The Quandary Christians Put Gays In

[MaryL]

The OP's original conceit is flawed. I am agnostic, by the way. I don't believe homosexuality is comparable to Heterosexuality. The concept of "GAY rights" implies that gays are being denied the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...they can love anyone they want, they can live anywhere they want, vote, drive etc... I think a lot of people buy that gay agenda logic that says gays MUST be allowed to marry in the name of EQUALITY. There is an underlying dream logic to this, backed up with opinions and presumptions, that some of us just wont accept until it is logically explained. The first conceit is that Heterosexuality IS exactly the same as Homosexuality, and how people came to that conclusion. I am not seeing this jump in logic.

 

[Dragonlady]

Marriage is intact. It is a fallacy to say that gay marriage diminishes marriage in any way. My marriage has not been diminished or impacted in any way whatsoever in the 10 years that gays have been allowed to marry in Canada.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So here I am, a Christian, telling my fellow Christians that the solution may be to start talking TO homosexuals instead of about them; to forge friendships like I have and gain a new perspective and try to see the world through their eyes.

As a Christian, I have done all those things. I have two gay friends I met in 2011, another in 2012. But what I cannot do is see the world "through their eyes" nor they through mine. We can reach a mutual understanding about what we believe, but I know in my Christian beliefs that same sex marriage is sinful; but I also know I have no place telling them whom to marry. They understand those beliefs, yet still they are my friends and vise versa.

Well, that is for the exception of the lesbian.

To this day she still takes any amount of criticism against homosexuality as a capital offense, will attack you at the drop of a hat for doing so, and will not stop until you agree "not to be a bigot." I know I was a victim of her wrath. We were Facebook friends at one point (and still are). When I previously stated my opposition to same sex marriage on my Facebook page a couple of years ago, she was the first to attempt to tear me down. We unfriended each other for a while, all because I stood up to her, and made her understand that she couldn't bend me to her will. She saw me as her enemy, but I flatly told her, "I want to be your friend, not your enemy."

I am now the only conservative (at least that I know of) that can get away with voicing my opinion on the subject. "What kind of friend would wrap you so far around her finger as to not allow dissenting opinions of homosexuality?" you ask. By all rights, I shouldn't even have her as a friend, agreed. But! I'm trying to be an ambassador of good will. Not a political or social opponent.

Difference is, I support gay marriage now. Even still, I have problems with it. I wonder if any gay person could understand the conflict in conscience that occurs within the minds of Christians who disagree with their way of life, but want to be as tolerant and accepting of them as they can without compromising their closely held religious beliefs?

 

[Syriusly]

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

Not at all, most of us oppose it, but what reasonable legal argument is there now that the limiting factors of the law have been made moot?

It's a paradox.

No paradox exists except in the minds of people who don't want homosexuals to marry.

Wow you are a fool.

Arguing for one alternative lifestyle while denying others kinda makes you......

Look silly.

Feel free to quote me where I have argued to deny 'others' anything.

Really you were doing so well so far- no need to start lying about what I say now.

Oh, I misunderstood then, you support polygamy and incest?
)

You clearly do misunderstand.

Feel free to quote me where I have argued to deny 'others' anything.

Really you were doing so well so far- no need to start lying about what I say now.

 

[Syriusly]

No- and we have had this discussion before- so you know the reason why.

States can and do pass laws requiring that First cousins prove that they cannot procreate (i.e. degrade the blood line) before they are allowed to marry.

States could have passed laws allowing siblings to marry under the same condition- the ruling that allows same gender couples to marry does not change that.

The question then becomes- do you have an argument why siblings who are unable to procreate shouldn't be allowed to marry- like their First Cousins can?

If you don't have an argument today- then you didn't have an argument 2 weeks ago.

No they couldn't because there were limiting portions of the law that did not discriminate

Your desperation by bringing up first cousins is cute as hell though.

Let's see how this now will work, using your logic.

First cousin homosexual cousins can marry without providing any proof. The straight couple MUST.

The GAY COUPLE WILL HAVE TO DO LESS TO MARRY, giving them greater access under the law.

You cannot make this chit up folks!

And where does the law say that the Gay couple will not have to provide that proof?

The law says that the female must provide proof of reaching age 55 or both parties must provide proof of sterilzation.

That law will still be in effect- nothing changes.

Now back to my point which you seem desperate to avoid:

States can and do allow marriages where they require the couple to prove that they cannot procreate.

So States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirements- but they still do not allow Siblings to marry.

Would you be okay with Siblings marrying under the same provisions as First Cousins?

If not- why not?

Provide proof THEY CAN'T PROCREATE TOGETHER?

You are off the deep end dude?

You can either respond to my post- or you can do your denial dance away from it as you did

And where does the law say that the Gay couple will not have to provide that proof?

The law says that the female must provide proof of reaching age 55 or both parties must provide proof of sterilzation.

That law will still be in effect- nothing changes.

Now back to my point which you seem desperate to avoid:

States can and do allow marriages where they require the couple to prove that 'females have reached the age of 55 or both parties provide proof of sterilization'

So States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirements- but they still do not allow Siblings to marry.

Would you be okay with Siblings marrying under the same provisions as First Cousins?

If not- why not?

I know YOU WANT to minimize what this law did, but it WAS THIS order that caused the problems dude because it made the limiting portions of the law moot.

Let's look at your ridiculous first cousin example:

Would the gay couple be required to be over 55 to marry to insure they can't PROCREATE? That would be absurdity at its finest.

The gay first cousins are asked: how can we be assured you can't procreate?

Answer: "we're gay and same sex, procreation is biologically impossible"

The straight first cousins answer, we first went through medical testing to see if we were fertile the we each had to go through a medical proceedure, then retested to make sure we couldn't.

See dude, the gay first cousins have greater and more direct access to the right to marry.

Again, you simply can't make this shit up!

If not, why not?

Can you imagine the stupidity if making a law saying gay couples must provide medical proof they can't procreate?

Damn, that's got lawsuit written all over it dood.

You just keep dancing- and not addressing the issue- but how can you- because your argument is Failure.

IF your only argument against sibling marriage is 'procreation' then that argument failed long before SSM was decided.

As I pointed out- States allow First Cousins can marry- as long as they prove that they cannot procreate.

States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirement- but they do not.

IF you cannot come up with any argument why States should allow First Cousins to marry(if they cannot procreate) but should not allow Siblings to marry(if they cannot procreate) then once again- your problem is you have no argument against sibling marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

The OP's original conceit is flawed. I am agnostic, by the way. I don't believe homosexuality is comparable to Heterosexuality. The concept of "GAY rights" implies that gays are being denied the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...they can love anyone they want, they can live anywhere they want, vote, drive etc... I think a lot of people buy that gay agenda logic that says gays MUST be allowed to marry in the name of EQUALITY. There is an underlying dream logic to this, backed up with opinions and presumptions, that some of us just wont accept until it is logically explained. The first conceit is that Heterosexuality IS exactly the same as Homosexuality, and how people came to that conclusion. I am not seeing this jump in logic.

The concept of "Gay Rights" implies that they want to be treated under the law equally.

And they have not been. When "Gay Rights" movement started- it was illegal for homosexuals to have sex together in many states- there were laws mandating the firing of homosexuals.

Your first conceit is overlooking that homosexuals have not been treated equally.
Your second conceit is saying that we are saying the homosexuality is exactly the same as heterosexuality- which is as false as saying that men are the same as women.

What we are saying is that homosexuals should be treated equally before the law as heterosexuals are- just as men and women are treated equally before the law.

 

[Syriusly]

So here I am, a Christian, telling my fellow Christians that the solution may be to start talking TO homosexuals instead of about them; to forge friendships like I have and gain a new perspective and try to see the world through their eyes.

Difference is, I support gay marriage now. Even still, I have problems with it. I wonder if any gay person could understand the conflict in conscience that occurs within the minds of Christians who disagree with their way of life, but want to be as tolerant and accepting of them as they can without compromising their closely held religious beliefs?

I have had many conversations with Christians friends who disagree with my way of life- primarily my lack of belief in God. We normally establish some form of truce where they live with their belief that I will ultimately go to hell, and I don't tell them how I feel about their beliefs.

Most homosexuals I know have family members who struggle with their homosexuality- and are very familiar with the struggle you describe- and they manage to get along with them fine.

Its pretty much the same thing as we have all learned to do- You don't go out of your way to tell me I am going to hell, I dont' go out of my way to tell you that what I think about your religion- and most of us get along.

Here on the boards- it is easier to be strident- look at how Saint presented his rather moderate position and how strident the responses have been to his posts.

 

[FA_Q2]

No they couldn't because there were limiting portions of the law that did not discriminate

Your desperation by bringing up first cousins is cute as hell though.

Let's see how this now will work, using your logic.

First cousin homosexual cousins can marry without providing any proof. The straight couple MUST.

The GAY COUPLE WILL HAVE TO DO LESS TO MARRY, giving them greater access under the law.

You cannot make this chit up folks!

And where does the law say that the Gay couple will not have to provide that proof?

The law says that the female must provide proof of reaching age 55 or both parties must provide proof of sterilzation.

That law will still be in effect- nothing changes.

Now back to my point which you seem desperate to avoid:

States can and do allow marriages where they require the couple to prove that they cannot procreate.

So States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirements- but they still do not allow Siblings to marry.

Would you be okay with Siblings marrying under the same provisions as First Cousins?

If not- why not?

Provide proof THEY CAN'T PROCREATE TOGETHER?

You are off the deep end dude?

You can either respond to my post- or you can do your denial dance away from it as you did

And where does the law say that the Gay couple will not have to provide that proof?

The law says that the female must provide proof of reaching age 55 or both parties must provide proof of sterilzation.

That law will still be in effect- nothing changes.

Now back to my point which you seem desperate to avoid:

States can and do allow marriages where they require the couple to prove that 'females have reached the age of 55 or both parties provide proof of sterilization'

So States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirements- but they still do not allow Siblings to marry.

Would you be okay with Siblings marrying under the same provisions as First Cousins?

If not- why not?

I know YOU WANT to minimize what this law did, but it WAS THIS order that caused the problems dude because it made the limiting portions of the law moot.

Let's look at your ridiculous first cousin example:

Would the gay couple be required to be over 55 to marry to insure they can't PROCREATE? That would be absurdity at its finest.

The gay first cousins are asked: how can we be assured you can't procreate?

Answer: "we're gay and same sex, procreation is biologically impossible"

The straight first cousins answer, we first went through medical testing to see if we were fertile the we each had to go through a medical proceedure, then retested to make sure we couldn't.

See dude, the gay first cousins have greater and more direct access to the right to marry.

Again, you simply can't make this shit up!

If not, why not?

Can you imagine the stupidity if making a law saying gay couples must provide medical proof they can't procreate?

Damn, that's got lawsuit written all over it dood.

You just keep dancing- and not addressing the issue- but how can you- because your argument is Failure.

IF your only argument against sibling marriage is 'procreation' then that argument failed long before SSM was decided.

As I pointed out- States allow First Cousins can marry- as long as they prove that they cannot procreate.

States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirement- but they do not.

IF you cannot come up with any argument why States should allow First Cousins to marry(if they cannot procreate) but should not allow Siblings to marry(if they cannot procreate) then once again- your problem is you have no argument against sibling marriage.

That really goes against the idea that marriage is a sacred and protected right as well though - what right does the state have to deny a marriage (now a protected right) to siblings as well?

I think that the general idea that it is because of higher birth defects is seriously lacking considering the state does not deny those that suffer from congenital diseases that are FAR MORE likely to be passed on than the likelihood of birth defects from inter-family relationships is not denied. Under that same concept - you have the right to marry your sister.

 

[MaryL]

A few seconds after I came back to this thread, I got a message from my internet security program that someone or thing was attacking my PC. That isn't the fist time that has happened on USMB. I don't want to be paranoid, but I get the feeling somebody with a pro liberal agenda is trying to do a little culling of contrary opinions. Or maybe it's just a random coincidence.

 

[The T]

Not a religious discussion, a discussion on cultural perspectives.

I do mix it up in our discussions about gay culture and to me it's largely sport, but there's another part of me that attempts to see these social issues through the eyes of gay people. Two of the closest friends of my family happen to be gay, a woman I've known since I was in Junior High who was a teacher of mine and her partner. They are getting married this month and we will be enthusiastic attenders. My trust in them is implicit to the point they often babysit our 4 kids and are called Aunt by them. Yes they are that close.

So their up and coming wedding has gotten me thinking about the issue of gay marriage in the Christian church. They are Christians and church goers, attending a Reconciling congregation, the kind more accepting of gays and gay marriage.

I'm extremely happy for them, so is my wife and my in laws who are somewhat to very progressive. It occurs to me to wonder why happily married Christians would deny nuptial bliss to any couple that love each other. Here's the issue gays are put in by Christians. They're told that the lifestyle is sinful and that they should either abstain from sex altogether or get married to a person of the opposite sex. Many men have done that, living a lie until the lie gets too great and they revert back to their sexual set point, often cheating on their wives in secretive dalliances or outright abandoning their family.

Exhibit A:

Option B is not any better. St. Paul himself said that it is better for a man to marry than to burn with desire. Since Exodus International has demonstrated to us that it's not possible to "pray the gay away" or use therapy to change one's sexual orientation, what choice do they have? Let's review the choices again:

1. Marry a person of the opposite sex and live a lie with disastrous results that hurt an innocent wife and children.

2. Burn with sexual desire until the desire becomes to great and men hook up with other men, often multiple partners increasing the chances for STD's and drug abuse.

3. Same sex marriage; marrying a person they are attracted to and can love for the rest of their lives in a committed manner.

I'm going to be honest, though I don't like the Supreme Court circumventing the constitutional and republican form of government that clearly puts this issue to the states to decide, I'm also not of the opinion that our civilization is imperiled because people who love each other are getting married. I'm just not.

So here I am, a Christian, telling my fellow Christians that the solution may be to start talking TO homosexuals instead of about them; to forge friendships like I have and gain a new perspective and try to see the world through their eyes.

I have and I got no regrets about it.

 

[FA_Q2]

No.

If that's what you believe, then you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Love is common, love is all around us, love finds us a hundred times in a lifetime. Marriage is not love. Marriage is the life that exists between two people. It is the bond that two people share that brings them both to a mutual commitment. Marriage is when two people look at each other, and their souls ignite on fire to say "This is the one person I love more than all others. This one person is the highest expression of my ability to love another human being."

Maybe that's too complicated for you to understand. Maybe that's been the whole problem with this entire issue all along; those of us who have been advocating for same sex marriage have been assuming that you had the requisite maturity to understand what it means to love someone such that you are ready to spend the rest of your life with them.

Why do you insist that such a feeling or reality is not possible in a group of three individuals?

It is strange:

It seems for them to attempt to have their "alternative lifestyle" normalized, they must exclude others that are no more bizarre than there own?

Hell, throw nudists and naturist in this whole mess. Don't their lifestyle deserve the same dignity and happiness as homosexuality?

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

Not at all, most of us oppose it, but what reasonable legal argument is there now that the limiting factors of the law have been made moot?

It's a paradox.

No paradox exists except in the minds of people who don't want homosexuals to marry.

Sorry but that is utterly false. The paradox is there if you oppose some groups access to the right of marriage but not others based on virtually nothing.

I ardently support gay marriage and I clearly see the rank hypocrisy.

 

[The T]

Not a religious discussion, a discussion on cultural perspectives.

I do mix it up in our discussions about gay culture and to me it's largely sport, but there's another part of me that attempts to see these social issues through the eyes of gay people. Two of the closest friends of my family happen to be gay, a woman I've known since I was in Junior High who was a teacher of mine and her partner. They are getting married this month and we will be enthusiastic attenders. My trust in them is implicit to the point they often babysit our 4 kids and are called Aunt by them. Yes they are that close.

So their up and coming wedding has gotten me thinking about the issue of gay marriage in the Christian church. They are Christians and church goers, attending a Reconciling congregation, the kind more accepting of gays and gay marriage.

I'm extremely happy for them, so is my wife and my in laws who are somewhat to very progressive. It occurs to me to wonder why happily married Christians would deny nuptial bliss to any couple that love each other. Here's the issue gays are put in by Christians. They're told that the lifestyle is sinful and that they should either abstain from sex altogether or get married to a person of the opposite sex. Many men have done that, living a lie until the lie gets too great and they revert back to their sexual set point, often cheating on their wives in secretive dalliances or outright abandoning their family.

Exhibit A:

Option B is not any better. St. Paul himself said that it is better for a man to marry than to burn with desire. Since Exodus International has demonstrated to us that it's not possible to "pray the gay away" or use therapy to change one's sexual orientation, what choice do they have? Let's review the choices again:

1. Marry a person of the opposite sex and live a lie with disastrous results that hurt an innocent wife and children.

2. Burn with sexual desire until the desire becomes to great and men hook up with other men, often multiple partners increasing the chances for STD's and drug abuse.

3. Same sex marriage; marrying a person they are attracted to and can love for the rest of their lives in a committed manner.

I'm going to be honest, though I don't like the Supreme Court circumventing the constitutional and republican form of government that clearly puts this issue to the states to decide, I'm also not of the opinion that our civilization is imperiled because people who love each other are getting married. I'm just not.

So here I am, a Christian, telling my fellow Christians that the solution may be to start talking TO homosexuals instead of about them; to forge friendships like I have and gain a new perspective and try to see the world through their eyes.

I have and I got no regrets about it.

WHAT "QUANDRY", exactly? GOD...the Creator of Heaven and EARTH says it's WRONG. /Discussion. The Quandry belongs to those that disbelieve and MOCK that which made them and set fourth the LAW of LIFE. WHY do Humans have to parse it? WRONG is WRONG...again? End Discussion.

 

[FA_Q2]

That author isn't committing any sort of fallacy whatsoever, because no one's talking about "a different kind of love". They're talking about EXACTLY the same sort of love . . . just over a larger number of people.

No.

If that's what you believe, then you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Love is common, love is all around us, love finds us a hundred times in a lifetime. Marriage is not love. Marriage is the life that exists between two people. It is the bond that two people share that brings them both to a mutual commitment. Marriage is when two people look at each other, and their souls ignite on fire to say "This is the one person I love more than all others. This one person is the highest expression of my ability to love another human being."

Maybe that's too complicated for you to understand. Maybe that's been the whole problem with this entire issue all along; those of us who have been advocating for same sex marriage have been assuming that you had the requisite maturity to understand what it means to love someone such that you are ready to spend the rest of your life with them.

Why do you insist that such a feeling or reality is not possible in a group of three individuals?

It is strange:

It seems for them to attempt to have their "alternative lifestyle" normalized, they must exclude others that are no more bizarre than there own?

Hell, throw nudists and naturist in this whole mess. Don't their lifestyle deserve the same dignity and happiness as homosexuality?

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

They are, for the most part, simply acknowledging the reality made with this decision and recent legal moves that make marriage a right. I agree with the idea and implementation but I also believe that it must be followed to its conclusion. It is hypocritical to demand that the right must be protected for gay couples and then suddenly support other couples being barred from marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

And where does the law say that the Gay couple will not have to provide that proof?

The law says that the female must provide proof of reaching age 55 or both parties must provide proof of sterilzation.

That law will still be in effect- nothing changes.

Now back to my point which you seem desperate to avoid:

States can and do allow marriages where they require the couple to prove that they cannot procreate.

So States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirements- but they still do not allow Siblings to marry.

Would you be okay with Siblings marrying under the same provisions as First Cousins?

If not- why not?

Provide proof THEY CAN'T PROCREATE TOGETHER?

You are off the deep end dude?

You can either respond to my post- or you can do your denial dance away from it as you did

And where does the law say that the Gay couple will not have to provide that proof?

The law says that the female must provide proof of reaching age 55 or both parties must provide proof of sterilzation.

That law will still be in effect- nothing changes.

Now back to my point which you seem desperate to avoid:

States can and do allow marriages where they require the couple to prove that 'females have reached the age of 55 or both parties provide proof of sterilization'

So States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirements- but they still do not allow Siblings to marry.

Would you be okay with Siblings marrying under the same provisions as First Cousins?

If not- why not?

I know YOU WANT to minimize what this law did, but it WAS THIS order that caused the problems dude because it made the limiting portions of the law moot.

Let's look at your ridiculous first cousin example:

Would the gay couple be required to be over 55 to marry to insure they can't PROCREATE? That would be absurdity at its finest.

The gay first cousins are asked: how can we be assured you can't procreate?

Answer: "we're gay and same sex, procreation is biologically impossible"

The straight first cousins answer, we first went through medical testing to see if we were fertile the we each had to go through a medical proceedure, then retested to make sure we couldn't.

See dude, the gay first cousins have greater and more direct access to the right to marry.

Again, you simply can't make this shit up!

If not, why not?

Can you imagine the stupidity if making a law saying gay couples must provide medical proof they can't procreate?

Damn, that's got lawsuit written all over it dood.

You just keep dancing- and not addressing the issue- but how can you- because your argument is Failure.

IF your only argument against sibling marriage is 'procreation' then that argument failed long before SSM was decided.

As I pointed out- States allow First Cousins can marry- as long as they prove that they cannot procreate.

States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirement- but they do not.

IF you cannot come up with any argument why States should allow First Cousins to marry(if they cannot procreate) but should not allow Siblings to marry(if they cannot procreate) then once again- your problem is you have no argument against sibling marriage.

That really goes against the idea that marriage is a sacred and protected right as well though - what right does the state have to deny a marriage (now a protected right) to siblings as well?.

'idea that marriage is a sacred and protected right'- Marriage is a right of all Americans.

States can only deny that right with a compelling interest.

The Supreme Court has overturned State laws 4 times now based upon that concept

• Bans on Mixed Race marriages
• Bans on marriages if parents owe child support
• Bans on inmates marrying
• Bans on same gender marriage.

4 times- 4 very different cases- but in each case the State was asked to provide a compelling reason to deny that right to the persons who wanted to marry.

So as I keep saying- You either have an argument against Sibling marriage or you don't.

If your only argument was they shouldn't have children together- then States could allow them to marry once they prove that they cannot have children together as some states allow First Cousins to marry now.

So you need another argument- and if you don't have that argument- then you didn't have that argument 2 weeks ago either.

 

[FA_Q2]

That author isn't committing any sort of fallacy whatsoever, because no one's talking about "a different kind of love". They're talking about EXACTLY the same sort of love . . . just over a larger number of people.

No.

If that's what you believe, then you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Love is common, love is all around us, love finds us a hundred times in a lifetime. Marriage is not love. Marriage is the life that exists between two people. It is the bond that two people share that brings them both to a mutual commitment. Marriage is when two people look at each other, and their souls ignite on fire to say "This is the one person I love more than all others. This one person is the highest expression of my ability to love another human being."

Maybe that's too complicated for you to understand. Maybe that's been the whole problem with this entire issue all along; those of us who have been advocating for same sex marriage have been assuming that you had the requisite maturity to understand what it means to love someone such that you are ready to spend the rest of your life with them.

Why do you insist that such a feeling or reality is not possible in a group of three individuals?

By definition, to love someone more than everyone else, you cannot love two people as such. By definition, if two people love each other as such, it is mathematically impossible for a third person to be included.

Emotional threesomes are much like sexual threesomes....there's always one person who gets left out more than the other two.

No, that is your false perception of multiple partners. There are plenty of people all over the world with successful partnerships that involve more than 2 people. That is simply a fact. It is also true that many do not work out but that is not for YOU to decide OR judge but for them.

That has nothing to do with denying them marriage rights however.

 

[Syriusly]

A few seconds after I came back to this thread, I got a message from my internet security program that someone or thing was attacking my PC. That isn't the fist time that has happened on USMB. I don't want to be paranoid, but I get the feeling somebody with a pro liberal agenda is trying to do a little culling of contrary opinions. Or maybe it's just a random coincidence.

Or it could be paranoia.

 

[FA_Q2]

Provide proof THEY CAN'T PROCREATE TOGETHER?

You are off the deep end dude?

You can either respond to my post- or you can do your denial dance away from it as you did

And where does the law say that the Gay couple will not have to provide that proof?

The law says that the female must provide proof of reaching age 55 or both parties must provide proof of sterilzation.

That law will still be in effect- nothing changes.

Now back to my point which you seem desperate to avoid:

States can and do allow marriages where they require the couple to prove that 'females have reached the age of 55 or both parties provide proof of sterilization'

So States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirements- but they still do not allow Siblings to marry.

Would you be okay with Siblings marrying under the same provisions as First Cousins?

If not- why not?

I know YOU WANT to minimize what this law did, but it WAS THIS order that caused the problems dude because it made the limiting portions of the law moot.

Let's look at your ridiculous first cousin example:

Would the gay couple be required to be over 55 to marry to insure they can't PROCREATE? That would be absurdity at its finest.

The gay first cousins are asked: how can we be assured you can't procreate?

Answer: "we're gay and same sex, procreation is biologically impossible"

The straight first cousins answer, we first went through medical testing to see if we were fertile the we each had to go through a medical proceedure, then retested to make sure we couldn't.

See dude, the gay first cousins have greater and more direct access to the right to marry.

Again, you simply can't make this shit up!

If not, why not?

Can you imagine the stupidity if making a law saying gay couples must provide medical proof they can't procreate?

Damn, that's got lawsuit written all over it dood.

You just keep dancing- and not addressing the issue- but how can you- because your argument is Failure.

IF your only argument against sibling marriage is 'procreation' then that argument failed long before SSM was decided.

As I pointed out- States allow First Cousins can marry- as long as they prove that they cannot procreate.

States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirement- but they do not.

IF you cannot come up with any argument why States should allow First Cousins to marry(if they cannot procreate) but should not allow Siblings to marry(if they cannot procreate) then once again- your problem is you have no argument against sibling marriage.

That really goes against the idea that marriage is a sacred and protected right as well though - what right does the state have to deny a marriage (now a protected right) to siblings as well?.

'idea that marriage is a sacred and protected right'- Marriage is a right of all Americans.

States can only deny that right with a compelling interest.

The Supreme Court has overturned State laws 4 times now based upon that concept

• Bans on Mixed Race marriages
• Bans on marriages if parents owe child support
• Bans on inmates marrying
• Bans on same gender marriage.

4 times- 4 very different cases- but in each case the State was asked to provide a compelling reason to deny that right to the persons who wanted to marry.

So as I keep saying- You either have an argument against Sibling marriage or you don't.

If your only argument was they shouldn't have children together- then States could allow them to marry once they prove that they cannot have children together as some states allow First Cousins to marry now.

So you need another argument- and if you don't have that argument- then you didn't have that argument 2 weeks ago either.

....

You are talking to two different posters here. I commented on your conversation with pop because I think that there is a logical problem with the mentioned situation but I do not support his stances on marriage. I do not have an argument for siblings to not marry (as I clearly pointed out) as I actually support that marriage being legally recognized.

 

[Syriusly]

That author isn't committing any sort of fallacy whatsoever, because no one's talking about "a different kind of love". They're talking about EXACTLY the same sort of love . . . just over a larger number of people.

No.

If that's what you believe, then you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Love is common, love is all around us, love finds us a hundred times in a lifetime. Marriage is not love. Marriage is the life that exists between two people. It is the bond that two people share that brings them both to a mutual commitment. Marriage is when two people look at each other, and their souls ignite on fire to say "This is the one person I love more than all others. This one person is the highest expression of my ability to love another human being."

Maybe that's too complicated for you to understand. Maybe that's been the whole problem with this entire issue all along; those of us who have been advocating for same sex marriage have been assuming that you had the requisite maturity to understand what it means to love someone such that you are ready to spend the rest of your life with them.

Why do you insist that such a feeling or reality is not possible in a group of three individuals?

It is strange:

It seems for them to attempt to have their "alternative lifestyle" normalized, they must exclude others that are no more bizarre than there own?

Hell, throw nudists and naturist in this whole mess. Don't their lifestyle deserve the same dignity and happiness as homosexuality?

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

They are, for the most part, simply acknowledging the reality made with this decision and recent legal moves that make marriage a right. I agree with the idea and implementation but I also believe that it must be followed to its conclusion. It is hypocritical to demand that the right must be protected for gay couples and then suddenly support other couples being barred from marriage.

Marriage has been a right all along- the courts recognized that right about 80 years ago.

This is the fourth time the Supreme Court has overturned State laws based upon that right of marriage.

The hypocrisy comes from those on the right- who oppose same gender marriage- suddenly arguing on behalf of sibling marriage and polygamy- even though they actually don't support any of them.

 

[The T]

Provide proof THEY CAN'T PROCREATE TOGETHER?

You are off the deep end dude?

You can either respond to my post- or you can do your denial dance away from it as you did

And where does the law say that the Gay couple will not have to provide that proof?

The law says that the female must provide proof of reaching age 55 or both parties must provide proof of sterilzation.

That law will still be in effect- nothing changes.

Now back to my point which you seem desperate to avoid:

States can and do allow marriages where they require the couple to prove that 'females have reached the age of 55 or both parties provide proof of sterilization'

So States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirements- but they still do not allow Siblings to marry.

Would you be okay with Siblings marrying under the same provisions as First Cousins?

If not- why not?

I know YOU WANT to minimize what this law did, but it WAS THIS order that caused the problems dude because it made the limiting portions of the law moot.

Let's look at your ridiculous first cousin example:

Would the gay couple be required to be over 55 to marry to insure they can't PROCREATE? That would be absurdity at its finest.

The gay first cousins are asked: how can we be assured you can't procreate?

Answer: "we're gay and same sex, procreation is biologically impossible"

The straight first cousins answer, we first went through medical testing to see if we were fertile the we each had to go through a medical proceedure, then retested to make sure we couldn't.

See dude, the gay first cousins have greater and more direct access to the right to marry.

Again, you simply can't make this shit up!

If not, why not?

Can you imagine the stupidity if making a law saying gay couples must provide medical proof they can't procreate?

Damn, that's got lawsuit written all over it dood.

You just keep dancing- and not addressing the issue- but how can you- because your argument is Failure.

IF your only argument against sibling marriage is 'procreation' then that argument failed long before SSM was decided.

As I pointed out- States allow First Cousins can marry- as long as they prove that they cannot procreate.

States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirement- but they do not.

IF you cannot come up with any argument why States should allow First Cousins to marry(if they cannot procreate) but should not allow Siblings to marry(if they cannot procreate) then once again- your problem is you have no argument against sibling marriage.

That really goes against the idea that marriage is a sacred and protected right as well though - what right does the state have to deny a marriage (now a protected right) to siblings as well?.

'idea that marriage is a sacred and protected right'- Marriage is a right of all Americans.

States can only deny that right with a compelling interest.

The Supreme Court has overturned State laws 4 times now based upon that concept

• Bans on Mixed Race marriages
• Bans on marriages if parents owe child support
• Bans on inmates marrying
• Bans on same gender marriage.

4 times- 4 very different cases- but in each case the State was asked to provide a compelling reason to deny that right to the persons who wanted to marry.

So as I keep saying- You either have an argument against Sibling marriage or you don't.

If your only argument was they shouldn't have children together- then States could allow them to marry once they prove that they cannot have children together as some states allow First Cousins to marry now.

So you need another argument- and if you don't have that argument- then you didn't have that argument 2 weeks ago either.

WHY PARSE "Marriage"? GOD created MAN and WOMAN to be with each other for procreation. GOD was very specific. The SCOTUS is WAYOUT of line...and those that agree with the decision including the "Justices" will have some heavy explaining to do before they are sent to where they belong by the ONE that made the original LAWS OF NATURE that out Founders acknowledged, and BUILT this Republic upon.

Learn it, Live it KNOW IT.

 

[MaryL]

The OP's original conceit is flawed. I am agnostic, by the way. I don't believe homosexuality is comparable to Heterosexuality. The concept of "GAY rights" implies that gays are being denied the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...they can love anyone they want, they can live anywhere they want, vote, drive etc... I think a lot of people buy that gay agenda logic that says gays MUST be allowed to marry in the name of EQUALITY. There is an underlying dream logic to this, backed up with opinions and presumptions, that some of us just wont accept until it is logically explained. The first conceit is that Heterosexuality IS exactly the same as Homosexuality, and how people came to that conclusion. I am not seeing this jump in logic.

The concept of "Gay Rights" implies that they want to be treated under the law equally.

And they have not been. When "Gay Rights" movement started- it was illegal for homosexuals to have sex together in many states- there were laws mandating the firing of homosexuals.

Your first conceit is overlooking that homosexuals have not been treated equally.
Your second conceit is saying that we are saying the homosexuality is exactly the same as heterosexuality- which is as false as saying that men are the same as women.

What we are saying is that homosexuals should be treated equally before the law as heterosexuals are- just as men and women are treated equally before the law.

They already HAVE all the rights everybody else does. That was my original point. And you didn't answer my question, buy what logic, valid provable fact, does homosexuality equate to Heterosexuality? we all have opinions. I don't need to prove or disprove anything, since gays and their supporters are the ones asserting that opinion as fact. Prove it, and I am on the bus. (By the way I have LGBT relatives). I don't want to hurt anyone, just the facts, Ma'm.