Mom to Mom
- Only group members can vote in this poll.
- 51% - I strongly agree
- 22% - I strongly disagree
- 7% - I am middle ways
- 19% - I really don't care
Replies
-
I agree. If two people choose to be together, they should have all the rights of marriage. They deserve to be protected like different sex marriages and their children deserve that same protection. Whether people agree or disagree with people being gay or not, they are still people who have the right to legally attach themselves to another person.
-
I hate to butt in on your conversation but I just couldn't pass this up.
Some people will go to the craziest lenghts to be right! Talk about splitting hairs, Sheesh! lol
Quoting Sonata8:
All non-related adults then? Really. Incest has nothing to do with homosexuality, which we are talking about. But, marrying your cousin is legal in some states and so is uncle/aunt marrying niece/nephew and step relations marrying (even stepparent to stepchild). Doesn't mean I agree with it.
I feel the same way about polygamy.Quoting SlapItHigh:
Ok, so a mom should be able to get married to her 18 yo daughter? Two 40 yo brothers should be able to marry each other?
Quoting Sonata8:
Yes
Quoting SlapItHigh:
Any consenting adults?
Quoting Sonata8:
I have no problem with it. It doesn't matter if I "agree" with it or not, consenting adults should be allowed to marry whoever they want without interference from the government.
-
How can you not support same-sex marriage, both legally and ethically?
-
Really? This question again? My guess, based on the stuff I've seen on CM before, you'll end up with about 3 to 4 times as many people voting for it as voting against it. Keeping in mind that the majority of people on CM are fairly liberal in their thinking, that is not an unexpected result.
-
It's not splitting hairs. The entire foundation of her argument was wrong.
Quoting jeannie39:
I hate to butt in on your conversation but I just couldn't pass this up.
Some people will go to the craziest lenghts to be right! Talk about splitting hairs, Sheesh! lol
Quoting Sonata8:
All non-related adults then? Really. Incest has nothing to do with homosexuality, which we are talking about. But, marrying your cousin is legal in some states and so is uncle/aunt marrying niece/nephew and step relations marrying (even stepparent to stepchild). Doesn't mean I agree with it.
I feel the same way about polygamy.Quoting SlapItHigh:
Ok, so a mom should be able to get married to her 18 yo daughter? Two 40 yo brothers should be able to marry each other?
Quoting Sonata8:
Yes
Quoting SlapItHigh:
Any consenting adults?
Quoting Sonata8:
I have no problem with it. It doesn't matter if I "agree" with it or not, consenting adults should be allowed to marry whoever they want without interference from the government.
-
it's not for me, but it's also not for me to tell someone who they can and can't marry. that's not very nice of me.
-
Quoting SlapItHigh:
I strongly disagree.
-
So, if two widowed sisters choose/need to live together to economize and help each other out, shouldn't we give that 'couple' the same rights? My take on it is yes, but this 'new' definition of marriage has this bedroom test in it, is that fair? What about marriages where one person is 'legally attaching' themselves to another person just for benefits (not fwb) like a foreigner 'marrying' a US citizen so that down the line, they themselves can apply for citizenship? Right now that is illegal, and per the last of your posting, they should have the 'right' to attach themselves legally to another person. But no, despite the fact that what is being asked is a change in the definition of marriage, you (liberals) stop at, it has to be only two people and those people have to be in love; and the way that those two are considered 'in love' is if they are sharing the same bed (or at least claim to be ... so far, no cameras in the bedroom to verify). Why are you stopping at two people, why do they have to be 'in love' ... why?
Quoting jeannie39:
I agree. If two people choose to be together, they should have all the rights of marriage. They deserve to be protected like different sex marriages and their children deserve that same protection. Whether people agree or disagree with people being gay or not, they are still people who have the right to legally attach themselves to another person.
-
No, it wasn't. The topic is same sex marriage, not incest. I'm sure if that would have been the topic, her reply may have been different. IDK. Turning the comment into something it wasn't meant for, IMO, is splitting hairs. Regardless of that, if the government ruled over moral behavior, this would not be a free country. I would never agree with incestuous marriage but its not my or the governments job to weight the morality of it.
Quoting SlapItHigh:
It's not splitting hairs. The entire foundation of her argument was wrong.
Quoting jeannie39:
I hate to butt in on your conversation but I just couldn't pass this up.
Some people will go to the craziest lenghts to be right! Talk about splitting hairs, Sheesh! lol
Quoting Sonata8:
All non-related adults then? Really. Incest has nothing to do with homosexuality, which we are talking about. But, marrying your cousin is legal in some states and so is uncle/aunt marrying niece/nephew and step relations marrying (even stepparent to stepchild). Doesn't mean I agree with it.
I feel the same way about polygamy.Quoting SlapItHigh:
Ok, so a mom should be able to get married to her 18 yo daughter? Two 40 yo brothers should be able to marry each other?
Quoting Sonata8:
Yes
Quoting SlapItHigh:
Any consenting adults?
Quoting Sonata8:
I have no problem with it. It doesn't matter if I "agree" with it or not, consenting adults should be allowed to marry whoever they want without interference from the government.
-
I think you and some other people are putting way to much thought into the forum. Marriage to me is two people who love one another and want to be married in the "traditional" way, Not two sisters. If the question would have been asked differently, my answer may have changed, IDK. I was answering the question as one about gay marriage, not all the other stuff. As I said to another poster, I will not judge the morality of others. And please don't go on and bring other socially immoral things like child molestation and such into this. I am not looking for a debate. Go find someone else, I'm not interested.
Quoting hhhan
So, if two widowed sisters choose/need to live together to economize and help each other out, shouldn't we give that 'couple' the same rights? My take on it is yes, but this 'new' definition of marriage has this bedroom test in it, is that fair? What about marriages where one person is 'legally attaching' themselves to another person just for benefits (not fwb) like a foreigner 'marrying' a US citizen so that down the line, they themselves can apply for citizenship? Right now that is illegal, and per the last of your posting, they should have the 'right' to attach themselves legally to another person. But no, despite the fact that what is being asked is a change in the definition of marriage, you (liberals) stop at, it has to be only two people and those people have to be in love; and the way that those two are considered 'in love' is if they are sharing the same bed (or at least claim to be ... so far, no cameras in the bedroom to verify). Why are you stopping at two people, why do they have to be 'in love' ... why?
Quoting jeannie39:
I agree. If two people choose to be together, they should have all the rights of marriage. They deserve to be protected like different sex marriages and their children deserve that same protection. Whether people agree or disagree with people being gay or not, they are still people who have the right to legally attach themselves to another person.