I suppose you would because earlier you said:
>>>If the child of a marriage has (I don't know the chances here, I'm just going to state a number) an 80% chance of producing a non-viable offspring, then that marriage probably shouldn't happen,?<<<
You put forth the assertion that marriage is for procreation when you said a marriage between siblings would produce (you said 80% chance) of a ?non-viable? offspring. If marriage isn?t for procreation why would you use procreation as a reason against allowing siblings to marry?
Alright, I probably need to make this clearer. The argument against allowing siblings wasn't based on whether or not they would procreate, or whether procreation should be a factor in any marriage, but with the fact that if they did procreate there is a drastic likelihood of non viablility of the child. If marriage is for procreation purposes only then perhaps we shouldn't allow marriages of people over age 45, and disband marriages when the children are raised. Hopefully I've cleared that.
Homosexuality is also taboo in the majority of the world.
Mostly only in Western Civilization, where culture has been influenced by Abrahamic faiths.
When given the chance to vote on allowing homosexuals to marry, it is soundly defeated.
Same sex marriage/civil unions/marriage benefits are legal in these countries:
The Netherlands, 2001.
Belgium, 2003.
Canada, 2005.
Spain, 2005.
Denmark, 1989.
Norway, 1996.
Sweden, 1996.
Iceland, 1996.
France, 1999
Germany, 2001.
Finland, 2002.
Luxembourg, 2004.
New Zealand, 2004.
Britain, 2005.
And these states:
Vermont, USA, 2000
Massachusetts, USA, 2004.
Connecticut, USA, 2005.
New Jersey, USA, 2006.
New Hampshire, USA, 2008.
Oregon, USA, 2008.
Maine, USA.
California, USA.
Washington, USA.
Hawaii, USA.
Admittedly, the rights and responsibilities of these unions vary from nation to nation and state to state, but I don't buy into the rationale that it's defeated everywhere it's come up for a vote.
Because it?s taboo. That doesn?t stop homosexuals from demanding it. Why can?t sibling demand it too?
What country or state allows incest marriage? (I'm going to refrain from humor here, no point in offending someone by accident). Obviously in those countries and states where same sex unions are allowed, the taboo of homosexuality is greatly diminished. The same can't be said for incest.
Again, it doesn?t have support, as is evidence by popular vote.
Popular vote isn't everything in our system of government. There is a reason why we elect representatives and appoint judges instead of voting on every issue. The legislative, judicial, and executive branches all have mechanisms to protect people from negative aspects of a popular vote.
Regardless of numbers, if two people have a loving and committed relationship, why can?t they marry?
Outside of an incestuous marriage, which I've tried to address, I think that's the topic of this debate.
What business is it of yours?
None, except (in the case of an incest marriage with nonviable offspring [I've got think of a new phrase, I hate that one]) for when my tax dollars go to subsidize the relatively expensive and continuing health care of that child, and the relatively expensive special needs education of that child.
One thing is for certain, Americans are much more tolerant about homosexuals in general than they were 40 years ago,
Very true, a lot of progress has been made.
but disagreeing on the subject of same sex marriage doesn?t translate into inferiority and I believe it is disingenuous to say so.
It might to you, as I am unaware of your personal views on the morality of homosexuality. That said, it is clear that to at least some people, homosexuality is a morally inferior activity, by which inferences could be drawn that homosexuals are inferior persons. I don't think it's disingenous, I said in here before that I realize there are a myriad of reasons that people oppose gay marriage, some for religious reasons, some simply because they don't like homosexuals. I've always made it a point not to call someone homophobic unless I see direct evidence that they are.
So in your opinion siblings shouldn?t marry because they are inferior?
Inferior as a comparison to what?
I can only assume it to be true since you are denying them something you think you consider a ?right.?
You know what they say about the word assume. What makes straight marriage a "right"?
... and Johnny Cash rocks ...
And there is something that you and I can unequivocally agree upon Rich.
