This one is for all of the fans of gay-marriage.\n\nShould incest between consenting adults who can no longer bear children be legal?  Why or why not?
134927
Rene underscores the point Bananaman is trying to make here. She finds incest "disgusting" and uses that as an argument to support the illegality of incestuous relationships.  What "disgusts" one person may not another and thus it can be seen as somewhat hypocritical to support gay marriage but not incestuous marriage which many also find disgusting.\n\nRemember “disgusting” just means tending to repel or sicken people and many supporters of gay marriage are at least somewhat disgusted by many of the sexual acts homosexual couples must engage in (for obvious reasons).  They support gay marriage out of a belief for personal liberty which I find admirable.  But like Bananaman points out, why not extend the same personal liberties for incestuous couples?\n\nChicagoParty points out a better reason in that major birth defects can result from genetic deficiencies caused by intrafamilial intercourse. I personally, like many others, think that it’s unfair to handicap your children in such a profound way.  \n\nBut Banana is making a valid point.\n\n---\n\nOn another note the way we are progressing socially I wouldn't be surprised if incest loses some of it's social sting in the next 30-50 years. I don't think it's something to get worked up over. In the end social deviancy has always existed and accepting it culturally isn’t going to change how I live my life.\n\nRegards,\n\nArmus
561300
same sex relationships dont bother me in the slightest. yes i believe they should be allowed, and yes, it should be called Marriage. I'm straight too, so i dont think this affects me on any level, but i try to look at it from a different standpoint...what if i were straight, in a world that was homosexual? what if i was the minority, wanting the right to marry someone of the opposite gender?
21264
Good point! \nI also believe that homosexual marriages have no bearing on religion. Giving a legal marriage to a gay couple is not the same as forcing all churches in America to accept and perform the marriages. I really don't see why religion has a say in it, since I do believe in the seperation between church and state, and since no one's forcing all the religious damning homophobes to suddenly accept homosexuality. \nIt's very relatable to interracial marriages. And no it won't lead to beastiality or incest becoming legalized, since beastiality is just stupid and wrong and no one can say that one can love a cow, and incest is genetically wrong, so that won't ever be legalized either, don't give me your snowball fallacies.
635385
brothers and sisters aren't allowed to get married because (even though we liberal don't like to admit it ) prejudice.  That's the way its been.  If you are gay and want gay marriage to happen, don't point that out.  The public is leaning to supporting gay marriage,  but not incest, because incest is more of a choice
300183
I suppose you're possibly a Christian, a Catholic, a Jew, or a Muslim, right? I believe in the kind of family that God has always had in mind when He created the first couple--Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve or whatever. I strongly believe that same-sex marriage and family should be forbidden and stay illegal.
631533
The theory that gay marriage is wrong because it somehow threatens male-female marriage is a crock of shite.  Tradition is no reason to continue a practice.  To say that we should prohibit gays from marrying because we have not allowed it up til now and marriage has traditionally be between a man and a woman it no different that that standard answer your parents gave you when you asked why you could not eat your dessert first -- "because we say so."  Makes no sense.  It offers no logic.  Guess what else is tradition -- traditionally we don't let jews play at our golf courses.  And traditionally we don't let blacks marry whites (there were actually laws on the book in most states, so it went beyond tradition, it was the law).  Traditionally, children slept on their stomaches, until the scientists told us that the chances of SIDS skyrocketed when an infant doesn't sleep on its back.  So don't give me that tradition garbage.  We don't continue doing things just because that how it has always been done.  The american people deserve better than that -- we deserve to know how it benefits the overall society.  The bottomline is that monogomy and marital committment is a major benefit to modern society, whether it is between opposite sexes or the same sexes.
9156
Well, given that I’m gay I would have to say yes.  \n\nI find the arguments against gay marriage, and therefore gay rights, like the ones stated above amusing.  Yes marriage is the building blocks of the family unit, so why are literally hundreds of thousands of families across the country not extended the same rights of marriage?   \n\nThe original purpose of marriage was procreation, yes.  This in no way excludes gay couples.  Many use artificial means to have children (as many sterile straight couples do), and many more adopt children.  Others already have children from previous marriages.    Also, I don’t see anyone arguing that old people, and people who are sterile, shouldn’t be allowed to get married.  We also do not make people fill out forms declaring that they are planning to have children when they get married.  That’s because beginning in the 20th Century marriage stopped being centered around procreation and started being about love.  \n\nI also love the slippery slope argument mentioned above: “But, if we let men get married to men, what’s going to stop a man from trying to marry a horse?”  This has some variations, from trees, to horses, to dogs, to polygamy.  Well, to start I would like to point out that neither trees nor horses have been granted rights by the constitution.  Also, if everyone is so tolerant of gay people, and many are quick to point out that they have gay friends, why do we immediately associate gay marriage with bestiality and polygamy?  \n\nUnfortunately, my civil liberties are severely hindered by the fact that I can’t get married.  If my partner gets sick, there is no law protecting my rights to visit him in the hospital; if he dies, there is no law saying I have any rights to our owned property because as far as the government is concerned, “our property” doesn’t exist.  If children get involved this gets even uglier and more complicated.  There is more than one case on record of judges taking children away from a surviving partner and giving them to an ex-husband or ex-wife who has no connection to the child, simply because the surviving parent “had no legal connection to the children.”  This is all directly connected to the fact that we can’t get married.\n\nSo, I’m afraid people can’t have it both ways.  If you support gay rights, as I do, you have to support gay marriage.  Without gay marriage, we’re second class citizens, and are only accorded the rights of second class citizens.
94318
Gay marriage is absolutely a civil rights issue.  By preventing any two consenting adults from marrying, solely because of their homosexuality, you are discriminating against them.  It is unfair for gay couples to be prevented from marrying.  \nA common argument (of fundamentalists) is that since a gay couple cannot naturally reproduce, they should not be allowed to marry. But many straight couples cannot naturally reproduce either. Another common argument is that gay marriage will promote pedophilia. Statistically, most pedophiles are straight white males. \nGay marriage does not affect anyone but the couple themselves. It will not "turn" anyone gay. It will give couples equal rights to insurance, shared property, and the same rights as a heterosexual married couple.  \nWhile each of us has the right to our own personal belief about whether or not homosexuality is, as you said, an "abomination", we do not have the right to force our personal beliefs on others in such a way as would affect their lives and happiness permanently.  \nAfter all, if someone told you you could not marry solely because you were straight, I imagine you would be upset. Straight may be normal to you and I; but to gay couples, being gay is their reality.
166959
I am not gay but have many friends who are and they are just as responsible as a heterosexual.  So why shouldn't they have the same rights? They should be able to marry just like everyone else because they love like everyone else. Not all gay people are child molesters.  I knew a couple who were some of the most loving parents to their children, they were awsome people, and when my xhusband was down and out and could not be a father to my kids, this couple stood in for their father.  They did all the boy stuff with them.  So, Yes, Yes, and Yes they should have all the same rights as us straight people.
297100
Is open marriage ok when one partner is gay or lesbian and the other knows about it? If the other partner is ok with it who are we to judge, even tho I think if you are married then if you have sex with someone else it is wrong but everyone is deffrent( If I was the wife and I found out my husband was gay he would be GONE! I would never be able to be with a guy who does guys sorrrrrrry! ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!\n\nand they have to stay together for childrens sake? They do not have to stay together for the kids sack! That is wrong! Wrong for them if they are not happy and wrong for the kids, it will end up harming the kids if they are not in a happy home!
379174
Republicans realized it could be a wedge issue and capitalized on it. Interesting definitions of "marriage" given by responders above. They all sound religious. The topic, I believe is civil marriage -- marriage as recognized or performed by the state. \n\nThere are children in US institutions and foster care who need 2 parent homes. Gays should be allowed to adopt such hard-to-place children. This would probably occur defacto. Mothers giving up their babies  and agencies with young, easy to adopt children would continue to choose straight adoptive couples.
519013
In all seriousness, I know a lot of gay people that believe marriage is meant for man and woman, but believe they should at least have a civil union. they both contribute to each other except of course the reproductive aspect.
515294
Interesting but contrary to Scripture. I understand the problem you're considering and offer this as a possible solution...\n\nAdam and Eve were perfect and it took several generations before the degenerating gene pool became severe enough to forbid incest.
115580
Yes  it is incest, and yes it is legal in some states. However, it just ain't normal. There are plenty of people in this world, you just have to get out of the house to find them. And also if they plan to have children, the chances are they will be mentally retarded, that in itself should show how wrong it is.
618290
In my opinion, you have hit the nail on the head.  In my opinion, the acceptance of the current Judeo-Christian definition of marriage violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.  It may be struck down by the supreme court on those grounds.  I think it is also important to remember that just because the majority is in favor of something does not make it right.  That is a part of the genius of our political system.  We have a judicial branch that is not directly accountable to the people.  This, in theory, enables them to make the right decision even when that decision is not popular.  I am a Christian, but I have to admit I have some serious problems with the constitutional amendment banning Gay marriage.
418566
abqdan.. is spot on....\nI agree with him completely, the only 'bad' thing is a religious implication of sin.\n\nIf people are so conserned about 'family values' maybe they should look at past religious teachings about the accepetablity of wife beating. and look into single parent families, and foster families and no families. \nIf people are against it for reilgiouse beliefs so be it that is their right.  The freedom of religion.\n\nBut they can not expect to be able to force there religion on another.. therefore cancelling thier freedom of religion.\n\nThe only consquence of same sex unions becoming legalised, will be more work for the governement in re-writing forms and such, and also the cases thathave come up about organizations not allowing...say for example.... the renting of a hall for a gay wedding..\n\nThis is against the law, if you advertise a public service you are not allowed to dicriminate against people, for any reason.\nThere will, for this generation be many 'bad feelings' from people towards the gay community, but that will change in the next generation as it become a social norm.....\n\nIn example, i bring womens equal rights.... only 50 years ago, women were lawfully beaten by there husbands, as it was his right to do so.  Now women are equal, are not allowed to be beaten, work the same jobs, and can choose whether or not to be married....\n\n50 years ago the question you asked would have been also asked about women and equal rights. but now adays its part of every day nrom to see women doctors, police, firefighters.\nand so it will be with gays, by the time our grand children have grown, it will have been accepted as a social norm
316111
I agree.  Women should also be able to marry multiple men.  This is just the legislation of morality, and there is no victim, as long as the participants are all of legal age.  We have legalized a lot of other things (such as domestic partners and sodomy), and there is no real reason in my mind for this last holdout.  If you are going to legalize some of it, you might was well legalize it all.