tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-132335671631277942.post498863514674346624..comments2023-10-05T06:34:07.985-04:00Comments on The Minivan Monologues: In The Same Sex Marriage Debate, Why Can't Love Conquer All?minivan galhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03264308238364798906noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-132335671631277942.post-78890122337564522722010-01-03T19:32:16.774-05:002010-01-03T19:32:16.774-05:00I think there should be more honest with what we t...I think there should be more honest with what we teach and the examples that we dar.Ser gay is ok because this is also okay to be different.<br />Not misunderstand what I say, be different is to be like maradona or messi in deporte.Ser different one sometimes for talent but we have to divide on other things such as sexuality because being different should unite and not separate despite<br /> differences.debate popularhttp://www.debatepopular.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-132335671631277942.post-7227723199496381302009-05-27T14:57:59.810-04:002009-05-27T14:57:59.810-04:00Tarun,
thanks you for your comment. Unfortunately...Tarun,<br /><br />thanks you for your comment. Unfortunately, you missed my point. I am not judging nor do I have a strong opinion on this topic but the legal issues are real. Marriage in the US has always been a State issue and narrowly defined as a contract between a man and a woman. The reason there is no slippery slope with traditional marriage is because it is so narrowly defined. if that definition changes to permit marriage between men or women , it opens the door to challenges for legal protections for all types of unions. As i stated previously- if marriage is ok between a man and a woman as well as 2 men or 2 women, why not 3 women or 6 or 10? once you establish a legal precendent, it is very difficult to go back.<br />Regarding incest, the point was about the law not taboos. The law exists to prevent genetic abnormalities. if you take precreation out of the mix as you do in gay marriage, what would stop same sex family members from marrying?<br />Again, i am not judging but rather pointing out the fact that that there are legal complications of these judicial decisions and that dialogue should address more than just the feel good aspect of the issueAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-132335671631277942.post-11719804722549753812009-05-26T23:57:36.398-04:002009-05-26T23:57:36.398-04:00It is so refreshing to FINALLY read an article abo...It is so refreshing to FINALLY read an article about love! That was the only way I've thought about this issue and its just seemed amazingly absent in all commentary!<br /><br />In response to Anonymous about the author's oversight of the "legal" issues: The poster's two points were gracefully made but must not go without response!<br /><br />The "slippery slope" of polygamous marriage is not anything new to same-sex marriage. By the poster's logic straight marriage should be subject to that same danger; in fact, societies HAVE seen sanctioned polygamous relationships and notable in societies that did NOT sanction same-sex relationships. So not only is the slippery slope argument odd and not logically applied, if resorted to, actually undermines the argument made. <br /><br />About the incest taboos being due to the harm of "inbreeding," that is quite simply not why societies have had this taboo. They're been around for a heck longer than we've even known about the genetic harm inherent. And the taboos have been inconsistently applied right through history. They're applied differently to royalty and commoners, cross-parent cousins, etc etc. <br /><br />Even now, my home state of New York prevents marriage not only between close relations that would cause the genetic harm you mention (parents, siblings, grand parents/children), but others that have no such danger (ex adopted siblings), while allowing others that still carry the same possibility of genetic abnormalities (first cousins). <br /><br />These taboos have had very little to do with genetic fear although that is certainly a valid justification. They certainly will not go anywhere if we consider same-sex relationships.Tarun Banerjeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03404521276773206553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-132335671631277942.post-48029169439343894912009-05-21T12:49:11.775-04:002009-05-21T12:49:11.775-04:00The only valid reason as to why legalizing gay mar...The only valid reason as to why legalizing gay marriage might not be a good idea is purely legal not religious. Extending legal protections to non-traditional activities is a slippery slope. The "Daily Beast" last week had a trio of 2 women and one man who were petitioning to get married. How we define marriage has implications- why is 2 people ok and 3 or 4 not ok? <br />Marriage between first cousins is outlawed because of genetic abnormalities resulting from pro-creation-- if u take that out of the picture could brothers marry brothers?<br />While your thoughts were well articulated, they addressed only the "feel good" aspect of this issue and not the more challenging legal oneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-132335671631277942.post-52824845107405734172009-05-19T14:43:00.000-04:002009-05-19T14:43:00.000-04:00"I don’t mean to trivialize the issue, but I don’t..."I don’t mean to trivialize the issue, but I don’t understand what the big deal is."<br /><br />Keep in mind that the religionists still believe that homosexuality is a choice. If it's a choice, and we legitimize that choice by allowing gay people to marry, your child and mine might choose to become gay. Yes, this is idiotic, one of the stupidest misconceptions going, but the belief is prevalent.Tom Lnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-132335671631277942.post-4578485160794891322009-05-19T14:05:00.000-04:002009-05-19T14:05:00.000-04:00Thanks for sharing your point of view on this issu...Thanks for sharing your point of view on this issue. Very thoughtful and well written....I look forward to reading more posts from you in the future!mistersisternoreply@blogger.com