Same-sex marriage: where does my objection go wrong?

[sllhouette]

And that point is nonsense: I know of no marriage equality proponent advocating for the right to marry in churches (and I’ve been debating this issue for quite awhile). If you can produce one example, it is still an extremely minority position, one that virtually no one on our side takes seriously.

There is no real “contention” regarding definitions: civil marriage isn’t religious marriage, no matter how desperately people want to equate the two.

It is an unfortunate fact that there are some people pushing for gay marriage in the Church. Just because you have not met them does not mean that they don’t exist. Whether they are part of your organization I couldn’t say.

The contention that exists is not over “civil” or “religious”. It is over the definition of the word “marriage”. You mean one thing when you say it and people hear another (whether you preface it with civil or not). Proclaiming that there is no problem with definition and claiming that everyone understands what you are saying precisely as you want them to gets you nowhere. The word “marriage” innately has religious connotations for us. It’s not like we do it intentionally to discourage your cause. It’s just how it is. We imply the element of God WHENEVER we hear the word marriage. That is just the language that we learned. What you are trying to do is to change language and change culture. That is not an easy thing to do.

Another thing that might help you is that you need to be careful about the way you speak. Not to be too critical, but sometimes you come off a bit aggressive. It may just be the media that we are communicating with though. For that reason you have to be extra careful when talking on forums like this. If you come off as aggressive people will feel like they have to fight you and once that begins your no longer discussing and are instead debating which gets no one anywhere.

Peace be with you.

 

[spencelo]

It is an unfortunate fact that there are some people pushing for gay marriage in the Church.

Can you produce one example of this? And I don’t mean a random commentator on a blog or forum, but someone who actually published an article somewhere (online or in print) advocating for the right for same-sex couples to marry in churches. Can you? As far as I’m concerned, your claim is a myth.

The contention that exists is not over “civil” or “religious”. It is over the definition of the word “marriage”.

Marriage has both a civil meaning (“civil marriage”) and a religious meaning (“religious marriage”). People who pretend that there is no civil meaning of the term marriage, separate and distinct from the religious meaning, simply aren’t being honest. Catholics don’t get to claim ownership of the word “marriage,” which is precisely what occurs repeatedly in this forum; apparently for them (and you), regardless of how the term is actually used in the civil/legal contexts, “marriage” is inherently loaded with legal significance. That’s hijacking language – that’s saying that other common and widespread uses of the term don’t even exist, which is again dishonest. The world simply isn’t made up of Catholic language users, so to suggest that God is an inherent element of ALL senses of the term marriage evinces an outlook that is profoundly immature and small-minded.

 

[Stephen168]

This is completely irrational. Do couples need to fulfill all the requirements for a Catholic marriage in order to get married? If not, then “civil marriage” and “Catholic marriage” do NOT have the exact same meaning – not even close. What do you mean by “exactly the same meaning?” As an atheist, marriage for me would not be a “Catholic marriage” at all, and I still don’t know why you continue to pretend otherwise.

I’ve been trying to think of an analogy to help you understand but most fall short. I’ll try this: When you get a driver’s license you become a driver. You will always be a driver. Being a driver is not the license or the test, it is a state of being. You seem to focus only on the test and the license which have almost nothing to do with being a driver. You want to talk about the difference between a California driver and a Montana driver, when in fact they are both drivers. Marriage is a state of being which by its very nature excluded people of the same sex. If you truly believe there is a difference in being a California driver and a Montana driver, I honestly do not understand what you can possible mean. When I ask you to define marriage and explain the difference between civil and religious marriage, it is an honest question because I cannot understand what you can possibly mean by the difference.

Your objection in the OP goes wrong because you do not understand what marriage is. It is not a license, it is not a ceremony, and it is not a piece of paper. Marriage predates the state. Marriage is an organic part of human nature where children are raised. It is a state of being. Of course raising children presupposes that children have a very good chance of being created by the participants. This is why same sex unions and pedophile unions are not marriage; those unions are sterile. In the case of same sex unions they cannot have marital sex; only sterile acts which deviate from the natural purpose. On every level, homosexuals are pretending at marriage.

 

[sllhouette]

Can you produce one example of this? And I don’t mean a random commentator on a blog or forum, but someone who actually published an article somewhere (online or in print) advocating for the right for same-sex couples to marry in churches. Can you? As far as I’m concerned, your claim is a myth.

I think you might have misunderstood me. I don’t mean to say that there are people who are trying to put governmental pressure on the Church to accept gay marriage, but rather social pressure. I even heard the other day about some people that wanted to try to make a catholic school publish an announcement about a gay ‘marriage’ of some past alumni. Beyond that though, there are actually some trying to get the church to change it’s position. I don’t feel I have to go find an article for you.

Marriage has both a civil meaning (“civil marriage”) and a religious meaning (“religious marriage”). People who pretend that there is no civil meaning of the term marriage, separate and distinct from the religious meaning, simply aren’t being honest. Catholics don’t get to claim ownership of the word “marriage,” which is precisely what occurs repeatedly in this forum; apparently for them (and you), regardless of how the term is actually used in the civil/legal contexts, “marriage” is inherently loaded with legal significance. That’s hijacking language – that’s saying that other common and widespread uses of the term don’t even exist, which is again dishonest. The world simply isn’t made up of Catholic language users, so to suggest that God is an inherent element of ALL senses of the term marriage evinces an outlook that is profoundly immature and small-minded.

I don’t think you understand what I mean yet. I acknowledged that you have a different definition of the word than I do. I am only trying to express why you have such difficulty explaining why we should permit same-sex marriage to people. For most people the word marriage brings up images of chapels, ministers, and wedding rings that signify religious vows. This has been the norm for a very long time. It is you, who are taking the word marriage out of it’s historical meaning, who is trying to change the word. I don’t think you are aware of this and you no doubt think that we are the ones changing the word. Thus we have the problem. We have both learned a different definition for the same word! This is why you have so many problems convincing, not just me, but many people throughout the country. Your not on the same page as the people you are talking with. You come from different perspectives and different cultures. Until you solve that problem you are not convincing anyone.

You REALLY need to be careful of the way you talk to people. After talking to you, the next time I start talking to someone about same-sex marriage or even if I meet someone who is gay and wants to get married, I will be prone to think of you accusing me of being dishonest, immature, and small minded. Now I won’t let that affect me, but not everyone is that way. Talking to most people that way is going to make them shut down and they wont be likely to listen to someone else on this topic because they will be afraid of being attacked. My point is, talking to people this way is the single worst thing you can do to further your cause. Treat people with some dignity and they will listen to what you say and even if they disagree with you immediately, they will reflect over the topic for a period of time and may with time change their minds. Attack people and they are just going to get angry, will not consider the logic you present, and are very unlikely to change their position. I sincerely hope that helps you.

 

[spencelo]

Okay Stephen, I don’t see any good faith effort on your part, but I will try one more time.

I’ve been trying to think of an analogy to help you understand but most fall short. I’ll try this: When you get a driver’s license you become a driver. You will always be a driver. Being a driver is not the license or the test, it is a state of being. You seem to focus only on the test and the license which have almost nothing to do with being a driver. You want to talk about the difference between a California driver and a Montana driver, when in fact they are both drivers. Marriage is a state of being which by its very nature excluded people of the same sex. If you truly believe there is a difference in being a California driver and a Montana driver, I honestly do not understand what you can possible mean. When I ask you to define marriage and explain the difference between civil and religious marriage, it is an honest question because I cannot understand what you can possibly mean by the difference.

To use your analogy, same-sex couples are fighting for the “right to drive” – the right to get that license which allows them to assume all responsibilities and privileges associated with driving. The debate has nothing to do with the state of “being a driver,” but with who has “the right to drive.” The “right to drive” is granted to anyone who can meet the relevant requirements, which are the same from person to person. “Being a driver,” on the other hand, is a “state of being” that differs from person to person – some enjoy it, others don’t.

Similarly, same-sex couples are fighting for the “right to marry” – the right to get that license which allows them to assume all responsibilities and privileges associated with marriage. The debate has NOTHING to do with marriage as “a state of being,” but with who has “the right to marry.” The “right to marry” is granted to couples who can meet the relevant requirements, which is the same from couple to couple. The current debate is about those requirements: are they or are they not rational? The debate has nothing to do with marriage as “a state of being,” which varies widely from couple to couple. You are (deliberately, it seems) conflating the legal right to marry with what marriage ought to mean and look like once people are legally married.

Your objection in the OP goes wrong because you do not understand what marriage is. It is not a license, it is not a ceremony, and it is not a piece of paper. Marriage predates the state. Marriage is an organic part of human nature where children are raised. It is a state of being. Of course raising children presupposes that children have a very good chance of being created by the participants. This is why same sex unions and pedophile unions are not marriage; those unions are sterile. In the case of same sex unions they cannot have marital sex; only sterile acts which deviate from the natural purpose. On every level, homosexuals are pretending at marriage.

And your conflation of same-sex unions with “pedophile unions” is another example of the kind of dishonesty and bigotry I see from people on your side. What do you mean by “pedophile unions?” I already provided a wikipedia link showing that there have been instances of girls as young as 5 or 6 become pregnant. Does the sexual union between a 40 yr old and a 10 yr old capable of reproducing count as a “pedophile union?” Yes or no?

 

[Stephen168]

Okay Stephen, I don’t see any good faith effort on your part, but I will try one more time.

To use your analogy, same-sex couples are fighting for the “right to drive” – the right to get that license which allows them to assume all responsibilities and privileges associated with driving. The debate has nothing to do with the state of “being a driver,” but with who has “the right to drive.” The “right to drive” is granted to anyone who can meet the relevant requirements, which are the same from person to person. “Being a driver,” on the other hand, is a “state of being” that differs from person to person – some enjoy it, others don’t.

Similarly, same-sex couples are fighting for the “right to marry” – the right to get that license which allows them to assume all responsibilities and privileges associated with marriage. The debate has NOTHING to do with marriage as “a state of being,” but with who has “the right to marry.” The “right to marry” is granted to couples who can meet the relevant requirements, which is the same from couple to couple. The current debate is about those requirements: are they or are they not rational? The debate has nothing to do with marriage as “a state of being,” which varies widely from couple to couple. You are (deliberately, it seems) conflating the legal right to marry with what marriage ought to mean and look like once people are legally married.

And your conflation of same-sex unions with “pedophile unions” is another example of the kind of dishonesty and bigotry I see from people on your side. What do you mean by “pedophile unions?” I already provided a wikipedia link showing that there have been instances of girls as young as 5 or 6 become pregnant. Does the sexual union between a 40 yr old and a 10 yr old capable of reproducing count as a “pedophile union?” Yes or no?

You are like the blind demanding the right to drive, you are a man demanding his right to breast feed. Two people of the same sex cannot marry.

Man: I demand my right to breastfeed

Woman: But that is impossible. What do you think breast feeding is?

Man: You know very well what breast feeding is, not give me my right to it.

Sounds like a tantrum to me. Had the man answered the question, they might have had a long civil dialogue. After several attempts at dialogue, all we get from you is a tantrum, complete with name calling.

 

[sllhouette]

You are like the blind demanding the right to drive, you are a man demanding his right to breast feed. Two people of the same sex cannot marry.

Man: I demand my right to breastfeed

Woman: But that is impossible. What do you think breast feeding is?

Man: You know very well what breast feeding is, not give me my right to it.

Sounds like a tantrum to me. Had the man answered the question, they might have had a long civil dialogue. After several attempts at dialogue, all we get from you is a tantrum, complete with name calling.

haha, this is probably inappropriate, but this reminds me of this skit.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I’ve been trying to think of an analogy to help you understand but most fall short. I’ll try this: When you get a driver’s license you become a driver. You will always be a driver. Being a driver is not the license or the test, it is a state of being. You seem to focus only on the test and the license which have almost nothing to do with being a driver. You want to talk about the difference between a California driver and a Montana driver, when in fact they are both drivers. Marriage is a state of being which by its very nature excluded people of the same sex. If you truly believe there is a difference in being a California driver and a Montana driver, I honestly do not understand what you can possible mean. When I ask you to define marriage and explain the difference between civil and religious marriage, it is an honest question because I cannot understand what you can possibly mean by the difference.

Stephen, spencello is more than able to respond to you, but I wanted to say that I get what you’re saying here. However…there’s not quite the equivalence you seem to suggest.

For the state, marriage is a contract, pure and simple. Certain rights and responsibilities are conferred on the married couple and that’s that. For the church(more or less), a couple getting married, even if only by the state, confects the sacrament of marriage which ontologically refers the union of man and woman to the union of Christ and his Church, God and creation. To the state, a household/family is less the proper environment in which children can be raised and more a statistical/commerical unit, the value of which is determined by the economic value of the unit. To the church, marriage is ordered, in large part, to the creation of the proper conditions in which a child may be raised. The state doesn’t care if husband and wife are an image of the church or if they have anything to do with God as the church understands him. Moreover, the state doesn’t care if the husband and wife procreate–it just cares that they pay their taxes. The moral value of a child is beyond the state’s comprehension–it’s certainly beyond the comprehension of a contract. To the church, a state contract may or may not be involved, but that doesn’t affect the underlying reality of what marriage is: a sacrament oriented to family/children and their moral/spiritual/physical development, new life. For the state, the only reality is a contract.

Consider, too, that in these cash-strapped times, New York City alone received a $259 million boost from same sex marriages. That’s not inconsiderable. From the church’s POV, that may look nice, but it’s morally bankrupt. From the state’s or the city’s POV…that’s a big chunk of change…and it makes a difference when it comes time to making budgets. That alone should tell you all you need to know about the difference between civil marriage and marriage according to the church.

So to use your analogy of the driver’s license, the situation of, say, an atheist who gets married in a civil ceremony who subsequently encounters the RCC understanding of marriage is more like a guy who gets his driver’s license at the Fontana, CA DMV only to be told by a diplomat from Greenland that his license also means that he’s personally and morally responsible for the operation and maintenance of a municipal snowplow in Uummannaq. “There’s a flight to Greenland in two hours,” says the diplomat, “You should be on it.” To complete the analogy, our Fontana driver balks, mutters a dismissive, “whatever,” goes home, watches the Mega Millions numbers on TV…and discovers he’s won the lottery.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[spencelo]

I think you might have misunderstood me. I don’t mean to say that there are people who are trying to put governmental pressure on the Church to accept gay marriage, but rather social pressure.

Then you were being misleading (extraordinarily so), because you contested my contention that same-sex couples aren’t fighting for the right to get married in Catholic churches. Trying to get the church to change its position via social pressure isn’t the same at all as advocating for the legal right to get married in churches. When you contested my claim, you gave the highly misleading impression that SSM advocates were doing the latter, so it wasn’t a simple case of me just misunderstanding you, but of you misusing language.

I don’t think you understand what I mean yet. I acknowledged that you have a different definition of the word than I do. I am only trying to express why you have such difficulty explaining why we should permit same-sex marriage to people. For most people the word marriage brings up images of chapels, ministers, and wedding rings that signify religious vows. This has been the norm for a very long time. It is you, who are taking the word marriage out of it’s historical meaning, who is trying to change the word. I don’t think you are aware of this and you no doubt think that we are the ones changing the word. Thus we have the problem. We have both learned a different definition for the same word! This is why you have so many problems convincing, not just me, but many people throughout the country. Your not on the same page as the people you are talking with. You come from different perspectives and different cultures. Until you solve that problem you are not convincing anyone.

This is the immature outlook I was talking about: pretending that only the Catholic meaning of the word “marriage” exists. Unlike you, I recognize that “marriage” does have religious connotations and meanings, and nothing I said implied otherwise (nor am I trying to change the word). The Catholic understanding of “marriage” exists and is here to stay, but there are non-Catholic understandings of the term too (like in the legal world, as in “civil marriage”). The refusal to acknowledge this reality is why we’re not on the same page – for some Catholics, there is only one page. Other pages simply don’t exist or are considered exactly the same (see Stephen’s posts). Again, this insistence to view the legitimate use of language only through “Catholic lens” is incredibly immature and small minded.

You REALLY need to be careful of the way you talk to people. After talking to you, then next time I start talking to someone about same-sex marriage or even if I meet someone who is gay and wants to get married, I will be prone to think of you accusing me of being dishonest, immature, and small minded. Now I won’t let that affect me, but not everyone is that way. Talking to most people that way is going to make them shut down and they wont be likely to listen to someone else on this topic because they will be afraid of being attacked. My point is, talking to people this way is the single worst thing you can do to further your cause. Treat people with some dignity and they will listen to what you say and even if they disagree with you immediately, they will reflect over the topic for a period of time and may with time change their minds. Attack people and they are just going to get angry, will not consider the logic you present, and are very unlikely to change their position. I sincerely hope that helps you.

There comes a point where intellectual dishonesty and hateful insinuations need to be called out, and in this thread, I’ve seen various instances of both. For one example of the latter, simply consider Stephen’s equation between same-sex couples and “pedophile couples.”

 

[spencelo]

You are like the blind demanding the right to drive, you are a man demanding his right to breast feed. Two people of the same sex cannot marry.

Man: I demand my right to breastfeed

Woman: But that is impossible. What do you think breast feeding is?

Man: You know very well what breast feeding is, not give me my right to it.

Sounds like a tantrum to me. Had the man answered the question, they might have had a long civil dialogue. After several attempts at dialogue, all we get from you is a tantrum, complete with name calling.

I wrote a substantive response to your previous post, and all I get in return is the above dismissal. I can’t say I’m surprised.

 

[livingwordunity]

Marriage by it’s nature is exclusive. Marriage, as it was since the beginning is an exclusive covenant between one man and one woman. Even “gay” activists who want to change the original definition of marriage to include homosexuals and criticize us for having a narrow definition of marriage still say (for now) that it should be limited to only two persons and should not include pedophiles or incest. What liberals call “marriage equality” still excludes others (for now). This is the fact that spencelo keeps saying he doesn’t want to talk about because he knows it doesn’t fit with his agenda of pushing for so-called “same-sex marriage”. By the way, even if most Catholics forget what true marriage is about the Catholic Church will never change her teachings on this since she is guided by the Holy Spirit. And God never contradicts Himself.

 

[surritter]

The right to marry. Do you understand this right when applied to opposite-sex couples? If so, then you should understand this right when applied to same-sex couples - because they’re exactly the same.
“Civil marriage” is the concept at issue. It’s painfully obvious that you are dodging my previous objections to your “ordered towards procreation” rationale, and I can see why, so you’re playing the same game that Stephen is playing when he pretends to be unaware of the distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage. Will you address my objections, or will you continue to playing the dodging game?

First, it must be said that your attitude really stifles your argument. We’ve all presented some compelling points, which your are perfectly free to debate or disprove, but it should be a two-way street where you can answer our questions. The only conclusion we can draw is that you can’t answer them!
You can start with telling my why you disagree with my facetious definition of marriage being the right to pee on a fence. If that is what the piece of paper were to say, then couldn’t it be 5 or 6 people?

Yes, there is discrimination involved when it comes to marriage. There, I said it. But what’s wrong with that, if the idea of marriage hinges on something that is unalterable?
–Men are discriminated against when it comes to getting pregnant
–Women are discriminated against by being barred from walking around town topless.

Can you see that discrimination is not always an evil thing? And the very examples I mention are based on biology. So too is marriage: it’s based on biology.
So what does biology have to do with marriage? Simple: the biology of a man and woman is such that, in normative circumstances, they produce a child. This is the root reason for a government to get involved.
Since a homosexual relationship, even with normal faculties present, can never produce a child, there is no reason for a government – civil, not a religious government – to get involved. It’s not discrimination in the horrible sense that you perceive that word; instead, a homosexual relationship is totally irrelevant to the foundational reason for marriage.

Now, would you care to formulate a thoughtful answer to any of my questions, or is your next post going to be more of the same?

 

[spencelo]

First, it must be said that your attitude really stifles your argument. We’ve all presented some compelling points, which your are perfectly free to debate or disprove, but it should be a two-way street where you can answer our questions. The only conclusion we can draw is that you can’t answer them!
You can start with telling my why you disagree with my facetious definition of marriage being the right to pee on a fence. If that is what the piece of paper were to say, then couldn’t it be 5 or 6 people?

Actually, I prefer to stick to our discussion regarding what you think is a rational basis for limiting marriage to same-sex couples. I presented various objections to your rationale, but you have ignored them.

Can you see that discrimination is not always an evil thing?

I agree: sometimes discrimination is perfectly justified.

Since a homosexual relationship, even with normal faculties present, can never produce a child, there is no reason for a government – civil, not a religious government – to get involved.

This sounds like the “inability to procreate” rationale that I addressed in my op. What’s your answer to my op objection?

 

[spencelo]

Now, would you care to formulate a thoughtful answer to any of my questions, or is your next post going to be more of the same?

When are you going to address post# 212?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Since a homosexual relationship, even with normal faculties present, can never produce a child, there is no reason for a government – civil, not a religious government – to get involved.

As mentioned in my earlier post, the reason for the state to get involved is this: money. New York City alone gained $279 million *extra *because of same sex marriage (see newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/25/money-honey-gay-marriages-bring-in-259-million-for-new-york-city/). Now consider how many of those SSMs will end in divorce, and there’s an additional boost to the economy in civil and lawyer fees.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Stephen168]

Grace & Peace!

Stephen, spencello is more than able to respond to you, but I wanted to say that I get what you’re saying here. However…there’s not quite the equivalence you seem to suggest.

For the state, marriage is a contract, pure and simple. Certain rights and responsibilities are conferred on the married couple and that’s that. For the church(more or less), a couple getting married, even if only by the state, confects the sacrament of marriage which ontologically refers the union of man and woman to the union of Christ and his Church, God and creation. To the state, a household/family is less the proper environment in which children can be raised and more a statistical/commerical unit, the value of which is determined by the economic value of the unit. To the church, marriage is ordered, in large part, to the creation of the proper conditions in which a child may be raised. The state doesn’t care if husband and wife are an image of the church or if they have anything to do with God as the church understands him. Moreover, the state doesn’t care if the husband and wife procreate–it just cares that they pay their taxes. The moral value of a child is beyond the state’s comprehension–it’s certainly beyond the comprehension of a contract. To the church, a state contract may or may not be involved, but that doesn’t affect the underlying reality of what marriage is: a sacrament oriented to family/children and their moral/spiritual/physical development, new life. For the state, the only reality is a contract.

Consider, too, that in these cash-strapped times, New York City alone received a $259 million boost from same sex marriages. That’s not inconsiderable. From the church’s POV, that may look nice, but it’s morally bankrupt. From the state’s or the city’s POV…that’s a big chunk of change…and it makes a difference when it comes time to making budgets. That alone should tell you all you need to know about the difference between civil marriage and marriage according to the church.

So to use your analogy of the driver’s license, the situation of, say, an atheist who gets married in a civil ceremony who subsequently encounters the RCC understanding of marriage is more like a guy who gets his driver’s license at the Fontana, CA DMV only to be told by a diplomat from Greenland that his license also means that he’s personally and morally responsible for the operation and maintenance of a municipal snowplow in Uummannaq. “There’s a flight to Greenland in two hours,” says the diplomat, “You should be on it.” To complete the analogy, our Fontana driver balks, mutters a dismissive, “whatever,” goes home, watches the Mega Millions numbers on TV…and discovers he’s won the lottery.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

I think you’ve done a fair job of explaining the difference between how the state and participants view marriage. Of course how difference entities view something doesn’t change what it is. What it is, can be regulated or ignored by states and religions, but not changed.

 

[Stephen168]

haha, this is probably inappropriate, but this reminds me of this skit.

Not even the Romans

 

[surritter]

Actually, I prefer to stick to our discussion regarding what you think is a rational basis for limiting marriage to same-sex couples. I presented various objections to your rationale, but you have ignored them.

I agree: sometimes discrimination is perfectly justified.

This sounds like the “inability to procreate” rationale that I addressed in my op. What’s your answer to my op objection?

Well, another non-answer. Why am I not surprised?

 

[spencelo]

Well, another non-answer. Why am I not surprised?

A non-answer? It’s blatantly obvious that you are trying to change the subject rather than give a defense of your “biology” rationale, which I addressed not only in my op, but in several posts that went unanswered. When are you going to address post# 212?

 

[jenwha]

He’s never going to answer.

And even if you give him 10,000 reasons why it’s not marriage, he’s still going to not answer any questions and keep repeating the same dodgeball tactics ad nauseam and pretend he doesn’t understand.

It will never end. I say ignore him. I think you started asking Spencelo about 24 hours ago what his definition of marriage is and he’s still refused to answer.

He did say this though:

The “right to marry” is granted to couples who can meet the relevant requirements, which is the same from couple to couple.

So now the right to marry apparantly does have relevant requirements, he just won’t explain what they are. But if it is the same as he says from couple to couple than I think that means I can marry my father. Yesterday he said incest had nothing to do with what he was saying but by Spencelo’s above quote I guess it does.