To be fair, one of Britain's brightest and best said it was to do with birth defects. So, perhaps we should move on to bestialty? Man loves his dog and vice-versa - why is that not the basis for marriage? If the dog is male there is no chance of even unviable offspring. As I have said throughout this thread it is all a question of where one draws the "moral" (for want of a better word) line. You Kirkstaller have understood that and hit the nail on the head. The equal rights brigade refuse to because they have no coherent logic.

Being wholly intolerant of anything can result in a person being unreasonable. You are a case in point. You insult people when they disagree with you. You consider them to be bigoted but they may not be. However, in your view they are and so you insult them. That is unreasonable behaviour and therefore in itself is bigotry.

No, really it isn't but it suits your petty argument against same sex marriage.

That would have been the case had I been ranting. However, I was simply asking a series of questions. You are correct to point out paedophiles of course. I hadn't thought about them. If this issue was actually about equality - which really, it isn't - then paedophiles along with the incestuous and indeed anyone with any variety of dedicated relationship should be given equal rights to marry because who is anyone to judge whether anyone else is wrong?

Or is it only gay people who mustn't be judged as wrong?

I'm just positing, not stating a personal viewpoint.

When did I argue against same sex marriage?

As much as I support your argument against those blinkered, hypocritical posters who think marriage should be open to everyone (but not everyone), I think this is quite weak.

The issue of consent raises it's head with the paedophile argument. Same goes for bestiality. However there is no argument for gay marriage which doesn't also apply to incest between same-sex siblings and polygamy.

You see, the thought of two brothers getting married just turns their stomach.

I doubt it would turn their stomachs. Why should it? Incest is only taboo due to the risk of birth defects so there is absolutely no reason why they should or would object to same sex marriage between siblings.

So Rock God X etc please confirm your support for same sex sibling marriage or explain your objection(s).

Have you not noticed the point that has been mentioned previously regarding birth defects in incestuous relationships, now this may not apply a same sex (or one in which one partner was infertile) incestuous relationship however it still applies to other incestuous relationships and explains why incest is illegal as it would be discriminatory to allow one type of incestuous relationship but not others.

The major difference between the two is that homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Somebody who is gay is exclusively attracted to members of the same sex, therefore without being dishonest to themselves and their partner marriage at is not an option at present. As far as I'm aware there is nobody who is exclusive attracted to their own siblings, nobody is being denied equal rights by virtue of not being allowed to marry their sibling. This is why the comparison between same sex marriage and marriage between siblings is such a terrible one.

You are right of course, anyone can marry anything, I could marry a rock in my garden or one of my fish from the pond, its a totally meaningless ceremony invented by various religions in order to give some credence to their teachings and a warm feeling of false security to their followers, a bit like Tesco Club Points for the religious - "If you're good Christians then The God will allow you to marry, and those gays won't be able to get at you any more".

As I said at the top - it's all about grabbing perceived "rights." The whole gay marriage thing is pointless, nonsensical and hypocritical.

The siblings comparison is not terrible it a good one as it highlights what it wrong with the concept of gay marriage.

So if a gay man was in love with his brother, would you support their case to get married? Would you support provision being made for such couples in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill? Admittedly we are only talking about a small number of cases, but hey, equality is equality.

The same gays you are lobbying for may want the state to recognise their love for their sibling.

Can you give me one reason why a gay man should not be allowed to marry his gay brother?

If we cast aside the legality issue then there is none at all - when is your church going to offer this product and can I book me and our kid in ?

So only Christans marry now do they? You mind is very confused.

No its not about perceived rights, it's about an actual right which gay people do not currently have, a right which does not impinge upon the freedoms of others.



Would you care to explain why same sex marriage is those things rather than asserting them as fact?



It does nothing of the sort. It merely serves to highlight the desperation of the anti gay marriage brigade when they make such a comparison (as does comparing gay marriage to bestiality) and demonstrates that they are lacking in any kind of rational argument against same sex marriage.

I appreciate your honesty.

Of course I don't subscribe to the idea myself, I was simply demonstrating the slippery slope we have embarked upon, and also highlighting the hypocrisy of gay marriage supporters.

We must beg to differ for reasons that have been highlighted above. Are you for or against same sex marriage between siblings? That would give them the same rights as other loving couples and would not impinge on others' freedoms. The only reason heterosexual marriage betwen siblings is taboo is due to the risk of abnormality in offspring and so the argument that same sex siblings have equal rights is spurious - they do not have the same right as non-sibling homosexuals (assuming the draft legislation still discriminates against siblings).

My opinion relating to incestuous couples in completely irrelevant here I am making no judgement regarding incestuous relationships. I am merely explaining why the comparison between gay marriage and marriage between siblings is completely asinine. My opinion is that incest is a very complex subject but that it is of complete irrelevance to the issue of whether same sex marriage should be legal.

Comparisons aside, what is your view on same-sex relationships between siblings?

Give me an answer. Because at the minute it just looks like you're ducking out of a very difficult question.

It is not. Why should homosexual male siblings not be allowed to marry when other homosexual men might be? Stonewall, et al should be campaigning vigourously to prevent this discrimination. Are they? If not, why not? Is it hypocrisy?

Sigh, why must you continue this straw man argument?
Incest isn't relevant to the current regulations being proposed.

Of course it is. We are trying to examine the basis for allowing marriage and discrimination. See my immediately preceding post - why should gay siblings suffer discrimation as compared with other gay couples? It is plain wrong. If that is accepted where is the next line drawn and should any further lines be drawn? Maybe not. Maybe this infantile decision by the Commons is wrong. What do you reckon?

I've explained in my above post in response to Kirkstaller my opinion on incestuous relationships is irrelevant. The only point I am making is that there are very real differences between marriage between two people of the same sex and marriage between siblings.

I've also explained in my original post to Kirkstaller why preventing siblings from marrying does not deny them rights as homosexuality is classified as a sexual orientation whereas the attraction to a persons siblings (or parents/offspring) isn't.

This is ducking the issue. The only reason for the incest taboo in societies is the effect of future generations. With gay incest that is an irrelevance and so we are left with direct discrimination against incestous gays by inter alia non-incestuous gays. Morall unsound in my opinion. If you agree with gay marriage you must agree with incestuous gay marriage or you are hypocritical.

No it isn't it is an argument constructed to get out of any explanation of why same sex couples in a legal relationship shouldn't be allowed o marry.

As I've explained this question is completely irrelevant to what I have said whether my answer was that I was in support of them or against them or that I had no opinion of them then it wouldn't change the fact that the comparison between gay marriage and sibling marriage is completely asinine.