Posted on 10/23/2015 8:42:21 PM PDT by 100American
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2015/10/23/why-cant-two-gay-brothers-marry-n2070299/page/full
One of the strongest arguments against consensual adult incest is that incestuous unions could result in children with genetic defects, but since that concern wouldn’t apply to same-sex couples, an Irish political leader has argued that gay cousins should be allowed to “marry.” And that only begs the next obvious question: Why not gay brothers or gay sisters?
As reported in the Irish Times, Independent Senator David Norris, himself gay, “has said that gay cousins should be allowed to marry each other following the same-sex marriage referendum.”
“It would not take a feather out of me if two cousins married each other,’’ Mr. Norris said. “What is the problem with that?’’
So, no sooner does the Irish Legislature officially announce the legalizing of same-sex “marriage” than an Irish Senator calls for gay cousins to be allowed to marry.
Yes, “Mr. Norris said the regulations covering cousins marrying were introduced to protect the genetic pool, but that this would remain relatively untroubled by same-sex marriage.”
Then wouldn’t the same line of reasoning apply to gay brothers or sisters who wanted to “marry?”
And if the taboos against homosexual “marriage” are now considered outdated and intolerant, why can’t the same thing be said about the taboos against adult incest?
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
By liberal "logic", gay brothers should be able to marry, even if one is male and one is female, so long as they both feel male (or both female) at the time of the wedding.
Why can’t (number)(adjective)(noun) marry?
Exactly. Liberals despise marriage because they are so bad at it, so their solution is to make the word meaningless.
Once the one man/one woman lifetime commitment is abandoned, there is no logical point at which to say, “This, but not that.”
Read an interesting article on the subject of gay marriage. The author argued that the Supreme Court went so overboard in the justification of their decision that they rendered no fault divorce unconstitutional. The legal reasoning on gay marriage by the SC when applied to no fault divorce can only conclude that the non-consenting party’s rights are violated in no fault cases.
If you can find it, would you provide a link to the article?
>> The horse is out of the barn and anything goes.
This is what is meant by the “slippery slope”. You can’t take “just one step” out onto it without sliding all the way into the pit.
May GOD have mercy on us.
I read some time back that some 'expert' said that this should no longer a prohibition since abortions are so readily available.
I wonder if anyone brought this up at the Synod? (hopefully it wasn’t)
What many seem to miss is that gubmint will rescind the marriage waiver for inheritance before they let go of the decedent’s money.
That went by the wayside right after "One man, one vote"...........
It also had to be a man with property, that is, moneyed.
Can you post a link, please?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.