It’s your proposition-what makes you think you are right?
I am the eldest of seven, and all of us siblings married people that are totally different from each other, and (as far as I can tell) none of them are like our mother.
Did your mother marry her brother? Did you marry your sibling?
The idea is that offspring of openly sibling marriages will be more likely to follow that example, simply because they will be less likely to observe the incest taboo.
Would you have wanted to marry one of your siblings if it wasn’t taboo?
edited to add: I see that you’ve gone from “all of them” to “half of them” to “more likely”.
Please don’t take the above quote as evidence that I didn’t read your entire post: I did.
However, it is mainly the above that I take issue with.
To YOU, marriage has meaning–based upon your post and the fact that you seem to be okay with “civil unions,” I’m assuming that even the word “marriage” itself, has meaning. To my mind, this is essentially saying “marriage is sacred.”
But, c’mon? Realistically? Half or better of all straight marriages end in divorce, probably because we’re reaching a point where your opinion has turned into the minority one. Did my ex-wife value the sacred nature of our marriage when she was at the seedy hotel fucking some other guy?
Further, as has already been mentioned, humanity will survive regardless of whether we allow gays to marry or not. Homosexuality is not contagious, and it is (and will likely remain) a minority sexual preference. The last cite I saw held about 10% of the population to be exclusively homosexual. It isn’t as if the other 90% will somehow “convert” and then procreation falls by the wayside.
Still further, childrearing is not the primary justification for marriage, anyway. Already, we’re seeing straight couples wait until later in life to have children–in America and other “First World” countries, anyway–or not have them at all, for a variety of reasons. For some, kids are just gross; for others, they are unwilling to financially support a child; for still others, this world isn’t one they’re comfortable bringing a child into, anyway. Who the fuck cares? If we’re going to prohibit homosexual couples from marriage equality because it’s “unnatural,” then we must accept the proposition that the “natural” purpose of marriage is to procreate. It isn’t. Sex is.
I’d say that, were I to accept your proposition, and somehow try to preserve the sanctity of marriage by disallowing gays from the right, then I say what’s good for the goose is good for the gander: we must also ban platonic heterosexual friends from getting married (for citizenship, insurance, or just for shits and giggles.) We must ban non-fertile heterosexual couples from marriage–they can have civil unions, though, and we should probably ban divorce. None of which makes any sense.
And to argue based on widespread belief or tradition is a slippery slope, too–what of the ancient and long-held tradition of slavery? Or the nigh-universal belief in a catastrophic worldwide flood? I will grant that marriage may have once been the gateway to children; however, in the U.S. at least, we have since gotten the government involved, our employers, insurance companies, etc. Under the law, unions of all types should be EQUAL. That means the name of the union, too.
If a church wants to prohibit same-sex marriage under its roof, then that’s the place for it. But the government of (all) the people? Uh-uh. They have no right to tell you or I whom we are allowed to marry.
That’s my take.
Offhand, I can think of a few societies that were wiped out by plague, others that were conquered by an invader, others that disintegrated though civil war…
None that orgied themselves to death come to mind.
You may be of a third type that BlakeTyner didn’t mention, the one that holds same-sex couples to be based around “sensual pleasures” or “sexual delight”, rather than love or committment; that they are frivolous enterprises, not “real” couples that want the same thing other couples want.
Further, I am extremely skeptical of the idea of ancient societies abandoning heterosexual procreation and dying off because same-sex couples were normalized. Any evidence for that, at all?
Yes, they do. You’re defining marriage as one thing (publicly-committed and independently procreative relationships), when it’s clearly not that one thing to every married couple or to every society, or that one thing to every unmarried couple, and excluding same-sex couples from it, even though they are publically-committed and procreative. Your “independently” qualifier makes no sense, and exists solely to justify discrimination.
You know what’s much more within the common law tradition? Marriage.
[QUOTE=steabo;16199765If enough men didn’t want women, and enough women didn’t want men, human beings would not even exist. Any society that takes itself seriously must place the relationship of a man and a women above all other relationships. The fact is that modern societies great and small do indeed recognize the public commitment of a man and women to each other, under the obvious conclusion that they will have children and be committed to the care, education, and training of those children for life.from the phenomenon of this universal human institution.
[/QUOTE]
In the past, women had no choice but to “want” men. “Old maids” were scorned, and to have a child out-of-wedlock make a woman an outcast.
That’s like saying “Thank God your mother was pro-life” or "The only reason you are white is because your relatives didn’t F-word, N-word.
With today’s methods of artificial reproduction, I seriously doubt the human race will die out, even when gay marriage is iegal.
Add pre-marital sex and extra-marital affairs and I doubt the human race would die out even if gay marriage were mandatory. 
(Aside: NZ parliament votes today on same-sex marriage; fully expected to pass, but fingers and toes crossed until the announcement).
steabo, I wasn’t aware of the Federal implications and issues with civil unions in a US context until some of the US Dopers explained; words and semi-traditional meanings aside, nothing other than same-sex “marriage” appears to be a path to equality in the US (IMHO).
Seems to me teaching children that equal treatment under the law is an important principal is probably more positive than teaching them that gay people are normal could possibly be negative.
Marriage does not grant equality under the law, and the government should stay out of the business of promoting it. If the goal is to encourage raising children or reproducing, give the benefits to those who actually raise children.
Why give tax free inheritance, full pension, social security, discounted health care, lower tax rates… to somebody because he paired up with a non-relative, while a father-son pair or somebody who prefers to live alone would not be permitted such benefits?
If that’s your objection, then eliminate the benefits for all citizens, in the interest of fairness.
Exactly. There is more focus on expanding the problem by giving the illogical benefits to more people instead of addressing the problem.
I wasn’t aware it was a problem, myself.
And do you really consider the above concern to be an example of reason? You’d need over six billion people who never reproduced to have an undesirable impact on growth of the human race. If anything, non-reproducing unions should be encouraged, even for straight people (I have a few people in mind already). Way too many people have gone forth and multiplied.
Only seven? No chance you might have a youngest, i.e., septagon-plus-one brother?
Thing is, you can be gay 11 months of the year and still engage in reproductive activity sufficient to sustain the human race - it’s not like getting someone knocked up requires constant, ahem, “input”, and regardless of how sexually active people are and with whom, even a woman who wants to reproduce a lot is still limited to about one full-term pregnancy per year, Irish twins notwithstanding.
I’d still like a cite for a culture that had a freewheeling attitude toward sex and went extinct as a result.
If it is a choice (and I think the evidence is fairly clear that it is not) I’m not sure what justifies denying the benefits of marriage to those who choose it. It may not be a question of equality, but it’s one of freedom. Which I understand conservatives also favor.
I agree, without sarcasm. I don’t think legalizing incestuous marriage would actually cause huge problems – and I say that not because I want to marry my sister, but because I absolutely do not.
Wow. That comment about not denying people their “sensual delights” or however it was phrased is fucking disgusting (not to mention that homosexual sex between two males is harmful, ha!).
That’s all gays are to some people though. We are just seeking sensual delights. We don’t want love or commitment. We don’t want to raise a family, or be recognized as equal, both socially and legally, to anyone else.
We’re just a bunch of sexual weirdos who want to enjoy the most pleasure possible. Because, we’ve figured out the secret that homosexual sex is just, you know, a trillion times better than sex with the opposite gender. Right? And everyone would be gay and want to get gay married if all they were concerned about was having mind blowing sex.
Give me a fucking break. Steabo, your arguments are worthless and you are no better (perhaps even worse) than a Pentecostal Preacher speaking of brimstone and fire.
Not really. The whole concept that marraige as a word is something special that needs to be preserved strikes me as immature and pandering to childish insecurities. Ultimately it’s an attempt at seperate but equal, which really meant “not really equal”
I agree. Sorry I wasn’t clear.
Civil Unions IMO is a way of pandering to the childish insecurities of bias. It’s a way of saying, “not really as good”
What surprises me is that people think defending a word has meaning. To believe that somehow any marriage has more meaning based on the labels placed on some other couple. It’s goofy.