Swivel-eyed loon speaks on gay marriage

[vetran]

Precisely my point - personally I don't condone either, but my point is there is no moral compass or moral point of reference without some kind of religious framework.

Religion gave us a moral framework built to control the masses, we can now use it without the guys in frocks.

[cojak]

I think its reasonable to prohibit Incest for social and medical reasons. Its not Eugenics but a sensible precaution.

Beastiality is out because they can't consent. Same with minors.

I'm all for informed consent with inherited diseases.

How about Land Rovers? (I've seen the PB photo... )

[Old Greg]

And the infertile, obviously.

And people who don't want to have kids. Couples who aren't sure whether they want kids could be granted a provisional marriage that is withdrawn when they decide they don't want kids. And couples who don't have kids by the time the woman reaches menopause will have their marriages annulled.

[VectraMan]

It's taboo for a reason - it spoils the gene pool. Marrying cousins is bad enough (and may be a valid reason for making it illegal), but marrying your own 1st degree relations has always been considered bad form (unless you're Royalty, when the reasons for not doing so become abundantly clear....).

Nobody said they were having children. Just getting married. Why can't two responsible adults who love each other and decide they want to commit to each other in this way do so?

If it comes to children, then it's a different issue. But if you're worried about genetic abnormalities, would you also ban somebody who carries a gene for a life threatening disease get married?

[Mich the Tester]

And people who don't want to have kids. Couples who aren't sure whether they want kids could be granted a provisional marriage that is withdrawn when they decide they don't want kids. And couples who don't have kids by the time the woman reaches menopause will have their marriages annulled.

Shouldn't they get a refund?

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

The religious argument is just a way of justifying intolerance - slightly ironic considering what christians always tell us about tolerance.

On the subject of gay marriage, I've decided I don't care very much. I think it should be legalised, if only to get it over with and stop the same issue coming up time and time again.

oh so you think it will stop there......

Intolerance of race, religious belief (atheist or otherwise), culture, anti-Semitism, discrimination on grounds of disability, age, gender etc. etc. have no place in any moral society. This issue is not so much about intolerance as speaking up for what you believe in - those who believe marriage to be a holy institution which should produce healthy families (if the person adopts the right attitude and ethics into their life).

When somebody comes along and says hey marriage is for everybody, then it is ridiculing the very idea and ideal of marriage.

[Old Greg]

Nobody said they were having children. Just getting married. Why can't two responsible adults who love each other and decide they want to commit to each other in this way do so?

If it comes to children, then it's a different issue. But if you're worried about genetic abnormalities, would you also ban somebody who carries a gene for a life threatening disease get married?

Presumably under this argument there'd be no objection to relatives getting married if one of them had been sterilised.

I think the taboo must be primarily social, but I find it hard to moralise about it.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

It's taboo for a reason - it spoils the gene pool. Marrying cousins is bad enough (and may be a valid reason for making it illegal), but marrying your own 1st degree relations has always been considered bad form (unless you're Royalty, when the reasons for not doing so become abundantly clear....).

So comparing marrying the same sex with marrying the same gene pool is, quite frankly, stupid and ignorant.

Only to you - the idea of marrying your same sex seems just as foreign to most people....

[original PM]

I think that is the crux of the anti gay marriage argument yes!

[Old Greg]

oh so you think it will stop there......

Intolerance of race, religious belief (atheist or otherwise), culture, anti-Semitism, discrimination on grounds of disability, age, gender etc. etc. have no place in any moral society. This issue is not so much about intolerance as speaking up for what you believe in - those who believe marriage to be a holy institution which should produce healthy families (if the person adopts the right attitude and ethics into their life).

When somebody comes along and says hey marriage is for everybody, then it is ridiculing the very idea and ideal of marriage.

Is marriage for people who have previously been married?