thank you for standing on the side of right Minn. leg.
Question:Why can't two siblings be allowed to marry? Isn't
that discrimination?And REMEMBER, as my liberal friends always tell
me on these boards, marriage has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX.That is what
I'm told over and over and over. It is about love and
commitment.Please keep that in mind when answering. NOTHING TO DO
WITH SEX.Besides, sex happens outside of marriage in most
relationships and there are marriages without sex.So again, marriage
has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX.I ask again:Why can't
two siblings/family members be married then?Is that not
Qualify for benefits?
Congrats, Minnesota! The fight for equal rights moves forward yet
another step! :-)@Chris B --"And REMEMBER, as my
liberal friends always tell me on these boards, marriage has NOTHING TO DO WITH
SEX."Once again, Chris, this simply isn't true. Please at
least TRY to tell the truth when you post a comment.As many people
HAVE told you before, marriage is about a lot of things. It's about love,
and commitment, and stability, and home-building, and family, and raising
children together, and all *sorts* of things -- yes, including, but not limited
to, sex. You can't narrow it down to just one single thing or another."Why can't two siblings/family members be married then?"One reason is that there's a whooooooole lot of anti-incest laws
preventing it. If you really want to try changing those laws, have at it. That
should only take you a few hundred years or so.But first you'll
have to find sibling/family couples that are actually *interested* in getting
married, so that they can file the lawsuits. I'm betting
you'll have an awfully hard time coming up with many of those.
""We're not. We're not," said Rep. Kelby Woodard, R-Belle
Plaine. "These are people with deeply held beliefs, including
myself.""Why should your "deeply held beliefs" trump
the civil rights of any Americans?
As an LGBT activist said to cheering audience, and I paraphrase:"The dirty little secret is we do not want marriage, we want marriage done
away with."The pursuit of Gay marriage is about the destruction
of the foundational unit of society, the traditional family, and the destruction
of any kind of definition of family.
The Israelites wanted a King and all the benefits of the countries surrounding
them. The Lord said no to that wish several times. Then he gave them righteous
men as kings to start with but Saul, David and Solomon falling on their swords,
and even Solomon raised his sword. We are espousing to be a Kingdom
again as Kings give into the moral standards of the day. They spend heavily as
they don't have a Congress to budget the funds. We have no Congress to
budget the funds now. Instead of Governing, the King goes around to his social
and media events to show how great he is. It hasn't taken long
for our country to lose it's direction even with GPS capabilities. We were
better aligned when we used the stars to guide us. At least people would look
into the heavens periodically and be amazed at all of God's creations. One fell swoop and ethics, integrity and honor have gone down in flames.
If anyone attempts to show integrity, honor and ethics, the people in the
Broadway buildings are laughing and pointing at them for being out of style.
People abuse freedoms lose freedoms.
"The pursuit of Gay marriage is about the destruction of the foundational
unit of society, the traditional family, and the destruction of any kind of
definition of family."The *truth* is that, in states and
countries where gay marriage is legal, the divorce rate among gay couples is the
same as *or lower than* the divorce rate among straight couples. The
*truth* is that states in which gay marriage is legal have some of the lowest
overall divorce rates in the entire country. The *truth* is that, in
Scandinavian countries where same-sex registered partnerships have been legal
for up to 20 years now, in the 10 years following the legalization of those
partnerships, overall marriage rates INCREASED and overall divorce rates
DECREASED (I can post these numbers from the Wall Street Journal on request).Please, guys, it's much easier to have the "civil dialogue"
that DN encourages when there is less hysteria and more actual truth. How about
giving that a try?
contrarian,So are you suggesting that marriage is needed as a
permission slip from the government to have sex?That is what you are
suggesting if you are saying two family members can't marry in order for
incest to not happenBesides, two brothers have never and will never
procreate and create children with abnormalities.Want to know
why?Because God didn't want two members of the same gender to
be able to have children.Again,are you suggesting that
the government has to approval all sexual relationships, and that this is done
by a marriage certificate?
@Chris B --"That is what you are suggesting if you are saying
two family members can't marry in order for incest to not happen"You're not even making sense, Chris.If you are really
interested in working towards allowing siblings to marry, go for it. But do keep
in mind that first you'll have to find sibling pairs who are actually
*interested* in getting married. The courts won't even consider it unless
you first find people who have "standing" on the issue -- that means,
people who are personally affected by the anti-incest laws. I
won't be holding my breath while you're out there looking."Because God didn't want two members of the same gender to be able to
have children."Yeah, and if God had meant for us to fly,
he'd have given us wings.Cmon, Chris. Less hysteria and more
facts would really help towards having a "civil dialogue".
@Chris BWhile I normally enjoy your posts and find them entertaining and
sometimes insightful your comments here show a lack of understanding of
reasonable moral and political dialogue. Your red herring argument about
"sibling marriage" was a weak attempt at arguing against same sex
marriage. Incest laws protect against health and genetic degradation as well as
the sexual abuse inherent in most incest cases. There is no such threat with
same sex marriage.I think the crisis of conscience for lds church
members (of which I'm a part) is that we believe in a God of agency as well
as a God of morality. The constitution does not create or establish moral
values, it protects the moral values you and I choose as well as our rights
against opression, as long as those values don't infringe on the rights of
others. Gays and lesbians have agency like anyone else, and to rob them of it
would also go against gods teachings. And since I find no instance where their
marriage infringes on my rights, to deny them of that right is to uphold the
very oppression the constitution protects us against..
Morally I don't believe in same sex marriage, but my moral values should
NEVER trump agency or liberty...we've seen the sad historical calamities
that have come about because churches or leaders sought to impose their moral
values on people. The consequence of such imposition and oppression is tyranny
and facism, and I think we all agree that's not what we want.
I am so proud and glad to live in a state that will NEVER allow gay marriage.
@well informed --"I am so proud and glad to live in a state that
will NEVER allow gay marriage."Don't count on that. ;-)