There is a very large difference between two people being the same sex and two people sharing the same genes... There are health risks involved in incest... whereas a homosexual couple would have so such issue because they can't procreate together

But, what about two consenting adult siblings? And be careful not to get into subjective morality.

Consent does not negate the health risks to the potential offspring

Hmmm there are very risky genetic matches that are perfectly legal to get married. And lots of people conceive without marriage licenses. I'm not sure the genetic risk factor is the bottom line here.

Consent does not negate the health risks to the potential offspring

What if they don't want to have children? Do we ban people with mental retardation or other genetic diseases or deformities from marrying?

Well, in that case, there are actually some states in which incest (cousins are usually as far as they allow) is permissible provided either: they are above child bearing age, or they get genetic counseling, or are sterile... so yeah, if they don't want kids, some states say no big deal.

There is a very large difference between two people being the same sex and two people sharing the same genes... There are health risks involved in incest... whereas a homosexual couple would have so such issue because they can't procreate together

But, what about two consenting adult siblings? And be careful not to get into subjective morality.

Consent does not negate the health risks to the potential offspring

Hmmm there are very risky genetic matches that are perfectly legal to get married. And lots of people conceive without marriage licenses. I'm not sure the genetic risk factor is the bottom line here.

To be perfectly honest... I couldn't care less about it.. if someone wants to marry their cousin or brother or whatever.. who am I to tell them no.. I was just pointing out that the way they were trying to relate that topic to SSM didn't make for a valid point

I agree. While I personally am not a fan of incest relationships, then my solution is simple: I won't engage in one. If consenting adults (those are the keywords: consenting adults) who are relatives want to get married, that is their business. Conceiving offspring in a relationship like that opens up a whole new can of worms...but I feel I have no right to tell consenting adults that they can't marry or love one another, simply because I personally wouldn't engage in a situation like that.

Even if someone has a non-religious issue with same sex marriage, their reasons are invalid based solely on the fact that a same sex marriage hurts no one. Why must there be a "line" to it in the first place? New situations come about...rules cannot be set in stone on certain issues. As society evolves, our cultural, social, and lawful behavioral norms evolve.

But if someone -- anyone! -- want to state some valid anti-SSM points that are not based in religion, I'd be happy to hear them! Here are mine in favor.

I can't find it right now, but I read a viewpoint on reddit from a non-religious standpoint not that long ago. I'll look for it when I get home and post it. I'll also message you, as the topic may die down by then!

OK, I can't find the exact one I wanted, but here's someone's non-religious take on it.

Legalizing gay marriage is a sign that our society condones homosexuality.

In previous generations, homosexuals would sometimes marry and have families due to societal pressure.

Homosexuals will not pass on their genes if we condone homosexuality because none of them will feel pressured to marry the opposite sex and have kids.

Homosexual people with good genes will be less likely to pass on their genes if we condone homosexuality.

Homosexual people with bad genes will not pass on their genes in either case, since they are less likely to find a mate.

It follows that our society's next generation's gene pool has something to gain, and nothing to lose, by not condoning homosexuality.

This argument assumes there is such a thing as "Good" and "Bad" genes, and that they correlate with the ability to find a mate.

It's a flawed argument, very flawed, but it's a non-Christian one. I know there was actually a pretty cogent argument (though I disagree very much with it), but I can't find it.

Incidentally, it is legal in NC to marry your first cousin. Just not your gay first cousin.

The "slippery slope" argument doesn't hold water either. When blacks were allowed to vote dogs weren't given that right. Hell, women weren't even given that right until much later. When interracial marriage was allowed no one demanded they be allowed to have an inter-species marriage. The slippery slope arguments always go to the radical extreme. But, really, there's no where else for them to go. It took nearly 200 years for this country to legally recognize black/white marriages. It's been another 50 -60 years since then and now the issue is gay marriage. Frankly, if in another 60 years there is a heated debate about siblings getting married or human/alien marriages, that's not my concern. As society evolves so will the perceptions of what is right and what is wrong.

exactly why the slippery slope argument is called a fallacy

I honestly, at my heart of hearts, cannot figure out why the majority people against SSM care. Straight people who support SSM care because discrimination bothers us, amongst a variety of personal reasons. Assuming the anti crowd are straight, why does SSM bother them? I mean, I highly doubt (the majority of) these people would describe themselves as pro-discrimination...right? So SSM really should not impact their lives, at all. Can anyone explain why the anti crowd cares whether gay people get married?

My personal moral opinion is "being gay" meaning acting on it is repugnant and goes againstnatural law and God.

marriage is a religious consecration, the state shouldnt b involved. Civilunions give the same rights, but with rights should also come the freedom to criticize...im the public discourse today u cant b against gay marriage w/o beinged brandeid a bigot, so u tell me who r thr bigots on this thread?

If the "state shouldn't be involved", they why the *kitten* are they getting involved?

Ok, to whoever says homosexuality is not natural, that is actually wrong.


nat·u·ral
   [nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl] Show IPA

adjective
1.
existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.


Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

Which means, it naturally occurs in nature.


And for those of you using God to spread your message of hate, that makes me so sad as a Christian. Following the word of Christ is what we are suppose to do, and He never said anything about homosexuals, not a single recorded word. If it was so important, you think He might have mentioned it. All He said, was love everyone, be kind, take care of each other, turn the other check. And the sections of the Bible that people use to defend their ignorance, are Old Testement sections, that also say you are going to hell if you work on Sundays, eat shellfish or pork, or even wear clothes of mixed fabric. It also states that you can own slaves. You cannot pick and choose which things to listen to, and which not to. I will never believe that those of you stating opinons against SSM misusing God, all wear only one type of fabric at a time always. I also do not believe that they all execute their children if they have cursed at them, even though it is actually stated in the same chapter.

Over the last few hundred years, the Bible has been misused for many things, including, supporting slavery, and then segragation, fighting against equality of women, support Hitler and the third reich, and many other things over the course of history. It is time as Christains, we stood up and say enough is enough, and show the love to everyone the way Jesus taught us to. If not, how sad He must be when He sees His creation acting so. Won't that be a ***** to all of you, when you get to the gates of Heaven, only to be denied for treating other children of God with such oppression. God made us all, He loves us all, and He would want the best for all of us, and in this day and age, with the way laws work and such, that would be for everyone to have equal rights, every single human being, no matter who they love.

I am posting my 2 cents in ranting tonight, but want to read back through this thread later and digest it all later. My apologies if I have repeated other info to date! I grew up in the North and transplanted to NC 17 years ago. I must stress there are many good people living in this area attempting to survive the insanity of the south! Don't bash us all as a state! I have offended many people down here over the years by saying as a culture, NC and the rest of the south is AT LEAST 20 years behind the rest of the US in social development. In groups, you have the innovators, the early and late adopters and those who will just never change. I still hold faith with a new generation on the rise, we can generally fall into a very late adopters!

I am appalled but not shocked it passed. I am truly upset on 2 different levels. First and foremost a second banning of same sex marriages (there is already one law on the books...). Not allowing a fundamental right because of how a person was born and because just because their beliefs are different from one standard of normal (Don't even get me going on the religious influence of this entire thing, as that can be an entirely different rant). I was raised to respect how others lived, even if you didn't like some aspect of how they lived, as long as how others were living were not hurting anyone or anything. Who and how does it hurt anyone by allowing men to marry men and women to marry women. I thought I was living in America the land of freedom and tolerance...sigh...I am also scared about the potential ramification of domestic violence laws and those that are not legally married (I am speaking of hetrosexual couples as well). Maybe I am over reacting, but I envision a victim of domestic violence not being able to uphold a restraining orders at the supreme court level because they were considered 'common law" or a couple (again any couple) losing partner employment benefits. My employer had already said they would continue partner benefits even before the outcome of the amendment was known.

I was surprised to see the vote was about 60-40 with only 8 counties voting against the amendment and 93 voting for it. I can't help but wonder...only 34% turnout...The only people who voted were the ones who really cared about the topic. That means 66% probably don't care one way or the other about same sex marriage, and probably would have voted against the amendment. If they had taken the time to vote against the amendment, if it may have not passed. Not taking a stand (either way) is just as bad as voting for the amendment. For anyone who thinks "their vote does not matter" you are wrong...and I personally realized how powerful each vote can be.

Rant over for tonight...edited for typo!

Wrong. This country was founded on the notion of FREEDOM of religion.

Amendment 1 of the constitution (since you obviously missed this in your high school civics class):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'm not american so correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the founding fathers non religious and borderline agnostics? I'm pretty sure the first few presidents were?

Didn't want to post the entire conversation you two were having so I just posted the last comment!

It's completely irrelevant what faith they were. It only matters what the law says, and freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion are basic tenants upon which America was founded. I find it highly significant that they chose to put this particular guarantee at the first amendment not the second third or fourth. In fact, it's the first line of the first amendment.

This makes any religion-based argument against gay-marriage moot upfront. It's unconstitutional.

There is no "freedom from religion" in the Constitution. The state simply cannot start a church, end of story. It has no bearing on whether or not a student would like to pray, or a politician for that matter.

What I find so hilarious is that the argument about ssm is that it harms no one, yet listening to someone pray is toxic.
I love you libs, no matter how hypocritical you are.

that depends on how you interpret it... and it is generally interpreted to extend the way it is being used in this thread... and I am all for reinterpreting the constitution as times change... thing of all the other 1st amendment cases that have extended freedom of speech if the constitution would have been interpreted simply as exactly what is says

So we make it up as we go? Sounds like a solid way to have a rule of law society.

I think that's called 'case law'... Now really, really hating the time zone issue:grumble: - this would have been fun!

But if someone -- anyone! -- want to state some valid anti-SSM points that are not based in religion, I'd be happy to hear them! Here are mine in favor.

I can't find it right now, but I read a viewpoint on reddit from a non-religious standpoint not that long ago. I'll look for it when I get home and post it. I'll also message you, as the topic may die down by then!

OK, I can't find the exact one I wanted, but here's someone's non-religious take on it.

Legalizing gay marriage is a sign that our society condones homosexuality.

In previous generations, homosexuals would sometimes marry and have families due to societal pressure.

Homosexuals will not pass on their genes if we condone homosexuality because none of them will feel pressured to marry the opposite sex and have kids.

Homosexual people with good genes will be less likely to pass on their genes if we condone homosexuality.

Homosexual people with bad genes will not pass on their genes in either case, since they are less likely to find a mate.

It follows that our society's next generation's gene pool has something to gain, and nothing to lose, by not condoning homosexuality.

This argument assumes there is such a thing as "Good" and "Bad" genes, and that they correlate with the ability to find a mate.

It's a flawed argument, very flawed, but it's a non-Christian one. I know there was actually a pretty cogent argument (though I disagree very much with it), but I can't find it.

This reminds me of the pseudoscientific racist ideas that were actively promoted in the 19th century (and still exist today).

Oh goodness! There you are Patti, I was looking for you, and it looks like you've changed your picture I specifically asked where you were because you're always so able to defend your views without being rude or accusatory. Glad to see you're still representing.

You ran him off before I could debate "Christian to Christian" on this issue!

That's a wildly generous use of the term "christian".

Ok im checking out, this is the "if ur not pro gay ur stupid a big or uninformed" thread

Heres a final thought, I under stand n empsthizr wiyh u feeling wronged n im pro civil unions, but u all do ur caise a disservice in how u react to those who have a diffetence in oponions....if u really want to "win" grow up and act like an adult and not like children who were told they cant play in the sandbox.

Trust me

Apart from the posts after this one, I only saw people giving their opinions and not really bashing you? They gave very detailed explanations why they thought you were wrong and not a single one brought up the fact you type like a 6 year old...

I would have been the one, except I was really busy at work and got into the discussion very late.

you know what his excuse was for typing like that, HE WAS DRIVING AT THE TIME! I wouldn't want to debate with that guy anyway, not only is he not very knowledgeable on the actual subject but he has no common sense either. Plus if he runs over someone while debating and driving you could be considered and accessory hahahaha

I have two replies I often like to give when arguing with someone about same sex marriage:

1) "It's a choice." And marrying the man I wanted to marry was also a choice, your point?

2) "Homosexuals can't have children." Me and my husband don't plan on having children. What's your point?

That usually shuts them down immediately and then they digress into bible verses.

That's almost an appeal to emotion, what somebody says must be judged on the content on what they are saying - if somebody is rude or not is irrelevant - as it holds no bearing to the validity of the points being made.

We'll disagree on this one. Debaters are often judged not on the content of what they're saying, but how they say it. The ridiculing, mocking, and insulting may not have any direct bearing to the validity of the points being made, but it deflects from it, causing one to potentially lose the debate on that alone.