[sorafdfs]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
Blah, blah, blah...

Homosexuality was illegal before. It was illegal for men. It was illegal for women. It didn't discriminate. Where is the difference? I'm seeing a lot of parallels. Except, now, acting upon homosexuality is legal. So, really, there is no difference. Both were illegal. Currently, only one of the two is illegal. Why? What makes homosexuality permissible, but incest illegal?

Because it causes malformed babies and psychological problems and makes it ok for Fred and Rose West/Josef Fritzl types to rear kids as sex slaves...

[amyelizabeth2681]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
Blah, blah, blah...

Homosexuality was illegal before. It was illegal for men. It was illegal for women. It didn't discriminate. Where is the difference? I'm seeing a lot of parallels. Except, now, acting upon homosexuality is legal. So, really, there is no difference. Both were illegal. Currently, only one of the two is illegal. Why? What makes homosexuality permissible, but incest illegal?

Blah blah blah? Lol clearly, if that's the best you can do then I've proven my point and you don't have much of an answer.

If you'll take a look at the title of this thread, this isn't talking about the legality of homosexuality. It's about the definition of marriage and why it is only exclusive to a man and a woman. We're discussing the institution of marriage, not homosexuality in general. Its legal, get over it. Oh and try focusing on the point at hand.

Again, this thread isn't about the legality of incestuous relationships. However, I'm sure if you look hard enough on TSR you'll find a thread for that. We're talking about marriage and why it excludes one group in society as oppose to another and what your moral justification is for blatant discrimination. As far as I'm concerned, incestuous relationships and their illegality don't discriminate. They're illegal in this country, illegal to everyone. Clearly, you can't come up with a valid answer besides making irrelevant comparisons, so I consider this discussion over.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by sorafdfs)
Because it causes malformed babies and psychological problems and makes it ok for Fred and Rose West/Josef Fritzl types to rear kids as sex slaves...

Going by that logic, heterosexuality causes prostitution and trafficking.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by dinrah04)
I know there's probably some other legal differences between a Civil Partnership and a Marriage but surely, just changing the rights involved in a Civil Partnership would be the same? I mean in the same way those argue about the definition, isn't it quite childish to want something you already have but just a different title for it?

Yes, but that wouldn't be equality. It would be seperating heterasexuals from homosexuals, a lesser version of the black and white segregation that took place.
It's not as extreme, but it's just as wrong. Why should homosexuals have a seperate institution that's not as good, and isn't regaurded as the same by society? Why can't they get married?

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
Congratulations, you know what a book is - presumably after using Google. What do you want? A medal?

You're comparing apples to oranges. You just can't. A book is a book. Marriage is marriage. What are you trying to achieve with your comment?

Way to deliberately miss the point

The point is that when people say 'Marriage is between a man and a woman', they're generally not just saying that's the definition of marriage, they generally mean they want the state to impose that definition on everyone. The state doesn't do that for anything else as far as I'm aware, so why should it do so for marriage?

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
What makes homosexuality permissible, but incest illegal?

The fact that there's no significant number of people calling for the legalisation of incest. No-one really cares about it. That said, I see no reason why it shouldn't be legal. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want in their own bedrooms.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by amyelizabeth2681)
Blah blah blah? Lol clearly, if that's the best you can do then I've proven my point and you don't have much of an answer.

If you'll take a look at the title of this thread, this isn't talking about the legality of homosexuality. It's about the definition of marriage and why it is only exclusive to a man and a woman. We're discussing the institution of marriage, not homosexuality in general. Its legal, get over it. Oh and try focusing on the point at hand.

Again, this thread isn't about the legality of incestuous relationships. However, I'm sure if you look hard enough on TSR you'll find a thread for that. We're talking about marriage and why it excludes one group in society as oppose to another. As far as I'm concerned, incestuous relationships and their illegality don't discriminate. They're illegal in this country, illegal to everyone. Clearly, you can't come up with a valid answer besides making irrelevant comparisons, so I consider this discussion over.

'I've proven my point and you don't have much of an answer'

Or, and this is just a suggestion, I have realised the futility of trying to have a debate with someone who is averse to any other viewpoint. We'll go with your one, though, because you must be correct. I'd rather not spend my day arguing over a group of people I would wipe out in a second.

See, with the rest of your post, you write loads of words, but none of them are relevant. You actually avoid trying to justify why one is legal, but the other illegal. Why? There must be a reason for preventing a group of people from being able to legally engage in intercourse? Perhaps, I'm being naive. Perhaps, this only extends to homosexuals. Why? Who needs a reason when you can just shout 'homophobe'? Not you, that's for sure.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Way to deliberately miss the point

The point is that when people say 'Marriage is between a man and a woman', they're generally not just saying that's the definition of marriage, they generally mean they want the state to impose that definition on everyone. The state doesn't do that for anything else as far as I'm aware, so why should it do so for marriage?

For the simple reason that the definition of marriage is a lot more important than the definition for a book. Who cares what the definition of a book is? I certainly don't.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by anarchism101)
The fact that there's no significant number of people calling for the legalisation of incest. No-one really cares about it. That said, I see no reason why it shouldn't be legal. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want in their own bedrooms.

So, then, why don't people? Providing that it's consensual, where is the problem? Aside from the fact that it is just as immoral as homosexuality.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
So, then, why don't people? Providing that it's consensual, where is the problem? Aside from the fact that it is just as immoral as homosexuality.

Homosexuality isn't immoral. It causes no harm to anyone.

[amyelizabeth2681]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
'I've proven my point and you don't have much of an answer'

Or, and this is just a suggestion, I have realised the futility of trying to have a debate with someone who is averse to any other viewpoint. We'll go with your one, though, because you must be correct. I'd rather not spend my day arguing over a group of people I would wipe out in a second.

See, with the rest of your post, you write loads of words, but none of them are relevant. You actually avoid trying to justify why one is legal, but the other illegal. Why? There must be a reason for preventing a group of people from being able to legally engage in intercourse? Perhaps, I'm being naive. Perhaps, this only extends to homosexuals. Why? Who needs a reason when you can just shout 'homophobe'? Not you, that's for sure.

You're right, it's very much futile arguing with someone who can't seem to justify their bigotry so they point to the Bible, incest, etc etc. You said so yourself, you don't have much of a reason to be against gay marriage (again, the original point of this thread) besides the fact it "disgusts" you. Doesn't sound like much of a justification to me, but you keep living in your bubble sweetheart.

And if you're so stuck on talking about incest, why not point to the increased likelihood of children with birth defects? Or the psychologically damaging effects it has on a family unit? Or how the majority of incestuous relationships occur in abusive households, usually with children involved? Why don't you go and start comparing homosexuality to rape, besitiality and child molestation like so many people like you seem to? Go ahead, prove to more people how illogical you sound.

PS:"People I would wipe out in a second"? If we're so "beneath you" why did you bother with this thread? Oh superior one, I wonder why it is that more people don't think like you?!

Lol.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
Going by that logic, heterosexuality causes prostitution and trafficking.

Do you understand cause and effect?

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
So, then, why don't people? Providing that it's consensual, where is the problem? Aside from the fact that it is just as immoral as homosexuality.

It is very hard to say that it actually is consensual, and it would also hurt potential children.
If it truly was consensual and there was no potential for children, I would be okay with it.

[desdemonata]

people seem to forget that in Ancient Greece homosexuality was completely normal and accepted. So yeah one day people came and stuck a tag saying "immoral" on it, but homosexuality was around long before people decided it wasn't okay.

I for one am pro-gay rights, but referencing earlier posts "marriage" is just an abstract concept between two people. Man and woman, woman and woman, and man and man. At the end of the day nobody should really be that offended if two people of the same gender decide to get married.

[sorafdfs]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
Going by that logic, heterosexuality causes prostitution and trafficking.

No it isn't, heterosexuality is gender attraction and encompasses an enormous majority. Homosexuality is also gender attraction. Incest is shagging immediate family, you can have gay or straight incestual relations.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
For the simple reason that the definition of marriage is a lot more important than the definition for a book. Who cares what the definition of a book is? I certainly don't.

What's so important about the definition of marriage? In fact I'd consider the definition of a book far more important because that could potentially be relevant to an accusation of fraud.

Why do you think what people call their relationships is anything to do with anyone besides them?

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
Homosexuality isn't immoral. It causes no harm to anyone.

It causes harm to society.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by amyelizabeth2681)
You're right, it's very much futile arguing with someone who can't seem to justify their bigotry so they point to the Bible, incest, etc etc. You said so yourself, you don't have much of a reason to be against gay marriage (again, the original point of this thread) besides the fact it "disgusts" you. Doesn't sound like much of a justification to me, but you keep living in your bubble sweetheart.

And if you're so stuck on talking about incest, why not point to the increased likelihood of children with birth defects? Or the psychologically damaging effects it has on a family unit? Or how the majority of incestuous relationships occur in abusive households, usually with children involved? Why don't you go and start comparing homosexuality to rape, besitiality and child molestation like so many people like you seem to? Go ahead, prove to more people how illogical you sound.

PS:"People I would wipe out in a second"? If we're so "beneath you" why did you bother with this thread? Oh superior one, I wonder why it is that more people don't think like you?!

Lol.

Quote where I said that.

I won't even read the rest, until you show me that quote. I am sick of people making up points because their argument is weak.

[High VOLTAGE]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Not comparable or relevant.

Yes it is, people say we need to give homosexuals the right to marry as it is progression. Being gay was looked down upon and illegal up until the 60s. So will we allow everything that is looked down upon once to have a place in society today?

Gay marriage and homosexuality as a whole destroys the idea of a family. The main reason for being married is because couples have the intention to start a family.
Gay married couples destroy the idea of a family.

[blu tack]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
So, then, why don't people? Providing that it's consensual, where is the problem? Aside from the fact that it is just as immoral as homosexuality.

if the incest is between two consenting adults, I'm fine with it. the reason most people aren't is the ick factor, which is neither logical or fair. Is that the same reason you're against homosexuality by any chance? If the Bible had never told you to be against it, would you be ?