it high on their current agenda because it causes so much controversy people stop complaining about the war and focus their resources on stopping the bush administration from trying to add a new constitutional amendment, which at the end of the day we know would be tied up in legal battles all the way to the supreme court, which more than likely would stand behind gay marriage, as the arguments against it are purely biases based on religion, not on law.

That process however will tie up protestors, civil rights laywers, and media outlets for quite sometime, which is why they keep pushing that (and to a lesser extent the stem cell research) in the media right now instead of the stuff people continue to claim is more important in poll after poll

http://news.**********/s/ap/20070122..._union_ap_poll

<remember - replaced the * with NEWS DOT YAHOO DOT COM since the y STILL have it censored here)

Less than 15% of americans support banning gay marriage, and of that small percent, even less think that it is an imporant issue in comparison with current events (not even one percent selected it as an important issue in any of the recent polls). Yet gay marriage and stem cell research are plastered all over the news and the republicans cant stop talking enough about it.

So the government's reasons for not allowing gay marriage are less than pure. Who's surprised? They're skilled in the ways of manipulation. It's no big shock to realize we're being manipulated again.

[Geo_Toni]

sorry to just jump into a thread here, i havent read all the posts. But i'm all for gay marrige!
I'm Bisexual, and if i end up with the same sex as me or the oposite sex to me, and we want to get married. I would like the oppotunity to do so.
And thankfully, the british goverment. (Finally!!!) has said yes to it.