|
Post by Clinton Cool on Sept 1, 2017 22:17:59 GMT
Now that the marriage of homosexuals is widely accepted, and that any person or organisation who has an issue with this is widely condemned.... got me thinking: If it's a 'human right' for people to marry another that's outside what most people would likely see as the natural law of the species, why stop with allowing homosexuals these so called human rights? I mean, if a man or woman wants to marry two or more people, either of the opposite sex, the same sex, or a mixture of both, what's wrong with that? If someone wants to marry their brother or sister, why should they be apparently be discriminated against and be denied the opportunity to formalise their love?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Sept 1, 2017 22:31:59 GMT
I completely agree with gay marriage. Why should it just be straight people who are miserable?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Marriage
Sept 2, 2017 4:55:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 4:55:20 GMT
I'm annoyed because gays are allowed to have "civil partnerships". As my OH is a woman I'm only allowed to have an uncivil partnership.
That is discrimination.
|
|
|
Post by patty on Sept 2, 2017 5:42:05 GMT
Now that the marriage of homosexuals is widely accepted, and that any person or organisation who has an issue with this is widely condemned.... got me thinking: If it's a 'human right' for people to marry another that's outside what most people would likely see as the natural law of the species, why stop with allowing homosexuals these so called human rights? I mean, if a man or woman wants to marry two or more people, either of the opposite sex, the same sex, or a mixture of both, what's wrong with that? If someone wants to marry their brother or sister, why should they be apparently be discriminated against and be denied the opportunity to formalise their love? The thing about brothers and sisters is I believe in part due to the gene pool ...closer related you are more chance of genetically inherited diseases...we all may know areas in our locality where 'in breeding' has resulted in some rather odd characters of extremely limited intelligence arriving... Gene pools need diluting. As to how many wives/husbands/partners people have ...i have no problem..this one man one woman don't really work out very fair ...but imagine having 3 wives then 2 divorce you...jeepers the maintenance especially if scuttle full of kids involved..then you go on to marry more...you'd have to be Wayne Rooney to afford all that.........
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Sept 2, 2017 6:21:22 GMT
Now that the marriage of homosexuals is widely accepted, and that any person or organisation who has an issue with this is widely condemned.... got me thinking: If it's a 'human right' for people to marry another that's outside what most people would likely see as the natural law of the species, why stop with allowing homosexuals these so called human rights? I mean, if a man or woman wants to marry two or more people, either of the opposite sex, the same sex, or a mixture of both, what's wrong with that? If someone wants to marry their brother or sister, why should they be apparently be discriminated against and be denied the opportunity to formalise their love? The thing about brothers and sisters is I believe in part due to the gene pool ...closer related you are more chance of genetically inherited diseases...we all may know areas in our locality where 'in breeding' has resulted in some rather odd characters of extremely limited intelligence arriving... Gene pools need diluting. As to how many wives/husbands/partners people have ...i have no problem..this one man one woman don't really work out very fair ...but imagine having 3 wives then 2 divorce you...jeepers the maintenance especially if scuttle full of kids involved..then you go on to marry more...you'd have to be Wayne Rooney to afford all that......... Makes sense in practical terms but I was thinking more of the law and popular modern thinking really. If the law concerns itself with the size of the gene pool, in order to prevent too many inherited diseases being passed on, should it not also force the sterilisation of all people with these diseases, for the same aim? Of course, these laws are all based on natural law but homosexuals have an exception. Partly because there are lots of them, relatively, backed by this all powerful modern notion of 'human rights'. The same human rights that allow a rapist to be spared deportation to face justice because doing so would 'prevent a family life'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Marriage
Sept 2, 2017 6:32:12 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 6:32:12 GMT
What a load of cobblers.
"If the law concerns itself with the size of the gene pool, in order to prevent too many inherited diseases being passed on, should it not also force the sterilisation of all people with these diseases, for the same aim?"
Not at all. Inbreeding will cause problems even if the parents are basically healthy. Its just how nature is. By your argument you would need to sterilise a vast proportion of the population which is just silly.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Sept 2, 2017 6:39:09 GMT
What a load of cobblers. "If the law concerns itself with the size of the gene pool, in order to prevent too many inherited diseases being passed on, should it not also force the sterilisation of all people with these diseases, for the same aim?" Not at all. Inbreeding will cause problems even if the parents are basically healthy. Its just how nature is. By your argument you would need to sterilise a vast proportion of the population which is just silly. Oh, I don't know ........................
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Marriage
Sept 2, 2017 6:44:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 6:44:02 GMT
I realised just afterwards yes !
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Sept 2, 2017 7:34:18 GMT
The thing about brothers and sisters is I believe in part due to the gene pool ...closer related you are more chance of genetically inherited diseases...we all may know areas in our locality where 'in breeding' has resulted in some rather odd characters of extremely limited intelligence arriving... Gene pools need diluting. As to how many wives/husbands/partners people have ...i have no problem..this one man one woman don't really work out very fair ...but imagine having 3 wives then 2 divorce you...jeepers the maintenance especially if scuttle full of kids involved..then you go on to marry more...you'd have to be Wayne Rooney to afford all that......... Of course, these laws are all based on natural law but homosexuals have an exception. Partly because there are lots of them, relatively, backed by this all powerful modern notion of 'human rights'. Get over it, homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality. Many animals display homosexual behaviour. And why wouldn't they! There is no such thing as "natural law", it is your invention. Why do you have such a chip about this issue, do you find the concept of homosexuality threatening? As to your OP, marriage is an institution of the state. It is merely a question of the current state of the law. Of course with majority consent, the law could be change to allow multiple spouses. Or marriage between siblings (although for the reasons mentioned, that would be a really bad idea. Or lowering the age of consent to 10. I bet you'd like that one! But currently, there is no public appetite for such changes.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Sept 2, 2017 7:47:15 GMT
I am so disappointed. I thought the OP was going to ask why a human cannot marry a fluffy bunny or even a badger.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Sept 2, 2017 7:58:14 GMT
I'm a little bit concerned. Mrs tabby and Ricco have only just met, yet they are talking about marriage already ?
|
|
|
Post by phil70 on Sept 2, 2017 8:10:02 GMT
I am so disappointed. I thought the OP was going to ask why a human cannot marry a fluffy bunny or even a badger. You would have to go to CWDF to find a fluffy bunny. Phil
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 2, 2017 8:15:47 GMT
I am so disappointed. I thought the OP was going to ask why a human cannot marry a fluffy bunny or even a badger. Marriage is the first step towards divorce.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 8:33:06 GMT
Must be me.
I've never seen marriage in terms of 'rights' or law or any of those things.
I met somebody I didn't want to lose, and as luck would have it they felt the same, and back then getting married was the accepted norm. It was more a case of we didn't want to be without each other, than 'we want to be together'.
If two people feel that way, what's the problem for anyone else.
Sometimes things don't work out which can be tough, especially if there are kids.
There are societies where having multiple partners are accepted, but frankly one's plenty for me.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Stumpy on Sept 2, 2017 8:59:57 GMT
Satan walked into a small town bar. Everyone started screaming and running for the door, trampling each other in a frantic effort to get away. Soon everyone was gone, except for an elderly gentleman who was sat calmly drinking his beer. Satan walked up to him and said, "Don't you know who I am?" The man replied, "Yep, sure do." Satan asked, "Aren't you going to run?" "Nope, sure ain't," said the man. Satan asked, "Why aren't you afraid of me?" The man replied, "I've been married to your sister for over 48 years."
|
|