It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by UnderGetty
The inter species / alien angle is an interesting one...
As far as a marriage post mortem, the person can certainly consent while they're still alive.
In the case of a ritual marriage ceremony where split personalities are involved, all parties are consenting. All personalities within a physical body are just as real and valid.
Originally posted by UnderGetty
There is an awful lot of people nowadays with a diagnosed mental disease. It doesn't exclude them from marriage.
Originally posted by micmerci
This is about entitlement, benefits, and money. Anyone who says differently is kidding themselves.
Originally posted by Hopechest
And currently 31 states I bellieve have amended their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
If the Court overturns this then there's no reason they wouldn't also overturn the state laws regarding incestual marriage. In fact, they would be guilty of discrimination if they let it stand.
Originally posted by sweetstuff
Good for New Zealand! If gay couples want to be legally married it should be their right to do so, debatting why they need a formal wedding made legal is ridiculous, why do straight people feel the need to? It's a choice, each to their own as long as they are consenting adults.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by micmerci
Originally posted by micmerci
This is about entitlement, benefits, and money. Anyone who says differently is kidding themselves.
So, are you saying that I married my opposite-gender partner for money, benefits and entitlements?
Yay, NZ!!! Hopefully, the US will catch up soon.
edit on 4/17/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by izero
At the end of the day, I couldn't care less about incestos wanting to get married. However it poses a biological threat when offspring come into play (birth defects/quality of life), which then poses a societal threat (potential burden on health care system/weakens the gene pool). Homo sex does neither, as a) children can't be born and b) the absence of a gene set won't weaken the gene the pool. Therefore homo marriage can't be compared to incesto marriage.
Anyone who uses religion as an argument has intellectually failed.
Congratulations enzed on being more progressive than us, your big Australian siblings (no we don't want to marry you and have freak ausnz kids).
Originally posted by Hopechest
I am just bringing up following actions which I believe will occur once homosexual marriage is legally accepted. It is for others to decide if they wish to open that pandora's box.