Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Let me see if i can underail this discussion:
"Marriage should be for loving consenting adults who aren't related and aren't animals." The whole "not being related" thing is now explicit rather than implicit. Let there be no more discussion of incest, because now you know that that isn't what is being advocated. If you want to argue the merits of incest you should start a new thread.
|
Are you a retard?
I don't remember you being elected to decide what should and shouldn't constitute a valid state of marriage.
Since you brought up that point however, you might like to note that you just ended this discussion. The actual definition of marriage, as it was for thousands of years is "a union of a man and a woman". So we should just accept that then.
But wait, that was a the whole point of this thread, a discussion on whether we should accept the status quo of society's objection to homosexuality as immoral. Should homosexual couples be given the same status as everyone else and be allowed to marry.
The reason for bringing incest to the table was to see if the arguments put forward for legalising gay marriage actually hold water under all circumstances.
Kind of like saying
"Blacks can get married, but latinos can't because they're not white"
Discounting incestuous marriage based on personal prejudice is not the best approach to take when we're discussing homosexual marriage.