Thread: Gay Marriage

Considering that David assumed I was talking about 8-year-olds when I said that 2 people should be allowed to settle down and start a family...

Was there some point when I said something about allowing children to get married? Did I ever suggest that "any two people in love" be used as some sort of legal definition? Was there anything in any of what I said that implied that 8-year-olds should be allowed to get married? How is it that I am even bothering to respond to such drivel? Your definition of marriage doesn't clarify that the man and the woman are both homo sapiens. Shall we continue to waste our time on this idiocy? Or can we agree that it's understood by everyone here that we're talking about consenting adult human beings?

Any sort of inbreeding is a health issue. Cousins marrying and procreating is unhealthy, and is likely to produce negative mutations.

Yes, I suppose it is morality that says that 8-year-olds should not marry. Yes, I made a point based on morality, despite the lack of Jesus in my life. And...? I found David's entire post about the morality arguments to be hard to follow. It has a tone that suggests it is responding to something, but to what I don't know. It has a tone that suggests that there is some point being made, but I cannot find it.

It was responding to the opening post, which asked for arguments that have nothing to do with morallity or religion.

I think maybe David meant between consenting adults over 18. That's what I understood his post as saying, or implying anyway, which eliminates the slippery slope thing.

Then why would he be against making marraige between consenting adults over 18? If that requirement is OK for "civil unionis" it should be OK for "marriage", gay or straight.

Also, if civil unions were allowed, would straight people be able to choose between marriages and civil unions?

The probelm with makeing marriage an age thing is that many states have different age laws already oh the books that would have to be re-written. If included in the first civil-union laws, it will not cost the tax payers as much, and won't end up being fought in court for 50 years before being inacted.