Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
Incestuous relationships are against the interest of the state since they tend to lead to inbred offspring.
|
Well yes, because that is the
definition of inbred. I think what you're getting at is that inbred children are more likely to bear genetic predisposition to particular types of medical condition than children of conventional couples. If that is the case then it should be illegal for any couple who carry inherited conditions to have children.
I don't think something like that should be enforced, but if I had an inheritable condition which would be passed onto my children I would make a personal sacrifice and not have any children.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mantus
Adsyv (almost), I got to say, I am having allot of problem trying to figure out just what your argument is.
|
Me too, sorry about that. I actually had to read up to find out what I was talking about.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mantus
Yet depending on the context of it’s use the meaning is altered.
|
If u want 2 abuse it (ho ho :/), and use it in an inappropriate context that does not change it's meaning. As far as I am aware it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. It can also be used as a metaphor to describe two seemingly different things brought together, but that doesn't refer to the legal union we are talking about. So it doesn't count.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by martinguerre
??? If you want to start a different line of questioning, start a new thread. It's board policy, if i understand correctly, and common courtesy to boot.
|
It was a rhetorical question. There is no answer to the question anywhere, nevermind buried somewhere in an online forum.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by martinguerre
How about being someone who's supposed to have your back without trying to sleep with you? It's a rough definition...but i think it sounds about right.
|
We're talking about mutual consent and a deep love for one another, not some 14 year old kid wanting to get his rocks off while the baby sitter is watching TV.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by martinguerre
If you aren't being invited, etc...why is it that you seem to care so much?
|
This is a forum, I'm just airing my opinion. Generally if I don't have an opinion before I started posting I will formulate one as required in order to get involved.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by martinguerre
This doesn't strike me as particularly attention getting, or showy. I'd like to know why you seem to think it is.
|
Showy was not what I said. The fact that you have to refer to a couple as Mr and Mrs Blah, or put your marital status on forms is what I meant. It may sound trivial or even stupid.
Most of the people here agree that marriage should be based on the fact that the people involved should love each other. Why should I have to enter into a contract with a person to show that I love them? Doesn't that sound a bit odd... "yes i love you, look our marriage licence is proof".
Many would argue that marriage makes it more difficult for people to separate and that is a good thing. If love is the sole criterion for being together, then trying to make it difficult for people to separate when they no longer love each other sounds ridiculous to me.
I have been part of a romantically involved couple with my girlfriend for 5 years. I know married couples who were together for a matter of months before getting hitched. Why should they receive economic and civil benefits that I do not? My girlfriend and I are independent people, and I would prefer we were seen as two individuals rather than one legal entity. Originally marriage was no business of the state and I don't believe it should be now.
In this situation a gay couple would be able to consider themselves as much 'married' as any other couple and everyone would enjoy the same rights.
Special thanks to filtherton for quoting my whole post then replying with one line that adds exactly nothing to the discussion.