HOORAY! Maybe now we can begin to stop the last greatest human rights violation of our time in the United States!

If I ever get divorced from my husband, I will marry a woman! Yes I will!

How DARE the government tell me who I can or can't marry (as long as it's consenting adult!)

I knew it was WRONG to deny Gay people the right to get married when I was four years old! I wanted to marry my best friend Kristin and my mom said I couldn't because two girls could not get married and I was like "WHAT?!?!?! WHY NOT?????????? WTF???"

GAY MARRIAGE NOW!!!

Did I say that "consenting adults" was my only criteria? I was addressing the idea that allowing gay marriage would lead to women marrying dolpins, or people marrying under-age kids.

Oh, and to clarify yet again, my argument is not that gay marriage is morally equal to people marrying animals or under-aged kids. And I am not equating those acts in any shape or form. I am simply trying to determine where everyone draws the line about how they would define marriage.

So everyone agrees, then? Gay, yes. Polygamy, yes. Brothers and sisters, so long as they're adults, yes. Fathers and daughters or mothers and sons, so long as they're adults, yes.

Did I get everything right? Any objections?

Personally I think it's extremely gross to marry someone one is closely related to, but I wouldn't make it illegal. Look, if it's what two people want to do then who am I to outlaw it? Hopefully they would be educated about the facts of reproduction and the risks involved in doing that, but then again, there are plenty of people who breed way too close for (my) comfort and there is no law stopping it. For example, the Amish. There are also many people who know they have genetic illnesses which have a very high risk of being passed down to their children, but they are not forbidden from getting married. Therefor, I see no reason to outlaw close relatives to marry. Again, I would not apply my personal ethical/moral beliefs on other people.

Would I marry someone closely related to me? Absolutley positively not. Would I make a law prohibiting others from doing so? Absolutely positively not.

I honestly do not understand why anyone would care who marries each other. It is just sooooo none of anyone's business! How does it even affect anyone else? I just don't understand. If I had neighbors living next door to me and they were nice neighbors and were married and were brother and sister, how would I even know? How would it affect me whatsoever? Like I said I think it is repulsive, but how would it affect me? It wouldn't!

Yes, I am for consenting adults marrying who the heck they want and I think the fact that anyone cares is mindblowing.

For the record I've never run into any close relatives who wanted the right to marry, nor have I heard of any (though I suppose there are some out there) so I don't think it's really an issue.

I'm sorry; I thought you did. But if you didn't, what are your criteria? Barring the woman who married a dolphin (I didn't make that up for theoretical purposes, BTW) and under-aged kids, what other than consenting adults would be objectionable?

You know you're a redneck if you've ever dated someone you met at a family reunion.

I'm sorry; I thought you did. But if you didn't, what are your criteria? Barring the woman who married a dolphin (I didn't make that up for theoretical purposes, BTW) and under-aged kids, what other than consenting adults would be objectionable?

Redneck foreplay...

Hey, Sis....you awake?

Oh, and to clarify yet again, my argument is not that gay marriage is morally equal to people marrying animals or under-aged kids. And I am not equating those acts in any shape or form. I am simply trying to determine where everyone draws the line about how they would define marriage.

I understood that. For me, the line is about allowing people freedom to live as they see fit, while at the same time protecting society/it's members. I haven't seen any convincing arguments that allowing gay marriage would hurt society.

Polygamy, I go back and forth on. Perhaps because I'm not familiar with it, and the protrayals I've seen haven't been good. Of course, the "constenting adults" would address some of my concerns, about women being forced into it.

I'm against marriage between close blood relatives.

I honestly do not understand why anyone would care who marries each other. It is just sooooo none of anyone's business! How does it even affect anyone else? I just don't understand. If I had neighbors living next door to me and they were nice neighbors and were married and were brother and sister, how would I even know? How would it affect me whatsoever? Like I said I think it is repulsive, but how would it affect me? It wouldn't!

Yes, I am for consenting adults marrying who the heck they want and I think the fact that anyone cares is mindblowing.

For the record I've never run into any close relatives who wanted the right to marry, nor have I heard of any (though I suppose there are some out there) so I don't think it's really an issue.

Did you read my post about being married for 25 years to a man who was, at one time, my stepbrother? Very strange, to some people. My kids were a little weirded out by the fact that both their grandmothers had the same last name, once they got old enough to realize that wasn't the norm. We actually met another couple in a similar situation. They met when their kids were dating, so they were the mother and father of both the bride and the groom. Their granddaughter used to joke that she was going to need years of therapy.

I find it utterly ridiculous that the state of Texas considers these unions incestuous. There is no shared DNA, so what's the problem?

Carlene, I have zero problem with step-relatives marrying. The fact that anyone would is slightly insane in my opinion. Step relatives are not related to each other so I don't understand where the argument would be. All I can say is that Texas is... a rather...um...uh... unusual state in my opinion. I say "unusual" because I don't really know how to put it nicely.

The original question was how we as individuals would define marriage, and my point is, let each individual define it for themselves because it's none of anyone's business otherwise.

I wish I lived 100 years from now instead of today, but then again, I wouldn't be able to have fun debating online because by then everyone's civil rights will be in place...

Did you read my post about being married for 25 years to a man who was, at one time, my stepbrother? Very strange, to some people. My kids were a little weirded out by the fact that both their grandmothers had the same last name, once they got old enough to realize that wasn't the norm. We actually met another couple in a similar situation. They met when their kids were dating, so they were the mother and father of both the bride and the groom. Their granddaughter used to joke that she was going to need years of therapy.

I find it utterly ridiculous that the state of Texas considers these unions incestuous. There is no shared DNA, so what's the problem?

Yes, you have got it right. It shouldn't matter when step relatives marry each other. It boils down to an issue of the gene pool. The prohibition, which appears in almost all cultures, against members of the nuclear family intermarrying has to do with genetic issues and inbreeding. It is simply much less healthy. Family weaknesses are carried on instead of being bred out. In some cultures, however, close members of royal or noble families did marry and breed with each other.

I just looked at the current application for a TX marriage license and you still can't marry your cousin or other close relative (related by whole blood or half, or by adoption) and you can't marry your step-parent/child, but they have removed the provision against marrying step-siblings, step-aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.

This is a good thing, too. If you are under a child support order, your child support has to be current or they won't issue a marriage license.

I don't agree with close relative marrying----too emotionally confusing and too many birth defects, so we'll have to have a discussion about it in our new democracy.

OK. Gays yes. Minors and animals no. Polygamy-needs discussion, and apparently so does marrying a close relative. I'm assuming marrying a dead adult is a No-there's that sticky issue of "consenting", unless a psychic is present.

Advocating gay marriage doesn't mean that a person is advocating all this other stuff, or that it opens the door to any of it. It can still be discussed if it becomes a burning issue, and decided. I doubt that marrying animals will become a hot topic. I think the argument about animals and the like is a way to be inflammatory in order to get rid of the issue.

Hey..What if you are in arrears for child support to the child you then marry. Do you still owe child support? Hmmm. Guess not, since you are then your spouse's custodial parent.

So everyone agrees, then? Gay, yes. Polygamy, yes. Brothers and sisters, so long as they're adults, yes. Fathers and daughters or mothers and sons, so long as they're adults, yes.

Did I get everything right? Any objections?

:lalala:I'm trying

Ha! Funny girl. The discussion has taken yet another sick turn since you last posted, eh, Carol. Keep singing! There are better things to do in life than discuss close relatives and animals marrying each other. Take the high road! We all clearly have too much time on our hands when we should be exercising.

You know you're a redneck if you've ever dated someone you met at a family reunion.

I am NOT joking....I worked with someone in OH that fit this description. They were first cousins and met at a family reunion. I actually worked with the wife and she loved to tell people that is where they met. They have 2 kids. Yep, they're all weird.

:censored: Got ya