Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

[stitches]

but marriage isnt about procreation. what if close relatives want to get married and addopt.
shouldnt they then have the same rights as those homosexuals.

that is a double standard.
because you admit they cant get to marry because their offspring might not be on the up and up. so by saying that you admit marriage is for creating offspring.
but you allow the homosexuals to marry because they cannot create offspring?

No it's not double standard. Procreation is just a possibility of marriage, not a requirement for marriage. Any straight person can marry another whether they want to procreate or not, whether they can procreate or not.
Gays not being able to procreate between each other doesn't harm anybody. And thus the marriage between them has a net positive effect on society, thus... gay marriage is allowed(at least in some places).
Allowing siblings to marry and procreate might turn into a serious public health issue with serious consequences for the state, for the offspring of potential sibling couples and for the couples themselves. Thus siblings marriage is not allowed.
It's actually quite simple.

 

[DutchJazzer]

No it's not double standard. Procreation is just a possibility of marriage, not a requirement for marriage. Any straight person can marry another whether they want to procreate or not, whether they can procreate or not.
Gays not being able to procreate between each other doesn't harm anybody. And thus the marriage between them has a net positive effect on society, thus... gay marriage is allowed(at least in some places).
Allowing siblings to marry and procreate might turn into a serious public health issue with serious consequences for the state, for the offspring of potential sibling couples and for the couples themselves. Thus siblings marriage is not allowed.
It's actually quite simple.

still a stupid double standard.

but okay.

 

[Maktub]

I'm confused. Siblings don't need a marriage license to procreate. So what does marriage have to do with it?

 

[stitches]

I'm confused. Siblings don't need a marriage license to procreate. So what does marriage have to do with it?

Marriage strongly implies sexual relations, which quite often results in procreation...

As a matter of fact, both marriage and sexual relations between close relatives are against the law in most western countries.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Marriage strongly implies sexual relations, which quite often results in procreation...

As a matter of fact, both marriage and sexual relations between close relatives are against the law in most western countries.

time to throw away those stoopid laws!

 

[Gameface]

I find it absolutely hilarious that someone would claim 100% of the work done in LDS temples is for the benefit of mankind.

We thank thee Lord for a profit!

I would certainly be interested in an LDS take on how work done in LDS temples benefits mankind as a whole. I wouldn't even hold a person to the 100% criteria.

I consider the "We thank thee Lord for a profit" as a light jab, and is something I've always considered pretty funny due to the LDS church's aggressive manner of keeping track of and encouraging full 10% net tithe.

 

[colton]

Because has the propensity to cause birth defects while the other doesn't. Holy ****. If I feel like a relationship has the potential to destroy the health and well-being of a child, then I WILL be opposed to it without hating the people involved.

I guess you missed the part where I specified that the parties involved had had surgery to guarantee that no children will be produced. So, in the absence of children you don't have a problem with that? Or do you?

Am I being punked? Did you just equate homosexual marriages to incestuous ones?

Legally speaking, I see absolutely no difference between that scenario and a gay marriage. Do you? If so, what?

And why are you so horrified at the notion? Could it be that there is something morally wrong with that type of marriage?

 

[colton]

Do me a favour: every time you mention "traditional" in your posts in reference to marriage, just swap it to [Mormon] altogether. Your use of the word traditional is biased and vague, and hard to interpret.

I have no idea where this came from. Nothing in my post has anything to do with Mormonism. By "traditional marriage" I was referring to traditional heterosexual marriage. Not sure why you found that so hard to parse.

No, because relationships being open between two siblings means that the union is a risk to public health. One of our legal framework's duties is to protect the health of its followers.

Again, I specified that the individuals would have had surgery to prevent conception.

 

[colton]

Gay people can marry they just can't call it marriage?

Black people can drink out of fountains they just can't drink out of our fountains.

Do I understand it right?

Yes, gay marriage is exactly the same as racial segregation. /sarcasm

This is a vocabulary issue. Must respect the sanctity of vocabulary word definitions?

It's partly a vocabulary issue, but it's not only a vocabulary issue.

 

[colton]

The problem with that line of reasoning is that marriage is by definition what the state decides it should be.

Wow, I'm shocked to read that from you. The whole issue here is that practically every state in the union has decided marriage is only between a man and a woman, and the courts have NOT allowed the states to decide what a marriage should be. This whole gay marriage movement is about about activist courts forcing people to accept a definition of marriage which is contrary to what the state has decided, under the guise of a civil right.

The marriage I am talking about is a social and legal structure of society that has MANY more purposes than just procreation.

There are other purposes, but you cannot deny that procreation has been fundamentally tied to marriage. Else why are incestuous relationships forbidden to marry? Why are "green card marriages" where the two parties don't live together as husband and wife considered to be a sham? Etc. As I mentioned above, there are two main purposes for government sanctioned marriages: (1) to bind two people together, and (2) to bind children to parents. The second purpose involves establishing a safe environment in which children can be raised, a legal framework for establishing heirs, and so forth. I think it's every bit as important as the first purpose. (And yes, I recognize that not all heterosexual marriages can have children. That doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water.)

Anyway, I appreciated the rest of your post as well, but don't have time/inclination to type out a complete response.

 

[colton]

Marriage strongly implies sexual relations, which quite often results in procreation...

As a matter of fact, both marriage and sexual relations between close relatives are against the law in most western countries.

Your response demonstrates the importance of *heterosexual* sexual relations, but not the importance of *homosexual* relations.

"Marriage strongly implies heterosexual relations, which quite often results in procreation..." is a far more accurate statement than what you wrote.

And I've never seen anyone make a convincing argument about why *homosexual* relations should get any sort of preferential treatment over *asexual* relations? That is, put another way, if one is letting gays marry, why shouldn't ANY two people that aren't sexually involved, but wish these same protections of marriage, be allowed to marry? Including siblings, etc.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I guess you missed the part where I specified that the parties involved had had surgery to guarantee that no children will be produced. So, in the absence of children you don't have a problem with that? Or do you?



Legally speaking, I see absolutely no difference between that scenario and a gay marriage. Do you? If so, what?

And why are you so horrified at the notion? Could it be that there is something morally wrong with that type of marriage?

I'm horrified with the notion of giving kids birth defects.

If two siblings destroyed their reproductive organs prenuptially, and asked if they could get married, I would say yes. Wouldn't think twice.

However, seeing as I literally cannot think of 5 people in the world who have an incessant desire to have this sort of right, I see no purpose in pushing through legislation that gives extended rights to essentially no one. If this group emerged, and started demanding marriage rights, I would be for their cause.


Meanwhile, millions of homosexuals live in USA, and around the world. They are demanding to be treated as equals, and they're successful in some regions. Time for the US to catch up.