Tim Thomas Stands with Chick-Fil-A (i.e. against gay marriage)

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by Sparks

It's not about political correctness. It's about caring about other people's quality of life. It's about realizing that, hey, we don't have a reason to deny another person basic rights so why are we doing it?

I am not in favour of inter-racial marriages, gay rights, gender equality, and against domestic violence because of political correctness, for example. Wow.

Wow. Lots of hyperbole. I guess as long as it furthers your need for political correctness, you can call marriage a basic right.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Knalus

...There is marriage, and there is companionship. The two are similar, but not the same.

So, how are they different, and why can some people only enjoy "companionship" and not "marriage?

Originally Posted by Knalus

Common-Law marriage is an example of something that is similar, but not the same as traditional marriage. Same sex marriage would be something even further down that line. In my mind, so much further that it doesn't warrant being "called" marriage.

But you need to explain the difference, and why these things would not at all constitute "marriage." Further to the point, I think you are ignoring something absolutely fundamental in this discussion, and that is that modern, heterosexual marriage is NOTHING like what we might consider "traditional" marriage. But even this statement is problematic, since the point at which we start identifying "traditional marriage" from its predecessor is not clear. If we use "biblical marriage" as the standard, then you encounter the difficulty in the fact that this might actually bear greater similarity to "common-law marriage" than it does to your conception of "traditional marriage" here. You seem to allow for certain developments within the conception of marriage, but at the exclusion of others, and for no clear reason.

Originally Posted by Knalus

I am not against them having the same rights and privileges as anyone else, but to call it marriage because of political correctness is not right. It's political.

I agree, but calling it "marriage" is absolutely not borne out of political correctness. Rather, it is identified as such because it most closely conforms to the description of modern marriage as a relational covenant that celebrates intimacy. This is why people get married. This is why gay people want to get married. This is why it is not only acceptable but necessary to refine the definition of marriage to ensure that same-sex coupling is included.

Originally Posted by Knalus

And to allow politicians and anyone else the ability to change the meanings of something that is at the root of many people's lives just because people don't want to appear to be a bigot is not right.

This isn't something that some nebulous group of "politicians" is attempting to cram down society's throat in an effort to gain public approval. This is about how we—our own society and culture—have changed the meaning of the word by virtue of how we conduct ourselves in marital relations with our spouses. This is the law merely catching up with society.

[Sparks]

I'm just as fine to say this instead:

Originally Posted by Sparks

It's about realizing that, hey, we don't have a reason to deny another person rights so why are we doing it?

It doesn't have to be a "basic" right. I think that if a government says to a group of people "You are not allowed to do a particular thing" it is imperative that they justify why that group is being singled out, using evidence and critical thinking. "I think it's weird" is neither evidence nor critical thinking. It's the same case with the usual suspects: whether religion or interpretations of marriage which don't match its modern reality (eg. childbirth).

Everything that I would want to say has been said better by others, but I spoke up because I find the idea that those in favour of same-sex marriage rights (including myself) do it out of "political correctness" extremely offensive.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Knalus

False logic. A person living during the time you are describing would view two Chinese buddhists as being married, as long as it was a man and a woman. My family and culture were not catholic when what you described happened.

But what about before this time? Marriage in the pre-Christian world was fundamentally different than even medieval Christian marriage. Which one is "traditional" and why?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I'm not, in any way, imposing my viewpoint on you. I'm rejecting your imposition of your viewpoint on me. Because I do not see it's value relative to the potential losses to what I value.

Well it has been seven years since the Civil Marriage Act was enacted, and nearly a decade since some provinces started allowing it. Surely those potential losses are "actual" losses by now.

What are they? What actual losses have you seen? Not hypotheticals like "people marrying their sister or chicken" (which hasn't happened despite the dire predictions that we heard in the early 2000's) but real concrete losses.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Aww, am I hurting your feelings by making fun of America? Better get used to it, because as America continues its slide, the rest of the world is waiting to pile on. Arrogance always comes back to bite you.

And Americans are the fatest people in the world. Statistically indisputable. So sorry you don't like the truth, but it does hurt after all.

I agree with DFF. You should tone it down. You and I are generally on the same side of most political debates but you're going too far.

Although he and I have had many disagreements, DFF is a longtime, respected poster here. There are also several other longtime US based posters here and they deserve to be treated respectfully.

Disagree with posts and posters but there is no need to take the US bashing as far as you do, or to make it as personal as you sometimes do.

Let's at least try to keep it somewhat civil.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What are they? What actual losses have you seen? Not hypotheticals like "people marrying their sister or chicken" (which hasn't happened despite the dire predictions that we heard in the early 2000's) but real concrete losses.

Out of curiosity, what is the objection to someone marrying their sibling of either gender, especially the same gender?

If marriage is for companionship as textcritic mentioned, why is it restricted such that close relatives can't enjoy it?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Out of curiosity, what is the objection to someone marrying their sibling of either gender, especially the same gender?

If marriage is for companionship as textcritic mentioned, why is it restricted such that close relatives can't enjoy it?

Out of curiosity, why are you even curious about this?

Have you ever encountered sibling that wanted to marry each other?

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Unfortunately, any potentially gay child you may have cannot enjoy the same things as you do, because he could not enjoy heterosexuality.

I don't think I'd enjoy heterosexuality.

Marriage is both a religious and a civil institution. It may have once been only a religious institution but as soon as government became involved it added a different dimension to the institution. Here is the thing: religion has the right to discriminate...government does not. It's ruling doctrine is the Constitution/Charter which enshrines equality rights. It also should not legislate "separate but equal" types of institutions like civil unions because the very fact that it is separate makes it inherently unequal.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Out of curiosity, why are you even curious about this?

Have you ever encountered sibling that wanted to marry each other?

I'm curious about the reasoning behind why people would be against it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

As far as I know, because there isn't any sort of extraordinary health risk involved with it. My understanding is that the United States is the only Western country that has restrictive laws against cousin marriage.

Hell, your niece and nephew can get married in Canada if they want to. We're a bunch of moral delinquents here.

Originally Posted by Daradon

Most states yes.

More than gay marriage....

I was honestly under the impression that 1st cousin marriage was illegal in Canada. Weird.

[metallicat]

This is the most ridiculous argument going on in the world today. Why do so many people care about what others are doing when it doesn't affect them in any way, shape, or form? Get over it and yourselves people. Ignorant pricks.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Out of curiosity, what is the objection to someone marrying their sibling of either gender, especially the same gender?

If marriage is for companionship as textcritic mentioned, why is it restricted such that close relatives can't enjoy it?

I don't know what the objection is. I don't care. If a couple brothers want to marry each other, that's their business, not yours or mine.

If the brother-marrying crowd want to organize and fight for the right to marry, then that's up to them. For some reason, I doubt we'll ever hear much from that demographic. Probably because it doesn't actually exist.

We heard ten years ago that this was exactly what was going to happen and, surprise surprise, it just hasn't materialized. It was a stupid argument and obfuscation then, and it still is.

Anyway, the question was about actual losses. Not hypotheticals, not slippery slopes, not my aunt marrying a chicken. REALITY. Real "losses". Real negative impacts.

You got any examples? 10 years. There must be dozens of them now.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Out of curiosity, why are you even curious about this?

Have you ever encountered sibling that wanted to marry each other?

I know of instances where native children taken away to residential schools have married and found out later on that they were actually (half) siblings.

I actually also have a married couple in my own extended family that are first cousins, once removed. They were raised in totally different parts of the continent and didn't realize they were related until shortly after their first date (as I recall the story going)

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Out of curiosity, why are you even curious about this?

Have you ever encountered sibling that wanted to marry each other?

Rougeunderoos brought it up. I'm interested in this mainly as an academic exercise, and he specifically mentioned it as something not comparable, and I don't understand the difference. If marriage is open to everyone, then why not relatives?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know what the objection is. I don't care. If a couple brothers want to marry each other, that's their business, not yours or mine.

If the brother-marrying crowd want to organize and fight for the right to marry, then that's up to them. For some reason, I doubt we'll ever hear much from that demographic. Probably because it doesn't actually exist.

We heard ten years ago that this was exactly what was going to happen and, surprise surprise, it just hasn't materialized. It was a stupid argument and obfuscation then, and it still is.

Anyway, the question was about actual losses. Not hypotheticals, not slippery slopes, not my aunt marrying a chicken. REALITY. Real "losses". Real negative impacts.

You got any examples? 10 years. There must be dozens of them now.

I never claimed there would be negative effects on anyone. If you believe I did, link the post and I'll clarify or apologize

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Rougeunderoos brought it up. I'm interested in this mainly as an academic exercise, and he specifically mentioned it as something not comparable, and I don't understand the difference. If marriage is open to everyone, then why not relatives?

Outside of the academic and into the applicable, I just don't think there is much desire for this kind of marriage, but outside of the biological risks of siblings having kids, academically it can be viewed through the same lense as gay marriage.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Anyway, the question was about actual losses. Not hypotheticals, not slippery slopes, not my aunt marrying a chicken. REALITY. Real "losses". Real negative impacts.

You got any examples? 10 years. There must be dozens of them now.

Who knows what the impact will be? 10 years is nothing in terms of what the long term ramifications will be.

Did anyone predict that legalizing abortion would lower the crime rate? No, and it took close to 30 years for that to be proven.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

I'm curious about the reasoning behind why people would be against it.

Let's hope it's better than the reasoning people have for being against gay marriage, eh?

Personally, with the knowledge I currently possess and my position on marriage, I'm not against the government legalizing sibling marriage, but that's because I don't think the government should act as the moral police.

However, I am not positive if I am in favour of legalizing it for other reasons, entirely unrelated to marriage. The major one would be the possible strain on the public health care system if sibling marriage and reproduction were allowed, considering the 30% risk of birth defects per birth between first degree relatives.

Of course, that leads to another prickly question: if I'm against marriage between first degree relatives due to birth defect risks, I should be against two unrelated individuals marrying that have a high risk of passing on a birth defect or disease (Gaucher's Disease has a 50% chance of being passed on if a single parent has it. That's even higher than possible birth defects from brothers and sisters doing the nasty). My response to that would be it may be likely that more siblings would marry and have children leading to possible birth defects than it would be for two mentally challenged individuals or those with diseases like Gaucher's Disease to marry and pass along birth defects -- a rough estimate of ancient Egyptian sibling marriages is something like 20% of the population did it, though that would likely be lower in our current culture, and climb over time.

There are some interesting developments in evolutionary psychology concerning things called incest-avoidance mechanisms. The idea is that we all have these mechanisms that kick in at certain ages when we grow up with siblings we are aware of as being siblings that make us avoid wanting to have sexual relations with them so as to avoid bad recessive genes that can lead to bad health, low intelligence, etc., in our children. Women, in particular, have stronger incest-avoidance mechanisms because they have more to lose when making a bad mating decision.

If anyone's interested, here's a link to a paper on the topic: http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/c...cest_avoid.pdf

To make a long story short, personally, as far as the current discussion about marriage and protecting its definition or what have you goes, I don't care if siblings tie the not, though I am uncertain on the subject for other reasons. I haven't done enough thinking on it or gained enough knowledge on the subject to really decide one way or the other when it comes to these concerns, however.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

Who knows what the impact will be? 10 years is nothing in terms of what the long term ramifications will be.

Did anyone predict that legalizing abortion would lower the crime rate? No, and it took close to 30 years for that to be proven.

So gay marriage = less unwanted kids = less crime. Thanks for clarifying