Gay marriage legalised in the whole US by the supreme court

[RoboCod]

Oh look, the faith followers, who were at first damning gay marriage and calling it an abomination, now getting on their defensive and asking people to stop criticising their beliefs once again.

Passive aggressive godly types... Are they the worst?

 

[Danthus]

Religion, open tolerant, caring and understanding.

Until we don't like something.

 

[Raz]

There are reasons against those two things though.

Incestuous relationships are discouraged because they significantly increase the chances of children being born with serious defects. Science suggests that brothers and sisters having sexual relations isn't a great idea.

Polygamy has two arguments against it. The first is financial (married couples get tax breaks and benefits others don't so a household with a man and his 6 wives will be getting 7 lots of all the breaks which clearly isn't fair) and the other is protective.

Whilst I see nothing wrong in principle with three consenting adults who genuinely all love each other equally having their relationship formally recognised as a marriage but I'd suspect most polygamous relations consist of 1 man and several mildly abused and partially coerced women in them; so we don't encourage them because of the historical bad use of them.

It may be a silly point but the argument is essentially one of absurdity to begin with - where the person advancing the argument against homosexuality says something along the lines of "it's not normal/natural" and "marriage is only possible between a man and a woman" with the subtext that things must stay the same forever and not evolve so an obvious rebuttal is to ask whether they've adopted anything that wasn't around when the bible/other favoured religious book was written.

It's not an argument I particularly hold to but it does expose the point that most people are content to accept that some things change, it's just a question of where they draw that particular line and why.



There are almost certainly people who hold homophobic views that aren't religious but an awful lot of the arguments against it do seem to come filtered through religious values.



It's been discussed in this thread (and probably every other thread where the topic has come up) but incestuous relationships will often feature an abuse of trust/power and come with a significantly increased risk of genetic defects should any children result from the union. So there's plentiful evidence of harm from such relationships, that doesn't mean that every incestuous relationship fits that category but there's enough risk for society to maintain a position that this is not to be condoned.

You can't make the same claim for homosexual relationships between two (or more) consenting adults so lumping them into the same category is wrong and is an obvious attempt to equate the two.

As for marriage between multiple consenting partners - it'll depend on the individual circumstances and it seems unlikely to be something where there are significant numbers of people wanting it but logically there probably is little reason to oppose it unless as estebanrey says it's abusive but then the consent caveat would take that out.

Because they don't work.

Say two adopted children, let's push the enveloppe, of different race. Shouldn't they be allow to marry? What would be the rationale?

Too close for comfort? How about marrying your childhood sweetheart. Awww isn't that cute. They've been best friends for ever, now they're together. Well...

Would you marry a woman with a couple of side-hubbies? Maybe you're that kind of guy.



Plenty. Oh but you mean GOOD arguments? Well, who knows, if I only I could hear them above the noise. If you want good arguments, you need data, not 'feelings'.

On the other side, apparently, homosexuality is a choice, or at best a disease. Couldn't be anything else, you know, God wouldn't be so cruel. So there's that.

And it's icky. Well, it is, but I can think of a few more important things that would make me turn my back against a wall.

BTW, I lived the best part of my life surrounded by really interesting neighbours, most relevant here, two sisters living together. I don't want to speculate, but here they were sharing an apartment, always together, never married.

They've been together for as long as anyone remembers,They were the sweetest old ladies you could ever meet. Catholics too. So you see, they aren't all bad.

Most the above cover similar points so I'll cover them in one go.

Incestuous relationships do not need to result in children - modern science can ensure no children are born through such relationships, and even if pregnancy does occur then proper medical care could prevent any serious complications. I'm not saying I agree with it, but applying the principles of consenting adults, love and the fact no one is hurting anyone else there isn't really a good reason to reject or oppose such relationships.

Same applies to multiple partners - again, if consenting adults are happy to be in such a relationship why should anyone else have a say in the matter?

Most people would happily accuse 'homophobes' of being bigots and brainwashed by religion or living in ignorance but some of the same people can't see that they also look for reasons to reject what they themselves don't like.

given the Muslim population of this country is engaging in a massive scale marrying of their own first cousins I'm surprised you don't already consider it acceptable.

Although the icnreaseing amount of very expensive genetic diseases growing in the muslim population because of this practice is going to get very expensive for us all and is a nice clear reminder why its a bad idea.

Well it's not just Islam though is it. It's not illegal to do so, and allowed in most religions and cultures. And from Wikipedia (source not checked) -

In April 2002, the Journal of Genetic Counseling released a report which estimated the average risk of birth defects in a child born of first cousins at 1.7–2.8% over an average base risk for non-cousin couples of 3%, or about the same as that of any woman over age 40.[184] In terms of mortality, a 1994 study found a mean excess pre-reproductive mortality rate of 4.4%,[185] while another study published in 2009 suggests the rate may be closer to 3.5%.[3] Put differently, first-cousin marriage entails a similar increased risk of birth defects and mortality as a woman faces when she gives birth at age 41 rather than at 30.[186] Critics argue that banning first-cousin marriages would make as much sense as trying to ban childbearing by older women.

 

[Mitzy]

Do we actually have people of faith arguing for incest now. Ha!

 

[olivier renault]

Do we actually have people of faith arguing for incest now. Ha!

I ain't descending from no monkey. My great great great... grandfather was a simpleton and my great great great... grandmother was his sister and also his daughter.

Swamp people know what's up.

 

[Tefal]

Well it's not just Islam though is it. It's not illegal to do so, and allowed in most religions and cultures. And from Wikipedia (source not checked) -

in this country it is, no other group does it en mass like the Muslim population does.

the wiki comment is about an isolated case but this is a large group repeatedly inbreeding which is causing a large rise in the conditions

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...ities-due-to-cousin-marriages-every-year.html


what's interesting is we're actually seeing some conditions only in Muslim populations.

over 700 children a year with defects because of inbreeding.

...most from Bradford where the percentage for cousin marriage is as high as 75% in the Muslim population.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Most the above cover similar points so I'll cover them in one go.

Incestuous relationships do not need to result in children - modern science can ensure no children are born through such relationships, and even if pregnancy does occur then proper medical care could prevent any serious complications. I'm not saying I agree with it, but applying the principles of consenting adults, love and the fact no one is hurting anyone else there isn't really a good reason to reject or oppose such relationships.

You're right that they don't need to result in children. However the circumstances where there wouldn't also be an abuse of position/trust in incestuous relationships is going to be small therefore it would be legitimate to prohibit them on the basis that the majority of such relationships feature some form of coercion or undue influence.

You simply can't argue that for homosexual relationships and it would be nice if people would stop trying to conflate them.

Same applies to multiple partners - again, if consenting adults are happy to be in such a relationship why should anyone else have a say in the matter?

Multiple partners and homosexual relationships may be more comparable in that there are adult consenting partners so as I've said it depends on the circumstances but in principle I don't have any reason to oppose it.

Most people would happily accuse 'homophobes' of being bigots and brainwashed by religion or living in ignorance but some of the same people can't see that they also look for reasons to reject what they themselves don't like.

Taking this to an extreme then you've either got to allow nothing or everything. Neither position is supportable.

It's fair to note that we've all got our prejudices but as an argument it's just saying "you're prejudiced differently to me" rather than acknowledging perhaps the prejudices aren't logical or are predicated on a supportable basis.

 

[Raz]

in this country it is, no other group does it en mass like the Muslim population does.

the wiki comment is about an isolated case but this is a large group repeatedly inbreeding which is causing a large rise in the conditions

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...ities-due-to-cousin-marriages-every-year.html


what's interesting is we're actually seeing some conditions only in Muslim populations.

over 700 children a year with defects because of inbreeding.

...most from Bradford where the percentage for cousin marriage is as high as 75% in the Muslim population.

I thought marrying cousins in UK was legal?

I'd add that marrying cousins is more of a custom particularly for those from the Indian Sub continent and covers Hindus and Sikhs as well. In any case, there are plenty of articles online that put forward cases for not banning it.

For the benefit of less 'aware' posters, let's be objective. Forget I'm Muslim.

 

[Raz]

You're right that they don't need to result in children. However the circumstances where there wouldn't also be an abuse of position/trust in incestuous relationships is going to be small therefore it would be legitimate to prohibit them on the basis that the majority of such relationships feature some form of coercion or undue influence.

You simply can't argue that for homosexual relationships and it would be nice if people would stop trying to conflate them.

That's a fair point. I did not intend to conflate the two but it does appear that you understood the general point I was making.

In a rather specific case, what about the situation where two lovers found out fairly late in their relationship that they were half brothers?

 

[Nitefly]

This thread has become absurd.

 

[Tefal]

Forget I'm Muslim.

My own views are based on Islam,

A somewhat difficult proposition given its the basis for your argument.

 

[Raz]

This thread has become absurd.

Probably but I try to understand things in my own way and not simply accept them. A close Muslim friend of mine has recently admitted that he is gay and it hasn't changed our friendship at all. His view of love and spirituality is quite interesting.

 

[Raz]

A somewhat difficult proposition given its the basis for your argument.

Good spot. I shall explain.

My views are based on Islam because that's what I've grown up with and therefore I am biased to an extent.

However, agreeing or disagreeing with homosexuality has nothing to do with Islam in general, so my points about e.g.incestuous relationships shouldn't need replies based on "well Islam allows..." because if I left Islam tomorrow my question would still stand but the reply would mean nothing.

 

[RDM]

That's a fair point. I did not intend to conflate the two but it does appear that you understood the general point I was making.

In a rather specific case, what about the situation where two lovers found out fairly late in their relationship that they were half brothers?

In that incredibly rare case then there wouldn't really be a problem. But legislating for the incredibly rare isn't really a good idea.

 

[semi-pro waster]

That's a fair point. I did not intend to conflate the two but it does appear that you understood the general point I was making.

In a rather specific case, what about the situation where two lovers found out fairly late in their relationship that they were half brothers?

As RDM says making laws based on exceptional circumstances almost always leads to poor laws. It would be a rather unfortunate situation for the half brothers in many ways but that would be very rare and wouldn't negate that in the majority of circumstances there would be issues with abuse of trust/position and potential for genetic defects. Generally you legislate for common occurrences rather than rare ones and what you're describing would be very rare.

//edit just so we're clear even if you (or someone else) finds a link to a story where it has happened that doesn't mean it is anything other than very rare, the rareness is what tends to make it newsworthy. That and the appeal to public morality/distaste from such situations which sell papers.

 

[olivier renault]

However, agreeing or disagreeing with homosexuality has nothing to do with Islam in general, so my points about e.g.incestuous relationships shouldn't need replies based on "well Islam allows..." because if I left Islam tomorrow my question would still stand but the reply would mean nothing.

It's still up in the air. All you hear ATM is blablabla it's immoral just because, with no sound reasons being put forward.

The fact is, as you noticed, gay people are just people. AFAIK there isn't anything inherent in their psyche that would make them bad parents, bad people, or bad citizens. There isn't anything to 'fix', just the attitude of others. Now, if we could put a scientific cap on that, that would be grand.

 

[Raz]

Ok, I'll leave the incest point although it's not a clear cut case of incestuous relationships being wrong per se. There probably is an element of biasness against such relationships because of current views. Let's not forgot how homosexuality was seen only a short time ago. Science can support prejudices just as well as religion.

 

[RDM]

Ok, I'll leave the incest point although it's not a clear cut case of incestuous relationships being wrong per se. There probably is an element of biasness against such relationships because of current views. Let's not forgot how homosexuality was seen only a short time ago. Science can support prejudices just as well as religion.

Science per se cannot support prejudices. What science can do is provide evidence, how people use that evidence is up to them. What prejudices do you think science supports?

 

[thep02]

With the incest it's not just the potential offspring problem you have the potential for bullying and coercion psychological or physical.

It strikes me that those issues are far more problematical than the few medical factors.

 

[Craterloads]

With the incest it's not just the potential offspring problem you have the potential for bullying and coercion psychological or physical.

It strikes me that those issues are far more problematical than the few medical factors.

Do normal relationships and homosexuals relationships not suffer from potential for bullying and coercion psychological or physical.