So you think it would be right to allow them to get married, but not allow them the RIGHT to have children? I just want to make sure I'm hearing you right on that one.
Also, it has everything to do with this. It's about socially acceptable norms. 50 years ago, the though of homosexuals marrying would be laughed out of the Supreme Court. We are talking about how these norms have changed. Eventually the stigma of all sorts of actions that are not socially acceptable today, will become socially acceptable in the future. You don't have to look very far back in our own history to see how quickly those norms can change.
Sure, I don't see a reason cousins shouldn't be able to marry, as long as they don't have kids. Because it is proven unhealthy (physically) for the child, and that's unfair to allow their relationship effect a child. I think they should be able to adopt or have kids with other people if they choose, like a same sex couple. What does this have to do with same sex marriage again? Its not about the norm. Its about whats right. Why should they have been laughed at 50 years ago? Why is that ok? And why is that a good reason to not allow 2 people get married? Explain how it is for yours please...
I'm just curious how you feel it's ok to limit ones rights to have a child with the one they love? Your defending gay marriage because you find it to be acceptable behavior, but not willing to condone "cousins" to have children an a loving relationship. It's pretty hypocritical to defends one's rights, while denying another's is it not? Clearly your not getting it. 50 years ago, it wasn't considered right by pretty much anyone. The norms of the times determines what society sees as right or wrong.
Higher risk of genetic defects, but if you argue that, you could also argue that it should be against the law for women over the age for 40 to reproduce, so I don't argue that. I have no issues with cousins. Its when an adult figure could have manipulated a child for 18 years to think that they should marry their brother or dad or mom or etc that I have a problem with. Right. Should we get into the things that were accepted 50 years ago that are seen as wrong now?
Trust me, I'm not arguing in favor of incestual relationships. Just point out the fact that there are other portions of society that have their "rights" denied as well. So it's still not equality for all.
Regardless if you are for or against it it's just putting up one flag after taking down another. For every new freedom granted, something else is banned. We as people are making no ground, government is just scratching a different back on a different day. I hope people realize that.
I think most rational people do, thus why we should celebrate when we do actually gain more freedom as a society.
Hook beat me to the answer for you. I also already said that in both of my last 2 responses to the incest question. Health. Its unhealthy to their child. Its a totally different argument. 2 same sex people arnt doing any harm to others. Cousins, if they have a child, run high risks of birth defects and things of that nature.
If seeing people bicker back and forth on something they fundamentally disagree on is called celebrating then maybe celebrating isn't the right word for it. Maybe just leave it be and end the "debate". Threads like this is where the term "beating a dead horse" came from.
That's a totally invalid argument. Science has proven that alcohol causes birth defects in children, yet it is still completely legal to drink while pregnant. Same thing goes for smoking. You can't use that as an argument, while allowing people to participate in other well known high risk activities legally.
Omg just admit you don't like gay people, my gosh. We now have incest, smoking and drinking brought into this thread. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Haha are you serious? How is this a post against gay rights? And above that, they are illegal, until you are old enough to make an educated choice to use them. And want honesty? I think it makes soooooooooo much more sense to ban drinking and smoking, then gay marriage. My awesome (tooting my horn of course) line from earlier, you cant get second hand gay. Or kill someone driving under the influence of gay (obviously just playing around with words, of course someone gay could kill someone in a car wreck, if you want to get literal on my word choice). So how is this a valid argument against gay marriage?
The funny part about this whole argument with you, is that you actually think I'm arguing in opposition of gay marriage. Not one single time have I said I was opposed to gay marriage. Not once. I gave reasons why I felt the Supreme Court does not have the authority to make this decision. I gave you an example of how there are other portions of the population that still do not have equal rights, and you said you were for them being able to marry each other, but also advocated prohibiting them to breed. You gave the reasoning for that prohibition of those people breeding, as possible birth defects. I merely pointed out that there are many other well known causes of birth defects, yet those actions are not illegal. You are attempting to interject morals in the argument, and my point is that you don't have the right to make decisions how other people live their lives, and the choices they make.
