
Just curious, would you limit individual's ability to form these unions in any way? Typical restrictions would be 1 spouse per person, not related, not children--that fair?
I really don't see it as a "conservative" thing... There are plenty of liberals who are just as willing to stomp on someone else's Rights... and that's what I see it as... basically, if you wish to stomp on someone else's Rights, don't expect others to listen when you cry foul as your Rights are being stomped on.IJ wrote:I guess that's the difference between ideological conservatives and "compassionate conservatives," Panther![]()
There are valid science and health reasons (physical, physiological, mental) to restrict marriage (or even intimate relations) between close relatives and between adults and children. In those cases, I agree with limiting the choice of partner. Otherwise, as previously stated, my position is that marriage is between the couple and their God (or lack thereof)... and that any union "sanctioned" with special priviledge or recognition by the State is... by definition, a "civil union". If you aren't harming someone else (IE: the child in an adult/child intimate relationship, the future children in an incestuous relationship, etc.), then it just really isn't anyone else's business. I've seen recent arguments that purport that "gay marriage" is a health hazard... I've seen some arguments, but nothing compelling in the least.Just curious, would you limit individual's ability to form these unions in any way? Typical restrictions would be 1 spouse per person, not related, not children--that fair?
As I said, I haven't seen any (even close to) compelling arguments at all...IJ wrote:The health argument is an interesting one because in the lack of support for stable relationships, they'd be greater.