i have question. maybe make us think. is it ok father marries daughter? father marries son? son is 18 father is 40. if not, why not? thank you
There are classes of people who are and are not allowed to marry. I believe there are still restrictions against marrying the retarded. There are restrictions against close relatives marrying. There are age restrictions against marrying children. There used to be restrictions against people of different races marrying, but as far as I know those have been repealed. Each of these restrictions has its own reasons for existing. The restrictions against people of the same sex marrying may go the way of race-restrictions. Or they may not. These days you can choose your gender! This may be a key concept in judging the validity of same-sex marriages. Any two adults who are not close relatives may marry, as long as they are not the same sex or one of them is willing to undergo an operation. So the same two people may marry, as long as their sexual acts are plug-in-socket (even if a surgeon created the socket). But without plug-in-socket those same two people may not marry. So it would seem that marriage constitutes the State's recognition and approval of heterosexual relations. People may have homosexual relations now, but the State will not give its official approval of it, but will also not prosecute these relations. We live in a society in which "consenting adults" are allowed to do what they want together. Marriage is no longer about the consent of the two people (it did used to be), marriage is now about the consent of the State to the relations of those two people. Does the State wish to give its consent to the homosexual relations which currently it tolerates but does not officially approve.
This too, may be central to the whole issue. Marriage used to be the means by which Consent was given and acknowledged. When people started to disregard marriage as the means of stating consent, and to claim that a mutual agreement between the two parties without any marriage procedure should be considered valid permission for sexual relations between two adults, the use of marriage as document of consent was dropped. Marriage is now seen as a document of property rights, for use in divorce, but the issue of consent doesn't concern the people who get married. The fact that they are adults is seen as good enough to indicate consent. But Consent is still the MOST important factor in sexual relations between people. It means the difference between "free expression" and "sexual assault". Rape used to be a Capital offense! Is it not, still, on the books in some places? Yet the police claim that "conservative" figures show that one in eight American women will be raped in her life. We still need a valid and incorruptible means of documenting Consent in our society. We need THIS far more than we need marriage at all. Why is THIS not focused on? We need NEW definitions of marriage. I say definitions in plural. There could be certain definitions that include same-sex unions, and others designed for only hetero unions. There coud be different ceremonies. There could be different packages, "marriages" of different durations. Instead of the one-size-fits-all "til death do you part" (which rarely achieve that goal) marriages.
Oh boy...that be funny.... But heterosexuals get married for papers also and they don't even dine together...so yes it could be a problem, but not a "impact to society problem" of grave proportions....There is much worse out there. If there is a problem already existing in the heterosexual marriage for papers we can only expect the same from same sex marriage.
TIME magazine source: 39% of all gay and bisexual males polled on an internet poll admitted to having unprotected sex with someone they met online.. there was also a 17% increase in HIV among gay and bisexual males..... latest issue of TIME.....peace
Interesting...whatis the % for hetero sexuals? Gotta believe if a man got a picture of a hot babe on line he'd drive 12 hours to go get the bang
An interesting post. I'm not trying to put you down, but you seem to take the view that the only valid reason for something is how it affects one personally. So if homosexual marriage does not affect me directly, I am intolerant and meddling to have doubts about it. Sorry, but that's not how public policy is formulated. There are larger societal issues at stake than whether or not a few homosexuals will get an extra tax break. I believe you are also wrong about the homosexual lobby not wanting special rights based on sexual "orientation" or conduct. They have lobbied hard for laws concerning job discrimination, and experience shows that affirmative action and quotas usually follow quickly in their wake. Many states already have hate crime laws that treat crimes against gays more seriously than other identical offenses. Many well meaning people see nothing wrong with such protections for gays, who constantly complain about discirimination despite being one of the richest groups in the country. After all, no one should get fired or be denied employment just for their sexual orientation, right? Well, what if you're running a business where people are not comfortable with homosexuals, for example a summer camp for teenage boys or a religious oriented business or a sports bar? Can you demand that an effeminate gay stop wearing makeup and lipstick to work or is that discrimination? Have you created a hostile work environment if you voice Biblical beliefs regarding homosexuality? Inevitably these types of issues will arise. Just as with marriage, there are far-reaching efects when the state endorses conduct that many, indeed themajority, of the population has deeply held moral and religious objections to. It is not a question of intolerance, it is about the kind of society we want.
Actually, it's about the kind of society we already have, a cornerstone of which is the protection of minorities. We could always change that, of course, but we should be careful since men are now in the minority, as are whites.