Two Lesbians Raised a Son ...

[BDBoop]

Why can the GLBT discussion not stand alone. Why does somebody always have to make it about polygamy or incest. Why. Let them fight their own fight *if there IS any 'them' to take a stand*.

Any man can marry any woman he loves. Therefore, any woman should be able to marry any woman SHE loves.

Any woman can marry any man she loves. Therefore, any man should be able to marry any man HE loves.

The rest of it is just people changing the subject so they don't have to admit the truth. Gays are being discriminated against by the current laws.

 

[J.E.D]

I REPEAT, if the criteria for marriage is simply the requirement it be two consenting adults then why can't family members that are adults marry each other? And I never said it would become a problem. And yes it is a valid comparison. You just don't like it because it involves incest.

I'm sure some law could be crafted that wouldn't allow blood relatives to marry each other. Perhaps on the basis that incest can produce deformities, which could be considered child endangerment or something like that. I'm no expert; just a thought.

Doesn't work. People with known conditions are not prevented from marrying others with same condition. And further the chance of defects in a 1st Generation are almost nil.

Like I said, it was just a thought. I'm sure that legislators are intelligent enough to come up with an exception for blood relatives. I doubt that fear of incest would be a realistic roadblock to pro-gay marriage legislation.

 

[taichiliberal]

Nice programmed little propaganda robot.

Bottom line: the "gay family" is an artificial construct designed to make gay couples appear as "normal" as heterosexual couples and feel better about themselves.

But the ONLY way gay couples can "procreate" is through ARTIFICIAL means.

And then there's the whole issue of raising a straight child with gay role models....which presents a penchant for bisexual "experimentation" that is much higher than with "straight" couples.....which is why studies with conclusions like the one Bilbarz had are virtually ignored.

White gay yuppies will not be denied...they passed all the tests, make the money......so if they think it, therefore it is.

And the beat goes on.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. That's the same argument that another conservative made - except he said something about marrying a horse or something.

If two people of the same sex marry each other it doesn't mean that brothers and sisters, or people and horses will make a run for the altar. It's a weak argument. Period.

And it is a completely hypocritical stance to say that you believe what goes on in a person's home is their business while simultaneously saying that that same person shouldn't be allowed to marry a person of the same sex.

I REPEAT, if the criteria for marriage is simply the requirement it be two consenting adults then why can't family members that are adults marry each other? And I never said it would become a problem. And yes it is a valid comparison. You just don't like it because it involves incest.

I'm sure some law could be crafted that wouldn't allow blood relatives to marry each other. Perhaps on the basis that incest can produce deformities, which could be considered child endangerment or something like that. I'm no expert; just a thought. Either way, it's not a valid reason to keep gay people from marrying each other. There IS no valid reason.

But why should gay siblings or lesbian siblings not be allowed to get married? After all, there would be no danger of a child being born with deformities from that, right?

 

[J.E.D]

I REPEAT, if the criteria for marriage is simply the requirement it be two consenting adults then why can't family members that are adults marry each other? And I never said it would become a problem. And yes it is a valid comparison. You just don't like it because it involves incest.

I'm sure some law could be crafted that wouldn't allow blood relatives to marry each other. Perhaps on the basis that incest can produce deformities, which could be considered child endangerment or something like that. I'm no expert; just a thought. Either way, it's not a valid reason to keep gay people from marrying each other. There IS no valid reason.

But why should gay siblings or lesbian siblings not be allowed to get married? After all, there would be no danger of a child being born with deformities from that, right?

IDK. RetiredGYSgt is the one hung up on incest. I'm just trying to get him to see that his irrational fear could be addressed in legislation. He doesn't seem to be open to reason, though.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why can the GLBT discussion not stand alone. Why does somebody always have to make it about polygamy or incest. Why. Let them fight their own fight *if there IS any 'them' to take a stand*.

Any man can marry any woman he loves. Therefore, any woman should be able to marry any woman SHE loves.

Any woman can marry any man she loves. Therefore, any man should be able to marry any man HE loves.

The rest of it is just people changing the subject so they don't have to admit the truth. Gays are being discriminated against by the current laws.

The entire argument is based on two things.

A) A consenting adult should be free to marry any other consenting adult they mutually agree on.

B) what does on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their home or private spaces is no ones business.

NOW using those criteria explain why 2 consenting adult siblings can not marry.

 

[del]

Why can the GLBT discussion not stand alone. Why does somebody always have to make it about polygamy or incest. Why. Let them fight their own fight *if there IS any 'them' to take a stand*.

Any man can marry any woman he loves. Therefore, any woman should be able to marry any woman SHE loves.

Any woman can marry any man she loves. Therefore, any man should be able to marry any man HE loves.

The rest of it is just people changing the subject so they don't have to admit the truth. Gays are being discriminated against by the current laws.

The entire argument is based on two things.

A) A consenting adult should be free to marry any other consenting adult they mutually agree on.

B) what does on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their home or private spaces is no ones business.

NOW using those criteria explain why 2 consenting adult siblings can not marry.

for the same reason gays can't in most states; there's a law against it.

duh

personally, i don't give a ratfuck which adult marries which adult(s) as long as it's consensual.

*shrug*

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why can the GLBT discussion not stand alone. Why does somebody always have to make it about polygamy or incest. Why. Let them fight their own fight *if there IS any 'them' to take a stand*.

Any man can marry any woman he loves. Therefore, any woman should be able to marry any woman SHE loves.

Any woman can marry any man she loves. Therefore, any man should be able to marry any man HE loves.

The rest of it is just people changing the subject so they don't have to admit the truth. Gays are being discriminated against by the current laws.

The entire argument is based on two things.

A) A consenting adult should be free to marry any other consenting adult they mutually agree on.

B) what does on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their home or private spaces is no ones business.

NOW using those criteria explain why 2 consenting adult siblings can not marry.

for the same reason gays can't in most states; there's a law against it.

duh

personally, i don't give a ratfuck which adult marries which adult(s) as long as it's consensual.

*shrug*

And the argument used by gays to overturn those laws are the two points I just made. That they are being discriminated against because the two points I listed defeat any claim of opposition.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I REPEAT, if the criteria for marriage is simply the requirement it be two consenting adults then why can't family members that are adults marry each other? And I never said it would become a problem. And yes it is a valid comparison. You just don't like it because it involves incest.

No, it's not a valid comparison. If you knew anything about logic you wouldn't even bother asking such a question, unless you simply didn't care whether your arguments make sense or not.

 

[Inthemiddle]

But the ONLY way gay couples can "procreate" is through ARTIFICIAL means.

So what?

And then there's the whole issue of raising a straight child with gay role models....which presents a penchant for bisexual "experimentation" that is much higher than with "straight" couples.....which is why studies with conclusions like the one Bilbarz had are virtually ignored.

1) Did you see the video?

2) Don't mention studies unless you are ready to produce them.

 

[BDBoop]

It's not about like. I'm not willing to change the subject. You want to talk incest, you start your own thread.

Now, I'm going to make a huge jump here, but I think you can do it, RGS!!! I really, really do!

Why are you against same-sex marriage. Do not change the subject, do not move the goal posts. Do not collect $200. If you post again in this thread, answer the bolded question or don't answer at all. And yes; I AM telling you what to do. This is a message board for debate purposes, not a day care diaper pail.

 

[BDBoop]

Until somebody who says "being gay is a choice" watches and address these test results, I'm going to keep sharing it. Probably even after, actually.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe58_vd_5g4]Brain scan results - Making of Me: John Barrowman - BBC - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVwjCppq82c]Are we born straight or gay? - Making of Me: John Barrowman - BBC - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sky Dancer]

I'm sure some law could be crafted that wouldn't allow blood relatives to marry each other. Perhaps on the basis that incest can produce deformities, which could be considered child endangerment or something like that. I'm no expert; just a thought. Either way, it's not a valid reason to keep gay people from marrying each other. There IS no valid reason.

But why should gay siblings or lesbian siblings not be allowed to get married? After all, there would be no danger of a child being born with deformities from that, right?

IDK. RetiredGYSgt is the one hung up on incest. I'm just trying to get him to see that his irrational fear could be addressed in legislation. He doesn't seem to be open to reason, though.

I think RGS is Mormon. I'm not sure.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am an Evangelical Christian Conservative, registered Republican, and member of the local Tea Party. In Oklahoma, it is against the state constitution for members of the same sex to marry, and quite frankly I believe that it should remain so. I worked very hard with people across the state to place that on the ballot and it won with a huge margin. I believe that like abortion, the issue is within the perview of the state.

Fortunately the Framers composed the Constitution with you and your ilk in mind.

Sex is not the same thing as Marriage. And I repeat, if the criteria for marriage is simply 2 consenting adults then why can't siblings marry each other or family members marry each other?

Because laws prohibiting family members or siblings from marrying are applied consistently – to all races, genders, and ethnic groups equally, which is legal.

To single out a specific group for exclusion, however, such as homosexuals from a state’s marriage laws, is un-Constitutional:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 [prohibiting homosexuals access to anti-discrimination laws] classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer v. Evans