<h2>Among legal adults, should gays be allowed to get married? What about polygamous relationships? Brothers who want to marry their sisters? </h2>
<p>Personally, I don’t think so. But I’m curious to see if people who support gay marriage also extend these marriage rights to all consenting adults.</p>
<p>I’ll take a poll.
A.) Marriage only between man/woman (not-related)
B.) Marriage also extended to homosexuals
C.) Marriage to all consenting adults</p>
<p>You can marry any adult you want, as long as you are not more related than second cousins and as long as it’s only one person.</p>
<p>Through the eyes of the state, I have no problem with gay marriage. You’re church doesn’t have to like it, but the state shouldn’t care.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would you not support polygamy among consenting adults? Why can’t two biological brothers get married?</p>
<p>Question one: Polygamy arises from cultures where “consent” is aquired in more ways than one.</p>
<p>Question two: Health reasons. You’re looking at a genetic train wreck if brothers and sisters have kids. From that, you can’t tell a married couple they can’t have kids. From that, if a brother and sister can’t marry, a brother and brother can’t marry.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What would be the health risks of two biological brothers marrying? Why lump that in the same boat – if anything isn’t it closer to non-biological males marrying (which you would support)?</p>
<p>Should a brother and sister be allowed to get married if one person is completely impotent? If a woman agreed to get her tubes tied would this make a difference to you?</p>
<p>I think I made that clear above. People are people, man or woman, fertile or sterile. We shouldn’t allow brothers and brothers to marry if brothers and sisters can’t marry, and we shouldn’t allow a sterile brother-sister to marry if fertile ones can’t, and they shouldn’t unless we want kids with severe health problems.</p>
<p>I have no problem with non biological males marrying, even if they are adopted brothers. Creeps me out that adopted siblings would want to, but I don’t see a health problem with it. I think the non-biological rule is a reasonable one, as it is clear and doesn’t discriminate against man-woman, fertile-sterile, or straight-gay.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is forbidding gay marriage really discriminating against gays? For instance, I am a straight male however if I wanted to defy my natural tendencies and marry a guy I wouldn’t be allowed to. I would be held to the same standard as the gay guy. However, to those who support gay marriage – it seems hypocritical to me to allow certain consenting adults to get married and not others. I think marriage between a (non-related) man and woman is the stronger line.</p>
<p>I think we’ve been inflitrated by robotic Republican talking points.</p>
<p>New option:
Should the government have any say over any form of marriage?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, because being against gay marriage automatically makes someone a republican.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since most voters are against gay marriage, I don’t believe it needs to be legalized.</p>
<p>I am a family values conservative and feel very strongly about this issue. I believe that marriage society as a whole would benefit from marriages between two legally-unencumbered people over the age of 18. Not three, not relatives, but TWO. Adults. Not people who still need parental consent. They should be fully prepared to accept the responsibilities of marriage, along with the rights. Many gay couples will tell you that they don’t want marriage, but those who do, well, if they’re over 18 and unmarried, I’ll throw the rice.</p>
<p>“Should a brother and sister be allowed to get married if one person is completely impotent? If a woman agreed to get her tubes tied would this make a difference to you?”</p>
<p>Why would they need to get married? They already have a legal relationship with each other. Gay marriage would protect people who choose to have a relationship and aren’t otherwise protected under the law.</p>
<p>“Yeah, because being against gay marriage automatically makes someone a republican.”</p>
<p>I’m a republican and I support gay marriage, as do MANY other republicans. Blows your mind, doesn’t it? (Y’all need to meet more actual republicans to see what we believe and listen less to what other liberals tell you that we believe.)</p>
<p>“Yeah, because being against gay marriage automatically makes someone a republican.”</p>
<p>Um, no. My comment had to do with how you framed your argument, not with what you believe. Two entirely different matters.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how I feel about straight marriage. They aren’t very good at it. 50% of them end up in divorces. They produce children; they abuse lots of children, and then damage them further in divorce and post-divorce proceedings. When they get in fights with each other, they occasionally use guns and knives and other weapons. </p>
<p>And some do it for reasons other than procreation! (Maybe marriage should be reserved for those who are unable to procreate - now that’s a thought…)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unofrtunately, yes, if we consider marriage in the legal sense. Visitation rights at hospitals, child custody, tax incentives, estate management, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is actually a flawed statistic. The problem is that some people don’t realize that they should never get married, so they have three or four failed marriages. It really throws the curve. A better statistic is that 80% of married people have never had a divorce.</p>
<p>50% of marriages end up in a divorce. (Actually, I think it is slightly lower.) The question was about "marriage’. But this isn’t counting the separations. Or the fact all those straight people aren’t bothering with marriage anymore, even though they still abuse their children, and the separation is every bit as damaging as a divorce is. </p>
<p>(Sorry about the unclear referent - “them” referred to “straight marriages”.)</p>
<p>Still think we might consider the “do no harm” approach, and reserve marriage for situations where procreation can’t take place.</p>
<p>I think anyone of legal age should be allowed to marry anyone else of legal age.</p>
<p>There is a special problem if close biological relatives of the opposite sex in which the woman is of childbearing age wish to marry. But perhaps this is best dealt with through some form of mandatory genetic counseling, rather than prohibition. I see no earthly reason why two closely related people of the same sex or two closely related people of the opposite sex in which the woman is beyond her childbearing years should not marry if they happen to want to. The reproductive issue does not apply in such instances.</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with polygamy, either, although I’m not thrilled with most of the cultures in which it tends to take place.</p>
<p>There are reasons why human beings universally exhibit visceral horror at the phenomenon of incest. And this reaction has spanned sects, and cultures and religions around the globe, and from time immemorial. It’s not just because nature itself punishes the biological offspring of sibling and parent/child sexual pairings, which should be reason enough in and of itself. If you believe that within evolution, there resides an inherent wisdom, one that works to safeguard the survival of human kind, both on a social and biological basis, you should probably re-examine the concept of sexual free-for-all among ANY and ALL human beings, merely on the basis of “because they happen to want to”. Though it’s now increasingly “incorrect” to acknowledge that the family unit is the primary building block of healthy human society, I am not ashamed to subscribe to that belief myself. It seems incredibly shortsighted to me to disregard nature and endorse the concept of the parent/child relationship morphing into a sexual one, much less one socially sanctioned by the institution of marriage. Same with the sibling relationship. I know it’s PC to fling wide open the doors to all convention and declare nothing off limits, but that doesn’t necessarily make it prudent. </p>
<p>If a parent should be allowed to marry his or her offspring, why not a man or woman and his/her “animal companion”? Think about it. It could solve a lot of problems. It would insure the rights of bestial couples to equal treatment and fair housing, as well as spousal employment benefits. It would extend health coverage to millions of dogs/cats/reptiles/birds, etc., who would not otherwise have access to such. It would acknowledge the “equality” of non-human species to that of humans, thereby greatly calling into question the slaughter of animals for the consumption of human beings (not to mention, swelling the ranks of PETA membership). How could one possibly argue against the fairness of that?</p>