Replies

NOTE: The majority of these are Devil's Advocate arguments you will encounter if you try to legitimately debate this stuff with a liberal.

Why can’t I marry my brother and/or sister, and not consumate the marriage” We could save money on taxes.
--forgotten man, #003

That could probably be a legitimate thing to do, even if you consummated. After all, Rhode Island has no penalty for incest and in Ohio they only care if you are a parent to the other party. Wouldn't work for a parent/child in any situation, though, due to things I talk about below.

Why not a man and a boy?
Why not a man and a goat?
--IncPen, #004

Capacity to contract. A boy, being a minor, does not have the capacity to contract, which is required to have any marriage legally recognized. Same with the goat; they lack capacity to contract too.

Why can’t we have polygamy?
--williams, #005

I can see no legal reason to bar it. Especially as it has a Biblical basis. If it was good enough for Abraham and David, it's good enough for us.

If you don’t consummate, it’s not a marriage.
--DuncanWaring, #006

That's actually not true anymore. Requirement of consummation has generally been found to be legally unenforceable from about the middle of last century.

And on top of that, if some religion condones marriage between a 60 year old and a child ***Islam***, and it was accepted custom, then what could stop that?
--kgrif_Salinas, #013

See above; the child lacks capacity to contract. Therefore, it cannot be recognized as a legal marriage by law.

Of course, all of this, ALL OF THIS, requires recognizing that marriage is nothing more than a contract between two (or maybe more) people regarding things like inheritance, medical supervisory issues, taxes, etc, with no religious element whatsoever. And at this point, that may be true in most cases. Heck, the majority of people I know that are my age (under-40, living in the cities) didn't get married in a church, they just went down to the courthouse. And the majority of them did it solely for tax/legal reasons.

It's hard to argue against such people when the standard objects we put forth against gay marriage are met with "Yeah, that's a church thing and it's no business of mine. I don't do church."

It's hard to argue against such people when the standard objects we put forth against gay marriage are met with "Yeah, that's a church thing and it's no business of mine. I don't do church."

Yes, you've raised the answers that liberals provide when faced with these questions.

The next question after they've provided an answer to the first is, "Why is the state in the business of marriage at all? Since any two adults can enter into a contract, why don't we leave marriage to the churches and contracts to the state?"

The liberals cannot abide this, because they need the lever of bias to crush the churches. That's where this is going: destruction of religion.