Tommo the link is obvious. If we change the law to allow any two loving and consenting adults who are of the same sex to marry; then on what logical grounds will we refuse to change the law to allow two loving and consenting adults who are closely related to marry? The step from one to the other is very small indeed.
@savemarriageaust The difference is that there is no real societal push for incest. The minority that wants incest to be accepted is even smaller than the minority that wants gay marriage to stay illegal. You are part of a shrinking demographic, and your fight is a losing one.
I will also point out there is a vast difference between paedophilia/incest and homosexuality in regards to marriage and I find it highly offensive that you would put them in the same category.
You understand they do not want to get married in your church, nor will legalising gay marriage force you to allow them to do that, The law allows non religious unions that have nothing to do with your fictitious god. Understand the seperation of church and state for the good of the rest of us.
Hi Tommo, I didn't mention paedophilia. But, if we grant the right to marry to any two loving, consenting adults of the same sex, then on what grounds will we withhold marriage from any two loving, consenting adults who are close relatives? A father and step-daughter for example? I am glad that incestuous marriage appears to appal you, for numerous others who are arguing for homosexual marriage don't seem to have a problem with it.
I have never heard anyone suggest that the two are linked. The fact is there i a completely separate law forbidding incestuous relationships already and this will stand regardless of any gay marriage laws. To suggest the two are linked is bizzare. It is not against the law for two men or two woman to be in a sexual relationship. It is illegal for two brothers or any direct blood relatives. This law does not affect this fact.
Hi Tommo the link is not obscure. If marriage is granted to 'loving and consenting adults' then it will make it difficult to withhold it in future from loving and consenting adults who are closely related: by blood or adoption. The law prevents this now, as it prevents homosexual marriage. But if the law is changed for homosexuals, then it can also be changed for incestuous adult couples.
As a straight Athiest who does not plan the have children I stongly disagree that you sum up marrage as a union of "sexually, spiritually and reproductivly for life". I'm sure couples who are unable to have children would agree they do not fit this definition either. I fail to see how my relationships differs to that of a homosexual one. I can see how it differs from yours.
Hi Tommo, a married couple who can't (or who don't want to) have children are no less married because of this. Marriage is however naturally geared to reproduction. Even those who push for homosexual marriage agree with this, which is why they are also pushing for surrogacy rights.
Surrogacy rights is a completely different issue. Gay marriage will not necessarily lead directly to legalised gay surrogacy or adoption. The legal system should not deny the rights of the gay and lesbian community to get married on the basis that they shouldn't be allowed surrogacy. It should create separate laws regarding the two issues. If you believe homosexuals should be banned from surrogacy I believe you should be arguing for stricter surrogacy laws, not marriage laws.
Hi Tommo, it isn't a 'completely different issue' because marriage is of course intimately related to child bearing. The right to marry will lead to the unquestioned right to obtain children. But yes we should indeed be arguing for stricter surrogacy laws: in fact banning it altogether for the way it views and treats children.
Campbell Markham has done an amazing job bringing this debate to the public.
Why have so many been so easily silenced and so ready to give up the inheritance of their children?
Marriage is always about the children. It is not about the whims and desires of adults who mistakenly feel they are missing out on what someone else has.
Tommo the link is obvious. If we change the law to allow any two loving and consenting adults who are of the same sex to marry; then on what logical grounds will we refuse to change the law to allow two loving and consenting adults who are closely related to marry? The step from one to the other is very small indeed.
savemarriageaust 10 months ago
@savemarriageaust The difference is that there is no real societal push for incest. The minority that wants incest to be accepted is even smaller than the minority that wants gay marriage to stay illegal. You are part of a shrinking demographic, and your fight is a losing one.
kingnothing1046 2 weeks ago
I will also point out there is a vast difference between paedophilia/incest and homosexuality in regards to marriage and I find it highly offensive that you would put them in the same category.
You understand they do not want to get married in your church, nor will legalising gay marriage force you to allow them to do that, The law allows non religious unions that have nothing to do with your fictitious god. Understand the seperation of church and state for the good of the rest of us.
TommoByrne 10 months ago
Hi Tommo, I didn't mention paedophilia. But, if we grant the right to marry to any two loving, consenting adults of the same sex, then on what grounds will we withhold marriage from any two loving, consenting adults who are close relatives? A father and step-daughter for example? I am glad that incestuous marriage appears to appal you, for numerous others who are arguing for homosexual marriage don't seem to have a problem with it.
savemarriageaust 10 months ago
@savemarriageaust
I have never heard anyone suggest that the two are linked. The fact is there i a completely separate law forbidding incestuous relationships already and this will stand regardless of any gay marriage laws. To suggest the two are linked is bizzare. It is not against the law for two men or two woman to be in a sexual relationship. It is illegal for two brothers or any direct blood relatives. This law does not affect this fact.
TommoByrne 10 months ago
Hi Tommo the link is not obscure. If marriage is granted to 'loving and consenting adults' then it will make it difficult to withhold it in future from loving and consenting adults who are closely related: by blood or adoption. The law prevents this now, as it prevents homosexual marriage. But if the law is changed for homosexuals, then it can also be changed for incestuous adult couples.
savemarriageaust 9 months ago
As a straight Athiest who does not plan the have children I stongly disagree that you sum up marrage as a union of "sexually, spiritually and reproductivly for life". I'm sure couples who are unable to have children would agree they do not fit this definition either. I fail to see how my relationships differs to that of a homosexual one. I can see how it differs from yours.
TommoByrne 10 months ago
Hi Tommo, a married couple who can't (or who don't want to) have children are no less married because of this. Marriage is however naturally geared to reproduction. Even those who push for homosexual marriage agree with this, which is why they are also pushing for surrogacy rights.
savemarriageaust 10 months ago
@savemarriageaust
Surrogacy rights is a completely different issue. Gay marriage will not necessarily lead directly to legalised gay surrogacy or adoption. The legal system should not deny the rights of the gay and lesbian community to get married on the basis that they shouldn't be allowed surrogacy. It should create separate laws regarding the two issues. If you believe homosexuals should be banned from surrogacy I believe you should be arguing for stricter surrogacy laws, not marriage laws.
TommoByrne 10 months ago
Hi Tommo, it isn't a 'completely different issue' because marriage is of course intimately related to child bearing. The right to marry will lead to the unquestioned right to obtain children. But yes we should indeed be arguing for stricter surrogacy laws: in fact banning it altogether for the way it views and treats children.
savemarriageaust 9 months ago
Campbell Markham has done an amazing job bringing this debate to the public.
Why have so many been so easily silenced and so ready to give up the inheritance of their children?
Marriage is always about the children. It is not about the whims and desires of adults who mistakenly feel they are missing out on what someone else has.
stewlaner 10 months ago