• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

johndylan1 said:
How can the supreme court rule that it is so important that it is a protected right if, at the same time it is meaningless in the eyes of the state?
Click to expand...

It is a law to the state. And I never said it was meaningless to the state. I said that it is not the duty of the state to ascribe a meaning to it. You apparently need the state to tell you what marriage is and to enforce that meaning.
 
Scrabaholic said:
I am conservative, and I think the above is a totally ridiculous thing to say.
Click to expand...

Mayne you're just reprssed??

Read it agian - it;s half joke half satire...

Sometimes sad situations need abit of humor to at least lighten people up..
 
johndylan1 said:
So in your mind, anything goes? Doesn't the state have any obligation to uphold any of the moral sensibilities of the majority?
Click to expand...

I have never said "anything goes". In fact, I have no issue with restrictions on numbers of those entering into a contract, particularly marriage, nor with too-close relation restrictions. Those easily are justified by legitimate state interests being furthered by having such restrictions. Restrictions on marriage though based on sex/gender have no legal justification. They are purely about someone feeling morally offended by such relationships, and that simply isn't good enough by our laws for a restriction on a legal contract/document/institute to remain in place.

Morals such as who should be in relationships or not change quickly. But our main shared morality as a country is the belief that people, all people, are equal and should be treated as such.
 
johndylan1 said:
1.)So in your mind, anything goes?
2.)Doesn't the state have any obligation to uphold any of the moral sensibilities of the majority?
Click to expand...

1.) nobdoy said anything goes
2.) not if it violates individual rights

morals of the majority are meaningless vs equal rights
 
Scrabaholic said:
I am conservative, and I think the above is a totally ridiculous thing to say.
Click to expand...

Good for you...

I think a conservative with no humor is either an ailen or a democrat...
 
AGENT J said:
im sure you think that but the fact is they are different, its obvious to all those without a biased angle and motive

gay marriage is not equal to incest and never will be

theres no legal precedence and arguments that link the two
Click to expand...

Listen closely, I didn't link it to incest. The link was to brothers and sisters marrying. This is an example of two consenting adults, no different from any other two consenting adults, unless you want to exclude them. If you do you will have to justify your discrimination.
 
If I've learned one thing from this thread...

It's that it's nearly impossible to argue with someone so delusional that they believe discriminating against people who hurt nobody = freedom.

And that equal rights = fascism.
 
CriticalThought said:
It is a law to the state. And I never said it was meaningless to the state. I said that it is not the duty of the state to ascribe a meaning to it. You apparently need the state to tell you what marriage is and to enforce that meaning.
Click to expand...

Yes because the state is an affirmative actor in issuing licence etc.. on what basis does the state do that? There has to be meaning and purpose ascribed.
 
johndylan1 said:
Listen closely, I didn't link it to incest.
2.) The link was to brothers and sisters marrying.
3.) This is an example of two consenting adults, no different from any other two consenting adults
4.) unless you want to exclude them.
5.) If you do you will have to justify your discrimination.
Click to expand...

1.) i smell a reframe coming that is still going to fail
2.) yes which would be incest and if its NOT then i said posts ago if people want to fight for that right that NOBODY has and have some stipulation in it they wont produce offspring then im totally fine with it. Regardless that FACTUALLY has nothing to do with gay marriage. If gay marriage didnt exist that problem still would, since it was once legal and now isnt it further proves it has nothing to do with gay marriage. This fact will never change ever.
3.) two consenting adults that could create a victim, this is what makes it different.
4.) see 2 "i" dont want to exclude them and would see it as fine as long as they get rid of the victim
but the law does want to exclude them because of a possible victim so NOBODY can do it so theres no inequality.

again nothgin like gay marriage.

banning gay marriage is inequality has court cases have determined and gay marriage has no victim like incest could

5.) i dont but its already justified

and this is why that poster called your argument a strawman and this is way your strawman completely fails


facts defeat this point again, trying something esle
 
Last edited:
johndylan1 said:
Listen closely, I didn't link it to incest. The link was to brothers and sisters marrying. This is an example of two consenting adults, no different from any other two consenting adults, unless you want to exclude them. If you do you will have to justify your discrimination.
Click to expand...

There is an assumed intimate relationship within marriage. It isn't legally mandated, but there is no way to legally separate which couples would be having sex and which wouldn't within their marriage. And it would be rather pointless for two siblings to marry for legal recognition of family because they already have legal familial recognition. Anything else is either available or not what it was meant for to begin with.

Heck, personally I'm okay with an exception to the sibling rule that we see now, where two siblings not raised together are allowed to marry or at least remain married in many places because they found out after the relationship began that they are siblings.
 
Jetboogieman said:
If I've learned one thing from this thread...

It's that it's nearly impossible to argue with someone so delusional that they believe discriminating against people who hurt nobody = freedom.

And that equal rights = fascism.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that considering you're judging me while me intent is clearly political but without question Libertarian/republican punning the progressive base....

Whatever you want man.... I was just trying to elaborate progressive infiltration into an otherwise solid conservative community Just to see your response...

IF it matters I'm a blunt hard nosed libertarian just looking for reaction from fellow conservatives and libertarians...

If you agree with me and my posts follow me if not - shoot me dead...

I'm not that hard to find "Mr.Nick.."

Good luck and don't cyber blast me with 12gague while I walk away. hahah
 
Dragonfly said:
Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

Typical "conservative/republican" ignorance. :roll:

What a douche nozzle.

So he's saying homosexual = incest


A true moron in so many ways.
Click to expand...

While Corbett seems to have a tin year when it comes to public sensibilities, I don't think this is fair.

A suggestion was made that recognizing homosexual marriages means opening a Pandora's box of immoral activities being sanctioned. Well, no - Governor says - the gay marriage does not bear any resemblance to the situation when the marriage contract is being imposed on someone incapable of entering a legally binding contract - for a reason of being a child...or, for example, a goat.

The situation of adult siblings wishing to marry is, indeed, rather similar to the gay situation - at least on the level of the objections being offered.

There's a strong societal taboo against incest, and a darn good biological reason for it: Children are very likely to pay with their health for such union. But, in the age of contraception and especially after we admit that "marriage" is not primarily about child-rearing, what exactly is the objection, rationally speaking? Our instinctive disgust? And? 30% of the population may be "disgusted" by the idea of homosexual marriage; 85% - by the idea of sister and brother marrying (in this society; didn't bother Ancient Egyptians or not-so-ancient-Hawaiians in the least).

There's no popular demand to make sibling marriages legal, and none is expected in the foreseeable future. Also, my own position (decidedly FOR gay marriages, if "civil unions for all" is not an option) is not likely to be influenced by this kind of rambling discourse. But let's try to stick to some elementary fairness here: What the guy said was actually quite correct. It just was. Regardless of who he is, or what his hidden agenda may be.

Your outrage is entirely a predictable result of your partisan expectations.
 
johndylan1 said:
Listen closely, I didn't link it to incest. The link was to brothers and sisters marrying. This is an example of two consenting adults, no different from any other two consenting adults, unless you want to exclude them. If you do you will have to justify your discrimination.
Click to expand...

The difference, from a limitation standpoint, is siblings could instead just find someone else to marry, i would think. Likewise with polygamy, that they can *still* marry someone they love. Homosexuals are pretty much only interested in marrying the same sex. I'm not saying that alone should preclude incestuous marriage, but it's not identical either.
 
Cyrylek said:
*snip for brevity*
Click to expand...
Additionally, Corbett didn't actually say "gay = incest", if you read the whole article.

Which makes me think that the person you quoted didn't read the whole thing.
 
Cyrylek said:
While Corbett seems to have a tin year when it comes to public sensibilities, I don't think this is fair.

A suggestion was made that recognizing homosexual marriages means opening a Pandora's box of immoral activities being sanctioned. Well, no - Governor says - the gay marriage does not bear any resemblance to the situation when the marriage contract is being imposed on someone incapable of entering a legally binding contract - for a reason of being a child...or, for example, a goat.

The situation of adult siblings wishing to marry is, indeed, rather similar to the gay situation - at least on the level of the objections being offered.

There's a strong societal taboo against incest, and a darn good biological reason for it: Children are very likely to pay with their health for such union. But, in the age of contraception and especially after we admit that "marriage" is not primarily about child-rearing, what exactly is the objection, rationally speaking? Our instinctive disgust? And? 30% of the population may be "disgusted" by the idea of homosexual marriage; 85% - by the idea of sister and brother marrying (in this society; didn't bother Ancient Egyptians or not-so-ancient-Hawaiians in the least).

There's no popular demand to make sibling marriages legal, and none is expected in the foreseeable future. Also, my own position (decidedly FOR gay marriages, if "civil unions for all" is not an option) is not likely to be influenced by this kind of rambling discourse. But let's try to stick to some elementary fairness here: What the guy said was actually quite correct. It just was. Regardless of who he is, or what his hidden agenda may be.

Your outrage is entirely a predictable result of your partisan expectations.
Click to expand...

But the problem with sibling relationships isn't just children of those relationships (although that is a legitimate interest), but also the fact that many such relationships, if the two were raised for a significant portion of their early lives in the same household, came about through undue influence and/or abuse because there is plenty of evidence that shows that those raised in the same households develop natural aversion to relationships with each other. This is most commonly overridden by some form of abuse or outside influence. And there is little way to know whether the relationship actually developed naturally or whether there was the more common cause, abuse/influence, for such relationships.
 
roguenuke said:
But the problem with sibling relationships isn't just children of those relationships (although that is a legitimate interest), but also the fact that many such relationships, if the two were raised for a significant portion of their early lives in the same household, came about through undue influence and/or abuse because there is plenty of evidence that shows that those raised in the same households develop natural aversion to relationships with each other. This is most commonly overridden by some form of abuse or outside influence. And there is little way to know whether the relationship actually developed naturally or whether there was the more common cause, abuse/influence, for such relationships.
Click to expand...

You have any way of knowing "whether the relationship actually developed naturally or whether there was the more common cause, abuse/influence" in the case of your average "perfectly normal", heterosexual, officially sanctioned, societally approved and glorified, etc relationship?
 
Cyrylek said:
You have any way of knowing "whether the relationship actually developed naturally or whether there was the more common cause, abuse/influence" in the case of your average "perfectly normal", heterosexual, officially sanctioned, societally approved and glorified, etc relationship?
Click to expand...

We have evidence that shows that even when there is no blood relation, there is an aversion that develops for those raised together.

Evolving a Mechanism to Avoid Sex with Siblings: Scientific American

Kin Detection

This I think is a very key component to the evidence, especially when it comes to how it is very different to compare incest relationships with homosexual relationships.

Humans in all known cultures feel differently about family members than they do about non-family members. To greater or lesser degrees, they are willing to sacrifice some of their own welfare to help family members, and they feel usually disgusted at the prospect of having sexual contact with nuclear family members (those who are genetic relatives). They also often feel incest to be morally wrong, and generally oppose brother-sister and parent-offspring incest in others.
Click to expand...

We know that something of the opposite is true about homosexuality, in that all known cultures had/have homosexuals. And that it was present no matter the taboo against it.

'Kinship Detectors' Prevent Incest ... In Some Cases | LiveScience

As for the belief that some sort of abuse or other negative influence happens for most cases of incest (again, when the siblings were raised together), there is this:

Oedipus Wrecked | Psychology Today

"When attachment is impaired early in life--through separation or parental neglect--people grow up confusing familial attraction with sexual attraction."

This makes sense. It may not in fact be the sibling that caused the confusion, but there is still likely some serious psychological problems within the family, and likely either abuse or neglect for such a relationship to develop.

Now, obviously there could be some exceptions, particularly with the fact that some siblings are being raised separately, but that is one of the reasons that I said that perhaps an exception to the rule of "no sibling marriages" should be made, particularly if they cannot have children. There have been these types of exceptions made in the past in places where siblings cannot legally marry.
 
johndylan1 said:
Yes I am. Do you believe that procreation is central to the states sanction of marriage? If not my post stands.
Click to expand...

Your post only stands if the only argument in support of gay marriage is that procreation is not essential to the state sanction of marriage. As there are many arguments as to why gay marriage should be legal, including but not limited to:

- legal consistency
- new family nuclei (benefiting children who need to be adopted)
- socially de-stigmatizing homosexuality

your "post" - if that's what that straw man can be called - does not stand anymore than a worm does.

Now, obviously - your entire post is funny sauce as there are many Southern states who find that "cousin" marriages deserve to be legal before homosexual marriages do. This is true even though there are many academic studies which make it obvious that mixing with somebody who shares your DNA is not a great idea. Now, the fact that you come from Texas, which only recently banned cousin marriages in, what I can only guess, was an effort to stop all the inbreeding in that state makes it all ironic.
 
Last edited:
davidtaylorjr said:
It's no different than incest.
Click to expand...

Of course it is... as has been shown many times. The fact that you refuse to see it because it is just another nail in the coffin of your position does not alter the reality of it's difference.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Good for you...

I think a conservative with no humor is either an ailen or a democrat...
Click to expand...

Actually, a conservative with no humor is... a conservative.
 
AGENT J said:
hmmm well i dont know what the consensus is outside the state

but inside the state there are many jokes about how theres the cities Pittsburgh and philly and its Mississippi inbetween

i myself have been throughout the Northeast and live here all my life and i have to agree it is unique, you go to the tright mall and you will have every stereotype presnt lol
Click to expand...

"Pennsyltucky" is how us more civilized folk north of the NY-PA border often refer to the flyover parts of the Keystone State. :)
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, a conservative with no humor is... a conservative.
Click to expand...

I'm not a conservative so I just sit back and watch the dung fly..


I'm hardly a progressive or democrat so I just sit back and watch the rubber fly....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom