I keep hearing everyone around me saying "If they love each other how does that effect anyone else." Because they can't reproduce I guess that fits into that reasoning. This is the debauchery that a Godless society is bringing into our culture.. Jim
2007-04-10 06:47:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
The answer is very likely never, and this includes partners of the opposite sex who are siblings (brothers and sisters). What you are considering is the condoning of incest which is generally unacceptable religiously, morally, and socially. Almost certainly no legislation will be passed in the foreseeable future (or ever) in this country to legitimize incestuous relationships!
2007-04-10 09:48:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by Lynci 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't know that anyone is trying to advance any such legislation. Sounds like a "slippery slope" argument to me, like saying that, if we allow gay couples to marry, the next thing we know people will be wanting to marry their pets. It's a not-so-clever way of avoiding the topic at hand, which is: there is no just reason why consenting same-sex couples should be denied the right to marry. An ancient prejudice perpetuated through religious dogma is not a just reason.
2007-04-10 07:06:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, the brother and sister thing used to be in the lines of Kings. Look what happened to those poor people. Stark raving mad, most of them!
As for same sex marriage, there is no chance to "procreate", so there is no marriage. There is only a "communal" gathering and thats all.
I know your only having fun at this one, as with the brother and sister thing, your having a blast, as I am amused that people of the same sex want to be "married", when they are just cohabitating, and not married.
Next thing you know, some woman will want to marry a rhino as its the only thing that is "supposively" able to impregnate a human female...ROTFLOL!!!
I wish you well...
Jesse
2007-04-10 06:46:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by x 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
the issue here is that persons think of that, only because of the fact they would not in any respect do it, that no-one could be allowed to do it. the assumption of gay marriage or incest makes you uncomfortable, such as you're someway being asked to take part, so making it unlawful might relieve you of that social stress. If this is against the regulation, you do not would desire to experience responsible approximately not liking it. notwithstanding, regulation isn't approximately making you experience extra efficient. this is approximately combating actual injury to the community. If no person and not something is being harmed, there shouldn't, ethically, be any regulations against it, regardless of if it makes you squirm slightly on your chair.
2016-10-28 08:48:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Probably the same guidelines that apply to opposite sex siblings.
And the "slippery slope" argument is absurd.
2007-04-10 06:46:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by Sun: supporting gay rights 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
In a sane society, people capable of giving consent are capable of consenting to any contractual agreement between themselves they care for.
To be able to give consent, you must be of a well understood right mind, fully aware of the ramifications of the contract and of the age of consent.
2007-04-10 06:43:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by LabGrrl 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
If you push it to the right people you never know what kind of laws pass...but personally...I wouldn't touch this one with a 10 foot pole...incest is never a good thing.
2007-04-10 06:51:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by Maria M 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. Incest is thoroughly practiced throughout America. I believe this is why we see so many brother-sister marriages.
2007-04-10 06:42:42
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nothing surprises me anymore. What's next, inter-species marriages? Do you take this armadillo as your lawfully wedded wife?
2007-04-18 03:23:03
·
answer #10
·
answered by Danny 2
·
0⤊
0⤋