I would never EVER marry someone I do not care for. It's an ancient idea that needs to be corrected. No one I know marries for the sake of the community. They marry for love, they marry because they WANT to spend their lives together, not because they feel they have to.

I grew up without my father and I turned out just fine. My mother never once married nor does she wish to. I will not spend my life in misery with someone I do not want to be with just to make society happy. After all society isn't who is sleeping with my spouse, (and if it's a woman neither am I), society doesn't have to live with my spouse, society doesn't pay my bills nor do they deal with the fights and arguments of an unhappy couple.

I never want to marry anyways, and I sure don't want to have kids in a society like this. My roommate (he's heterosexual and religious) feels that marriage should just be abolished as there is no sensible need for it anymore. I'm starting to agree with him.

I always thought marriage was about love and a desire to be with the person you love for the rest of your life, not about making society around you happy.

There is no laws in this country that are in any way referenced to the bible or enforced by the bible.

The United states does not have a Christian police force or military.

There are no laws written by the church or enforced by the church.

There are no laws for not believing or following a single word related to Christianity or the bible.

There are no laws against insulting Christianity or Christians.

Christianity in no way prevents you from doing what ever you want to do in this country.

No, I do not think Americans would jump to have sibling marriage made legal. And before that could even be considered, there is still an pre-existing issue of law – incestuous sex is illegal.



Are you asking if sibling marriage was sought after and denied, that the denial would be blamed of the religious community? Sorry I don’t understand your question so I will answer this way:

There are a lot logical reasons as to why incest is illegal and why there is good reason siblings should not be married and none of them have to do with religion.



First of all that’s not possible – everyone has somewhere between 7 to 10 recessive traits (allele) and when you limit the possibility of how those will line up, the risk of producing a child with severe defects, mental retardation, and rare genetic diseases increases by 40%.

The adults can certainly undergo genetic testing, but no one can guess how those genes will line up when egg and sperm unite. So the alternative would be to test the embryo – and then what? A 40% chance of abortion – now in that area, definitely some religious problem.

Of course one or both siblings can offer to be sterilized – but that does not address the reason they want to be married in the first place. What caused the normal aversion mechanism that prevents siblings from desiring sexual intimacy with each other?

To take it even further there is an extreme amount of information with which scientists & medical and psychological professionals agree, that incest within a nuclear family unit (First degree consanguinity) is abnormal and creates very harmful effects on the family members involved.

All of that information, and more, is what leads to critical evaluation of the issue. Note that religious beliefs are not required to enter into this critical thought process because even if a religion held the belief that sibling marriage was permissible – they could not practice it because it is illegal.

Then same-sex marriage should pose threat for you. It causes you no harm, puts you at no disadvantage, does not infringe on any of the rights you currently have and there is no evidence that children of same-sex couples fair any worse as whole than children of heter couples.

So have you anything to add to that critical thought process that would convince people otherwise?

That is not true.Everything will be changed regarding marriage.Our kids in school will be taught about same sex couples including how they have sex.Churches may be forced to perform marriages against their will.Sodomy would be considered a normal part of sex and taught that way.Adoption agencies would be forced to turn over children to same sex couples.

Many people have brought this up but if you are going to define marriage as a right then what right do you have to deny two cousins or a brother and sister the right to be married?You can't.Legally there is nothing stopping them from getting married since morality would not be considered.

Because a sexual relationship is expected to be a part of marriage. And sex with a minor is illegal and Consanguinity likewise faces limitations in the law.



It's not - I was taking that reference from your preveious example of what you think marriage SHOULD BE.



I'm sorry you are in error, first of all the age limitation which prevents marriage with or between minors is not based on biology.

Secondly, relationships are very often triggerd by chemical components wihtin the body, so while they may be considered biological components, they are biological components of all humanity - works the same way even between same-sex attraction.

Finally, ALL the sodomy laws have been overturned and it is no longer illegal for same-gendered adults to have consensual sex and since sex is an inherent component of marriage, there is no reason for same-sex couples not to be married.

One last thing, why is marriage more about community than any single person who lives in that communinty, or any single parent living in a community?

"There are no unbeatable odds, there are no believable gods"

Let everyone get married! no matter the gender. no harm, no foul

Consummation: Synonyms = fulfillment, completion, conclusion, actualization, culmination, realization, attainment, fruition.

I think we could look the world over and be hard-pressed to find a lot of people who do not expect sex to be part the expectation of marriage.

So I would have to say that as far as the marriage ‘contract’ goes, sex is a built in condition (an essential quality of the monogamous contract – otherwise monogamy would be a very dull prospect.)

However, it is the States that determine divorce law and under what grounds divorce or annulment will be granted.
For example:



Some states include text similar to : Grounds for annulment can also include impotency and incest. A person whose spouse is physically and incurably impotent during marriage has grounds for annulment, so long as they were not aware of the impotency prior to the marriage.

So let’s apply this information to the statement previously made referencing consummation.



Let me replace the word consummated in the quote above with the full description of what it means:

? --- the completion of the sex act in which both parties are satisfied with the potency of the other.

Makes sense to me. If a guy can’t get it up due to “physically incurable impotentancy” and he didn’t mention it, annulment makes sense, sort of – which is why I advocate for pre-marital sex anyway.

Now with women it could be a lot more difficult to prove impotency, of course if she’s tongue tied ….

Sorry for the humor but I just can’t see it any other way.

What is the difference to you? If a guy can’t perform they can get an annulment. The marriage contract is invalidated for lack of consummation. So?

Seriously, what do consummation and annulment have to do with same-sex marriage. I know there is something in this issue that is not clear but it's the second time reference to this point has been made and it’s not clear why.

my interest is not convincing people, usually everyone thinks they are correct in these types of issues

I am only conveying my PERSONAL perception of where the harm is

as I said before, siblings marrying would also cause me no harm, put me at no disadvantage, or infringe upon my current rights,, but I still have the opinion that it is not something the law should support

I dont think its that unclear. ITs semantics at this point. This ...

'So I would have to say that as far as the marriage ‘contract’ goes, sex is a built in condition (an essential quality of the monogamous contract – otherwise monogamy would be a very dull prospect.) '

is the synonym for my use of the word consummation as it applies to marriage

supporting gay marriage would be supporting gay sex, which I dont think there is a legitimate reason to do without supporting EVERY OTHER TYPE of adult consentual relationship (brother-sister, father-daughter,,etc,,)

adults may love and choose to enter into sexual relationships with each other but the inherent value in promoting the sexual bonding of males and females(bonding seperate families, creating life) does not exist in promoting sexual bonding between males and males or females and females anymore than in promoting incestual relationships

We have both always agreed that everyone has an opinion and that our freedom to express it is one of most valuable assets we all have.

The issue I have with all these opinions is that so few take the time to think 'critically' about those opinions - to examine them, figure why they hold that opinion and is it a valid one.

In free countries opinions are what shape communities, schools, and laws. They represent an individuals values, and shape character. We are 'models', to someone, based on how we reflect our opinions through our actions.

So opinions are one the greatest motivating forces of change. If an an individual thinks his opinion is worthy of an attemt to elicit change within society - that individual must be able to explain why. Persuade others to see the logic, find some kind of common ground that links others opinions to it.

WE THE PEOPLE - we are not just the people, WE ARE THE SOVEREIGN, we rule, at least that's the ideal. But most poeple do not live up the their responsibilty in their role as sovereign.

It is OUR responsibility to effect change for the better, for progress, for the continuence of this country and what we value about it.

That responsibility is not fulfilled with an opinion, it is not fulfilled with only a vote. The responsibility is fulfilled when an individual takes the time to question their own opinion, to hold it up in contrast to every side of an issue, to be willing to make compromises rather than create division.

What do I value, do my opinions reflect those values, are those values transparent in my charachter?

Why do I hold this particualar opinion about this particular issue. What is the real issue, who are all the people affected and why? What are all the possibile solutions? What are the possible outcomes to everyone? Who has most at stake, who is most affected what are the degrees. Where is my position on the list of who is affected.

It takes a long time to go through this process, but with every issue it becomes easier - because your own values become crystal clear to you. When those values shift, or even change, you know when they changed and why - becasue you asked the questions, you did the research, you critically evaluated your values and the issues and you took the role of sovereign with the just responsibility due the position.

We have become a lazy society, willing to let the government take care of us, and just handle everything, and NOW we have reached a crisis and all the majority have to offer is 'opinion' without thought, without facts, without the ability to support their own opinion.

I think I did address the issues I have and the reasons I dont support marriage between same sex.

I think logic does not dictate consensus of laws in any consistent basis.

For example, we openly support consentual adult sex yet make it criminal if money is exchanged.

we openly support consentual adult sex but generally there is a consensus that sex between siblings is inappropriate

not EVERYTHING follows some tangibly provable line of logic, some things are decided through cultural values and consensus.


I have a logic which is consistent, even if the reason isnt sufficiently constructive to others. I believe it is inappropriate for brothers and sisters to have sex together and dont want to see such a relationship put in equal footing with marriage, and for those same reasons I see no reason to put ANY relationship on equal footing with marriage including same gender.

where would we stop, if we used the logic that we shouldnt interfere unless some provable harm is being commited,,

should we allow siblings to marry
should we allow parents to marry their children

if we dont support those things, is there some LOGIC that would be sufficient enough to EXPLAIN why?


probably not as those reasons would be pretty consistent to the reasons people oppose homosexual marriage/sex

one would have to look no further than the CDC, FDA, CBC, and WHO to research the potential 'harm' in homosxual activities. Just as the research which shows the potential 'harm' of incest.

I support neither, dont think they should be crimes, but dont think they should be upheld by law either.

Thanks for clarifying the issues. There is more than one issue here so let's separate them.

1. Does not support same-gender sex.
2. Without sex there can be no marriage contract.
3. Does not support any other type of sex that is not otherwise
(outside of a consummated marriage contract), legally supported.
4. promoting the sexual bonding of males and females(bonding seperate families, creating life)

1. - Does not support same-gender sex.
Critical thought process.
Why? Our physiology was not naturaly designed for same-gender sex, therefore it is harmful.

What is harmful about it?
a. Well anal sex can cause ruptures and serious medical problems.
b. Women practicing oral sex are subject to all kinds diseases.

Critical thought proesess:
a. As long as humans have existed, so anal sex even among the heterosexual community. So there should be an extraordinay amount of statistics demonstrating the devastaion cause through anal sex. There is none.

b. Ditto a.

Then there is more: besides assumptions surrounding how others view or participate in the sex act, what information, knowledge do you really have about all the particulars of same-gender sex?

Should I be concerend about how other demonstrate their love and practice initimacy in the privacy of their own home?

Finally, the legality of gay can not be part of the issue, becasue it is already legally recognized and consigened to rights of privacy.

What other critical thoughts do you have about issue # 1 ?

2. Without sex there can be no marriage contract.
What is the issue?

Sex between gays should not be practiced or legal.

Critical thinking:
It took 40 years before all the state sodomy laws were finall abolished. In that time, there has been a huge shift towards acceptance of the gay community. And much medical and psychological information acknowledging that same-gender attraction is neither an illness, nor unnatural.
It is not likely sodomy laws will return.
Logically - this is a non-issue. Sex between same-gender is legal and thus marriage between same-gender can be connumated.

Would you like to present more thought on # 2?

3. Does not support any other type of sex that is not otherwise
(outside of a consummated marriage contract), legally supported.

If I support gay marriage will I be opening the door for incest next?

Critical process:
I could write a lot here, but doing your own research is more beneficial. Ask and then find the answers to such quesitons as:
What is the history of incest
How do other cultures deal with it
What are the effects on babies born of incest?
What do professionals have to say about incest?
(Doctors/psychologists)

Then apply what you learn to determine if your fear has merit.

4. promoting the sexual bonding of males and females(bonding
seperate families, creating life)

In the USA in 2006 35% of all babies were born out of wedlock
In 2007, 40% were so born in 2010 41% This has been an ongoing trend for 30 years. Further review indicates this trend is being mirrored in Europe and Australia, some hitting the 50% mark

About 6% of married couples CHOOSE to remain childless and some small percent are unable to have children.
Taking all this into consideration and adding the divorce rate there are less than 30% of all children living in a household with a married 'mother and father' figure. Not sure about the number of THOSE who are the natural parents of the kids in the household.

No matter how much we would like to change that picture we can't. If it changes it will be over a long period of time.

So what is the essence of marriage - in the real world? Well the government supports marriage as a place for family becasue they give tax incentives and tax breaks for couples with children.

Not really, yes they do but a little more research indicates that there are changes in the tax law coming and a good deal of those perks will go away.

But in the meantime -
In the meantime - there are thousands of responsible same-gender adult couples who are raising their children together, who have or would like to adopt as well.

Those couples would like to marry, and many of them -believe it or not - share some of your values regarding what marriage is, and they want to make that family that emulates the essence of marriage as you would like it to be valued.

What is the compromis here? Do I value my perception of marriage so much that to keep the greatest part of its essence (family and children) alive. Do I compromise and say yes same-gender marriage or do I watch as marriage and my vision of how it should be disappears.

But why? What is the history of prostitution? Who were and are prostitutes? Should prostitution be considered a legal business? What are the ramifications of that? What does prostitution say about men - about women? What if was a legitimate job and business whould anything change? Is it legal anywhere else, how do they handle it, what are the consequences to the employees?

CRITICAL THINKING If this is an issue for you, have you explored even one of those questions to it fullest?




Any idea how many cultures are represented in the USA? Whose cultural values would you most like respresented in our laws?

Personally, I prefer that people take a much broader view and at least attempt to educate themselves on the issue that concern them most and then evaluate all the information BEFORE applying their own value judgment. At the very least, the information and knowledge you have gained on that topic will prepare you to provide a logical and persuasive counter to opposing views (but of course, that's only if you take the time to consider what the opposing view are).



Can't wait to hear your couter areguments to my critical thought process on this issue? I'm wondering if you'll even think about the questions I propesed on this issue, much less research for the answers.



Your fear of what could happen in the future is not a justification to discriminate against someone today.



Facts, historical evidence of progression, reasoning supported by documentation and authoritative summary. Make connections between that information to show how you formulate your opinion. Not necessary to give a reference list, but be prepared if someone asks - becasue if you have the facts and disclose them in your argument, most people can look them up on their own.

For example - tell me exactly what connects same-gender sex with incest. Explain what makes the alike --BUT don't stop there tell me how they are NOT alike.

I DOUBLE DOG DARE YA



Yes - NOW - tell me why heterosexuals are EXEMPT from those same harms.
TIP - don't stick your tongue to a frozen pole.




But nowhere have you considered what harm is being cauesed by your inaction on a topic in which people are being discriminated against, being caused to suffer financial and personal hardships.

So your statement reflects contempt for those who would suffer and A lack of respect for those who do not live up to your moral standard.

Also I see a kind of duality going on. You don't care if the discrimination goes on becasue they deserve it anyway, for not living up to your standard. So I would expect you to make a stand about marriage given the amount of value you place in it. To take action in some way against same-sex marriage. But all you can say is I don't support it, as if contempt were the most logical of conclusions.

1. So what about nudists being allowed to go anywhere in public with no clothes?

2. How about we permit 14 year-olds to have sex with anyone 14 and above? (or get married)

3. How about we let old McDonald marry his donkey?

There is no "critical thought process" when it comes to public opnion. By the time you get around to verifying everyone's reasoning skills, you'd have forgot what it was you were doing.

The fact is the majority oppose gay marriage.

And so you can have someone else to attack, so do I... (oppose gay marriage)

And so I get an idea of your reasoning skills, do you oppose 1, 2 or 3? Any or all of them...

If people truly believe in a judgmental God then they should never judge anyone on moral values because supposedly their God is going to do that.

The mere fact that religious people feel a need to enforce the morality they attribute to their judgmental God actually reveals that they truly don't believe that any such God exists, and they just use a false mythology to pretend that their moral values are "divine".

In the case of Christianity, Jesus himself is proof of this. The reason that Christians like Jesus so much is because Jesus himself stood up against all the nasty crap from the Old Testament. Yet ironically the Christians continue to use Jesus as an excuse to dredge up the bigotries that they like from the Old Testament.

It's just an extremely hypocritical religion. They'd be far better off just dumping the religion altogether and just form citizen groups and offer up their own moral values for precisely what they are. Their own personal opinions.

What about them, what is the issue you think needs to be dealt with?
What are the facts, what other connections can you make to the issue?



On what conclustions should we consider this idea. Does this occur anywhere else? How are they dealing with it. What is differnt about us and them?



Well, I don't know old McDonald, but did you know that Senators have the right and ability to make a law on a specific personal case. Perhaps this is something old McDonald should take up personally with his Senate representative.



Whenever there are questions about an issue, there is a critical though process to be had. If you have no questions but you have an opinion, then you should be able to answer questions I have about your opinion and you should be knowledgable enough about your stance to counter opposing arguments - utilizing facts and making connections between those facts and how they support your opinion.



I don't know that your fact is correct, but there is one fact we are not sure about yet. We are not sure how the U.S. Supreme court would rule on the Constitutionality of legally forbidding same-sex marriage. But no matter what their decision will be, it will not be made without a lot critical thought and the majority 'opinion' will have very little if any influence on that process.



I'm not attacking anyone, just trying to get people to think and of course, like everyone else, I'm supporting the values important to me, but unlike many, I'm trying to support my views with and offer counter arguments, bases on a logical progression of thought.



We have to start somewhere and if we expect a critical thought process to take place 1, 2, & 3 can be quite a challenge - especially for those not used to thinking so hard.

I think some others in this post have come to the same conclusion.
It's very difficult to gain perspective when all that you believe fits into a box. If your morals and values come from the box, then questioning them in relation to what's going on outside the box, is not logical, because the Jack-in-Box just keeps tellin ya the same thing..

But if anyone would oppose 1, 2 or 3, I believe a case could be made for "personal opinion without critical thought process" for opposition of gay marriage.

God does not interfere with humans, and who said anything about judgement?





My "morality" comes from being a human and parent, not from a book.
I have to express being a parent as a different morality, there are things which I do not oppose yet I would not want my children exposed to at a young age. Partially selfish as there are some questions which disturb a parent when asked at what I would consider an "inapproriate age" to be asking. This is why there are ratings for movies and TV, so a person can determine if it's appropriate for themselves or their children.





Yup, I expected this...





So where do you get your moral values from, a book?