In answer to (truble2301)
"Your logic is just a beautiful thing to watch.
But good for you for taking a stand against people who love each other getting married."

I have never said I was for or against gay marriages. Just trying to point out the ISSUE is more than just gay marriage.

So you favor gay marriage?

I have not decided either way.

Regarding my 'tactic'... it really wasn't a tactic.

The rationale for gay marriage given can generally be outlined this way:

1) They're adults
2) They're consenting
3) They love each other
4) It's their own business what they who they want to commit to in that way.

So let's say you have two adult men who are sexually attracted to each other who just so happen to be siblings. You can call it incest all you want, but really, who cares? If the reason siblings aren't supposed to have sex is an increase in birth defect rates, well, two adult brothers aren't exactly going to have that be a problem for them. WHY is it wrong for siblings to be attracted to each other?

FWIW... I do think it's wrong. But the logic that is applied to homosexual unions being acceptable results in cries from the left that "Well, THAT is DIFFERENT!" when the very same criteria are applied to other relationships that have also historically been taboo.

And then someone will bring up the things that have also been considered 'wrong' historically like inter-racial marriages and talk about how far we've come that those unions are now acceptable and want to categorize homosexual marriages in the same way.

Who is to say that in 100 years the liberal agenda will be to get sibling marriages legalized and people who hold views like yours - that it's incest and it's wrong - will be seen as stodgy old-fashioned bigots who just want to keep people who love each other from sharing the same rights as everyone else?

What DOES constitute 'sick and wrong'? How do you define it, and can you apply the above logic and still have it be considered unacceptable? Is it simply a matter of opinion? And if so, why rag on those whose opinion is different from yours?

you're attempting to twist things around. Right now I don't know of any incestuous relationships that are fighting for the right to marry.

We bring up the past things that were considered wrong bc it sets a precedent and proves that (thankfully) laws do change.

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

To quote one of my favorite characters from one of my favorite movies:
Miyagi: Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later
[makes squish gesture]
get squish just like grape

Basically what I'm saying is take a position--it's your position. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks as long as it's what you feel is right and true.

Well, like I said before--according to the Bible homosexuality is wrong, but incest was alive and well and accepted in Biblical times. So, why don't we hear the devout Bible thumping Christians proclaiming that and fighting to get the laws against incest repealed?

__________________
"In life it is so hard to know which bridges to cross and which bridges to burn....."

No, I'm really not attempting to twist things around. Not at all.

The logic applied is a list of *reasons* that gay marriage is 'acceptable'.

If they are valid reasons to allow something, then they are valid reasons, period, and their validity shouldn't be negated just because we're squeamish about other possibilities.

Laws change. Point taken. There are laws in China that allow baby girls to be left to die. Legal does not always equal 'right'.

Thank you for making my point.

There have been times that incest was perfectly acceptable amongst the most civilized people who happened to be alive. We have been conditioned to see it as gross and wrong. Personally, I do think it is wrong. I'm not particularly fond of the term 'Bible thumping', but if you want me to thump, it was the Jews that were allowed to marry siblings (Abram and Sarai, for instance), and I'm not Jewish. Never have been. Most Americans never have been. Post-Christ some of the rules changed for those who followed him, and under Christian law it is forbidden. I can't tell you about what Jews follow today. Perhaps your minister mother can fill you in on this.

What constitutes something being worthy of a line in the sand where we say, "Huh-uh. We've gone about as fer as we can go"? If the reasons can still be applied - of age, consenting, etc. - what reason could someone have to dismiss the idea of legal sibling marriage?

The answer to that question will probably be the answer someone against homosexual marriage could just as easily give regarding those unions.

Just because something was "accepted" in Biblical times, does not mean it was condoned in the Scriptures.

Still looking at the facts..I never rush to have an opinion.

and vice versa, wouldn't you think?

(actually incestuous relationship were ok and even encouraged before Mosaic law--Moses changed everything--again I still think so many passages in the Bible are open for various interpretations)

__________________
"In life it is so hard to know which bridges to cross and which bridges to burn....."

Moses changed everything?

I think he was just acting under direct orders once he got past that whole burning bush thing.

BTW - I'm trying to think of an incident when it was encouraged. Obviously, Cain and Seth didn't have much choice, but 'encouraged' seems to be a stronger word than I would use.

Abram only claimed Sarah as his sister when it would've meant his death had he claimed her as his wife.

For all of you who think homosexuality is a choice, you also probably believe it can't happen in your family. News flash-I would bet 1 months pay that each and every person who reads this has a least 1 gay relative and friend. Depending on your attitude they could be hiding their secret fearing the loss of your love or friendship. How truly sad is that. Whether or not you agree with homosexuality is irrelavent. It is a fact. It is here, always has been and always will be. Even in the year 2008 people have to hide their sexual orientation. They face ridicule and violence daily. Why would anyone "choose" to live that way. 2 adults who have fallen in love and want to be married deserve that right. If you believe in God, and are quoting scriptures to boost your position, then you also realize that the only one to judge these people would be God. the ridiculous comparisons with sibling and animal marriage were the same talking points when interracial marriage was being debated. Get real. They're here and they're queer, deal with it.

Any two adults?

Many significant and righteous biblical characters were married to close family members, such as righteous Seth who must have married his sister or perhaps a niece (Gen. 4:26; 5:3-8), and Abraham who married his half-sister (Gen. 20:12). Also, the parents of Moses, Aaron and Miriam were nephew and aunt (Exod. 6:20; Lev. 20:19; Num. 26:59). Such unions were later banned by the Law (Lev. 18:9-14; Lev. 20:17,19).
Incest was not forbidden, and assumint that a person believe the account of Adam and Eve, wouldn't have been a problem in early history. The biological problem with incest is that it compounds genetic defects that are usually recessive. If humanity was originally created perfect, then no genetic defects, no problems with incest at first. It wouldn't be until genetic defects cropped up that there would be a problem. Incest was banned by Levitical law that came long after Noah was in the ground.

I find it perplexing that people have issues believing in evolution but are perfectly ok with man having coming from incest....

__________________
"In life it is so hard to know which bridges to cross and which bridges to burn....."

Why is that?

Well said. Thank you for putting my thought to words.

__________________
Calling a illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

As I posted in the earlier (closed thread) I have been married to my husband for 28 years---we are an interracial family. I find it insulting and condescending that your post trivializes the fight that marriages such as ours have had to undergo---just as same-sex unions do now. When you stop looking from the outside at these things, perhaps you will be less flippant and rude. Consider yourself lucky that your chosen partner is "acceptable" and understand that this is not always the case....and stop belittling those who face the discrimination and ignorance of those who think their way is the only right way.

__________________
"Well-Behaved Women SELDOM make history."Laurel Thatcher Ulrich


"Yesterday is but a vision, and tomorrow is only a dream. But today well lived makes every yesterday a dream of happiness, and every tomorrow a dream of hope." Anonymous

"Your candle does not lose it's light by lighting another candle" Generosity

Wow. So well-stated.

Thank you for connecting the dots. Yes, the rationale outlined above for being pro gay marriage would be the exact reasons for being pro-sibling marriage.

Why would one union be more acceptable than the other? How can anyone judge a homosexual relationship between two adult brothers or two adult sisters to be wrong if they are in favor of gay marriage?

__________________
"The errors of faith are better than the best thoughts of unbelief." - Thomas Russell

Personally, I have nothing at all against interracial marriage families. Not in the least.

It's others who brought up the thought that at one point in history interracial marriage was illegal and today the same fight is being waged on behalf of homosexuals.

I wasn't the one who said interracial marriages and gay marriages were the same.

I challenge you to find a statement I made that belittled either interracial marriage or gay marriage. I believe gay marriage is wrong, and I find the arguments made to assert it's acceptability to be full of holes. I have highlighted those holes, which is not at all the same as belittling.

It might interest you to know that I'm white as can be, but one of the ushers at our wedding happened to be a gay Hispanic man.

You are making the assumption that wowitsdark doesn't have the same interfaith or interracial marriage that you might have.

I am not the one who wrote this thread, but I do have such a marriage.

That being said, I do not find this post insulting, condescending or in any way trivializing of such marriages. I took her post to mean that as these marriages have had to historically withstand a great deal of rejection/humiliation before progressing to being (mostly) respected by the general population, so too will those who support gay marriages want theirs to follow.

__________________
"The errors of faith are better than the best thoughts of unbelief." - Thomas Russell

What you might find or not find insulting is a personal feeling. She was the one who wrote:

"And then someone will bring up the things that have also been considered 'wrong' historically like inter-racial marriages and talk about how far we've come that those unions are now acceptable and want to categorize homosexual marriages in the same way" even though she said "others" brought it up. It is in HER post.

As if they were using this as an excuse. If you did not find that insulting, that is your reality. I found it and still find it condescending and insulting.

And, I find it interesting that she tries to prove her "acceptance" by pointing out one member of her wedding party.....

__________________
"Well-Behaved Women SELDOM make history."Laurel Thatcher Ulrich


"Yesterday is but a vision, and tomorrow is only a dream. But today well lived makes every yesterday a dream of happiness, and every tomorrow a dream of hope." Anonymous

"Your candle does not lose it's light by lighting another candle" Generosity

Thanks, Devinmom. I've said before that my position is based in my faith. Not everyone has my faith, and I don't have theirs - or their lack thereof. Just as they want the nation to go the way of *their* faith/non-faith, I have a commitment to the perspective I hold.

Others equated the status of homosexuals wanting to marry with people of different races wanting to marry in times past. My point was that while the rationale / 'checklist' for acceptability seems to it both si