Comments about ‘Hawaii gay marriage hearing stretches into 4th day’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Nov. 4 2013 8:58 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@Tekakaromatagi --

"If I see two people of the same gender walking down the street, I instantly know that they cannot have children. Their union is obviously non-procreational."

Here we go again.

If you see two 70-year-old people walking down the street, you instantly know that they cannot have children. However, they may be walking down the street on the way to the church to get married.

"If a man gets married and has a child and his wife dies and he moves in with his brother, or sister or aunt, or best friend from high school, how come he can't get married?"

Brother/sister/aunt -- incest laws. Incest greatly increases the risk of harm to others; therefore the state has a substantial interest in keeping it illegal.

Best friend from high school -- he certainly *can* get married to his best friend from high school, depending on what state he lives in, if it is his intention to spend the rest of his life committed to loving that best friend.

"Marriage is society's way to give value to the idea that men should be responsible for their procreational actions."

Sorry, nope.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Tek;

Nothing you list prevents those people from marrying again; whether they can or cannot have more kids.

You keep demanding that we deny same-sex couples the right of marriage simply because they can't procreate (together) without outside help, yet you hypocritically don't deny that same right to heterosexual couples who KNOW themselves they can't procreate. A woman who has had a hysterectomy can't reproduce, SHE knows that (as do probably many others), yet you won't deny her the right to marry. WHY must you deny other similarly situated couples that right? WHY?

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

@Contrariswiser:

I brought up the case of a man living with his sister or aunt and you responded with a protestin about incest.

"Brother/sister/aunt -- incest laws. Incest greatly increases the risk of harm to others; therefore the state has a substantial interest in keeping it illegal.

You misunderstood me. I did not say that they were living in a sexual relationship. (What made you think that?)

If someone loves his aunt or his sister or his roommate (and I don't mean in a sexual way), why doesn't the government give them some sort of a special union in the same way that two people of the same gender get a special union because they say that they have sexual feelings for each other.)

Why does a sexual act between two people suddenly kick in some legally sanctioned special status?

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@Tekakaromatagi --

"You misunderstood me. I did not say that they were living in a sexual relationship. (What made you think that?)"

It doesn't matter whether they are sexually active or not. Incest laws will prevent their marriage either way.

"Why does a sexual act between two people suddenly kick in some legally sanctioned special status?"

Sex is not a requirement for marriage.

For instance, convicts in prison with no conjugal visitation rights are still allowed to marry. That right has been upheld by SCOTUS in Turner v. Safley. Similarly, people who are incapable of sex due to some physical infirmity are still allowed to marry.

You'll have to try harder than that.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

So Contrarius, if someone is living with his aunt you are going to assume that he is sleeping with his aunt? And that incest laws should kick in to prevent him from living with his aunt?

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

Trying again --

@Tekakaromatagi --

"if someone is living with his aunt you are going to assume that he is sleeping with his aunt?"

First -- nope, I never made any such assumption.
Second -- nope, incest laws won't kick in to "prevent him from living with his aunt".
Third -- yup, incest laws will kick in and prevent him from marrying his aunt, no matter where they are sleeping.

Remember -- laws are not based on the certainty of harm. They are based on the significantly increased risk of harm. Legislators don't go around examining each and every case to see whether that particular case is likely to cause harm, and they don't go around looking into bedrooms.

Refer back to drunk driving laws. Driving drunk significantly increases the risk of harm to others, so it is illegal. A few people may in fact be able to drive safely while drunk -- but that doesn't mean that drunken driving should be legalized.

Similarly -- incest is illegal because it significantly increases the risk of harm to others. A few people may be able to have incestuous marriages without causing harm -- but that doesn't mean that incest should be legalized.

Bob K
porland, OR

Overactive imaginations and paranoid delusions are at play in many comments, sadly.

None of the problems that you guys predict have taken place anywhere else that has marriage equality.(except for the 2 families in MA who manufactured a fuss about kids)

The ONLY reasons against marriage equality are not legal reasons:
1-- some churches do not know how to deal with it
2-- some people just plain do not want Gays to be equal to them in society's eye.

No Americans should have to suffer because other Americans do not understand them. I would think that lds people ought to among those who can relate to that point.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments