Originally posted by Draco69
Cousins wouldn't be allowed to marry because it's dangerous."How is this dangerous? Many bigoted people in America think the same thing about gay marriage.
The offspring have a greater chance of a deformity. The bigots who think that about gay marriage are basing it off of prejudice, not fact.
Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
I do?Some people say I am bad with debating.I think that marriage should between a man and a woman and not anything else.If those people want to get married fine but leave the church out of it.JM
Well so you are pro Gay marriage as long as they don't marry inchurches? I mean they don't want that anyway I think.
"What consensus is that? What about polygamy? And you seemed to also forgotten about the economic, societal, and political affects of the legalization of gay marriage."
It would just allow it to be between a man and a woman, or people of the same sex, it wouldn't effect the number of people allowed in a marriage, simply the sexuality of those involved.
I don't think there will be any significant effects from allowing gay marriage, other then some pissed off bigots and happy gay people.
Actually the cousins mutation arguement is myth. The greater chance of deformity is as minimal as anybody else. And many bigots could also argue that marriage between gays is harmful to society because the children will be "corrupted".
Religions would also be affected by the gay marriage legalization since religions are often the curtailers of the union.
Originally posted by Draco69
Actually the cousins mutation arguement is myth. The greater chance of deformity is as minimal as anybody else. And many bigots could also argue that marriage between gays is harmful to society because the children will be "corrupted".Religions would also be affected by the gay marriage legalization since religions are often the curtailers of the union.
Of course for that argument to be valid you'd have to ignore all of the evidence that supports that children growing up with two gay parents turn out no different then those who grow up in a straight houshold.
Also, a law wouldn't force religions to marry gays if it went against their beliefs. All it would do is allow gays to be married by those religions who already support it (Budhism, for example) and said marriage would be recognized by state.
Also, there is some greater chance of deformity by marrying cousins, it's not alot, but it's there.
Of course for that argument to be valid you'd have to ignore all of the evidence that supports that children growing up with two gay parents turn out no different then those who grow up in a straight houshold.
True. But the bigots would argue the children need a "traditional" environment.
The chance of deformity is 4% with cousins. Lawyers can agrue the same thing about alcholics, people with down syndrome, and blacks with sickle cell anemia. If these people can marry, despite the danger to their children, why not cousins?
Buddhism doesn't actually support homosexuality. It justs says that homosexuality is just a need like heterosexuality that must be rationed.
And the economy?
"True. But the bigots would argue the children need a "traditional" environment."
The fact that this is factually untrue from the evidence makes this invalid.
"The chance of deformity is 4% with cousins. Lawyers can agrue the same thing about alcholics, people with down syndrome, and blacks with sickle cell anemia. If these people can marry, despite the danger to their children, why not cousins?"
The difference is that these people all have diseases that can't be helped in anyway (save alcholics). People marrying cousins are conciously making a decision that could ultimately be harmful, one that they can avoid.
"Buddhism doesn't actually support homosexuality. It justs says that homosexuality is just a need like heterosexuality that must be rationed"
The point is that they would marry gay people if given the chance.
What about the economy?
"The difference is that these people all have diseases that can't be helped in anyway (save alcholics). People marrying cousins are conciously making a decision that could ultimately be harmful, one that they can avoid."
And the alcoholics, blacks with Sickle Cell anemia, and people with Down Syndrome also consciously choose to marry despite the fact it would be ultimately harmful to the child. Not to mention the risks are greater than the cousins marrying defacto.
The point is that they would marry gay people if given the chance.
I doubt it. And Buddhism makes a miniscule percentage of our population. Christianity, Islam, Juddhism and others are outright against it. It is it fair for homosexuals to only be allowed to marry under one religion even if they belong to another denomination?
What about the economy?
Read previous post. Bill Gates, divorce tax, marriage tax, marriage dowries, etc.
"And the alcoholics, blacks with Sickle Cell anemia, and people with Down Syndrome also consciously choose to marry despite the fact it would be ultimately harmful to the child. Not to mention the risks are greater than the cousins marrying defacto."
Yes but they have no alternative to their diseases. The person marrying the cousin does have an alternative, they can marry someone else who they aren't related too.
"I doubt it. And Buddhism makes a miniscule percentage of our population. Christianity, Islam, Juddhism and others are outright against it. It is it fair for homosexuals to only be allowed to marry under one religion even if they belong to another denomination?"
Well it's kinda silly to force a religion to do something they don't believe in. The law would only make it allowable for gays to be married, they wouldn't force religions to participate in it if they didn't believe in it. Besides, you can be married without the use of any religion, straight through the government you can be married.