George Rebane
Berlin – the German Ethics Council recommends that the Bundestag remove the legal prohibition of incest between siblings, citing that “in the case of consensual incest among adult siblings, neither the fear of negative consequences for the family, nor the possibility of the birth of children from such incestuous relationships can justify a criminal prohibition.” (more here)
I have no idea of how the Germans got ahead of California on this one, but there is plenty of room for us to take the lead again. We note that the Germans only expanded legal incest to siblings, parents and children having intercourse or making other kinds of whoopee is still prohibited. That is open territory for Sacramento to sweep the field in opening up the pursuit of comprehensive “sexual self-determination”.
LGBTQIA stands for “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, intersex, and asexual” according to the Urban Dictionary that also informs us “LGBTQIA people are the only minority not federally protected.” Not knowing what ‘intersex’ is, my immediate concern focuses on whether the existing 'I' covers incest, or do we need another one.
In any case, will marriage be next? Consider the possibilities. Given the SCOTUS rulings and all that, will 2015 be remembered as Springtime for Brave New World?
Many years ago a good friend of mine had the complete set of United Nation books stating the organization's beliefs and goals. Naturally I was surprised to read that it supported incest in families, because it would create a more normal view regarding sex. Amazing. All those people claiming sexual abuse by fathers, uncles, older siblings as being the root cause of their mental, or emotional problems don't know what they're talking about. According to the United Nations (global gov) sexually using young children is good for them. Sorry, I can't support such insane abuse of helpless children.
Posted by: Bonnie McGuire | 01 July 2015 at 11:20 AM
It was pretty simple when it was marriage was one man and one woman and you don't marry or have sex with your sister or brother. Wow, isn't liberalism grand? When the interstellar people come visiting in a few years, the humans will be 100% true imbeciles!
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 01 July 2015 at 12:27 PM
Come to think of it...isn't this part of the abuse women and children have been subjected to for centuries?
Posted by: Bonnie McGuire | 01 July 2015 at 01:03 PM
When the marriage debate became an argument about love and equal rights vs tradition and spirituality, love won; that shouldn't have been a surprise.
A winning argument for traditionalists would have been to keep it to the issue settled by Loving v. Virginia... marriage is a basic human right with constitutional protection because of its relationship to procreation, period. It isn't about love, there wasn't and isn't (and should not be) any bar whatsoever to anyone living with whomever they want and doing with them anything they desire as long as they all are able to legally consent.
Like it or not, the government is in the marriage biz and will be as long as courts are going to be sorting out inheritance, who can testify against who, who has the right to see to your affairs when incapacitated,etc etc.
Posted by: Gregory | 01 July 2015 at 02:07 PM
BonnieM 103am - What we may all be missing here about UN's endorsement of incest and all its collateral impacts is their formal use of 'normal' in the statistical sense.
Posted by: George Rebane | 01 July 2015 at 02:29 PM
Yes. Someone has to care about and be responsible for those they procreate. Considering genetics, I remember our grandmothers cat giving birth to kittens with six toes on their feet. They were lovable regardless.
Posted by: Bonnie McGuire | 01 July 2015 at 05:41 PM
"Naturally I was surprised to read that it [the UN] supported incest in families......"
"What we may all be missing here about UN's endorsement of incest....."
What amazes me is how completely unsourced and frankly almost nonsensical statements become accepted myth through repetition.
I would love to see the source for the UN endorsement of incest.
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 01 July 2015 at 06:16 PM
Yes George, Bonnie sources would be appropriate if you intend this to be a serious conversation.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 01 July 2015 at 06:49 PM
Incest is a violation of the UN Charter Against Torture. George, I'm amazed you didn't bother to fact check Bonnie's statement before substantiating it with your comment. Any time Bonnie opens her mouth it is a cue to seek qualifying validation.
Posted by: joe smith | 01 July 2015 at 10:06 PM
PaulE 649pm - My 229pm explained the use of 'normal' given Bonnie's 1120am. So now, contribute something on incest to this serious conversation.
Posted by: George Rebane | 01 July 2015 at 10:30 PM
George
You have to somehow qualify when this use of "normal" occurred. What statical survey are you referring to?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 01 July 2015 at 10:46 PM
PaulE 1046pm - Au contraire, I don't have to qualify anything besides citing BonnieM's use of 'normal' the definition of which I gave that is independent of any statistical survey. But you may take her to task by not believing her citation of "UN's beliefs and goals" I took her at face value and just clarified a term in her comment.
Posted by: George Rebane | 01 July 2015 at 11:01 PM
Bonnie claims to have access to "the complete set of United Nations books". For the life of me I can't find reference to any such set of books. Even the UN publications page itself https://unp.un.org has no such collection. It's pretty peculiar she could recollect with such clarity the precise scripture within these books without being able to correctly reference a source.
Posted by: joe smith | 02 July 2015 at 01:22 AM
Will I be able to gay marry my father? I would like to know since he is very wealthy and I could avoid all of those inheritance taxes... Oh and we love other.
Posted by: MikeL | 02 July 2015 at 06:16 AM
If Bonnie's statement is true, a citation to the UN's support of incest MUST exist out there in the vast internet. I am with Paul and would like to see it. Otherwise, rather than taking it at face value, I rather find it BIZARRE and a falsified rumor started by opponents of the UN.
Posted by: Jon | 02 July 2015 at 07:10 AM
Regardless of the unsubstantiated rumor abut the UN, the more interesting part of George's post to me was the tie between legalizing same sex marriages in the United States and a recommendation from and obscure German legal commission about incest.
(I had to look intersex up too and it means an individual who can not be distinctly identified as male or female.) By the way for everyone here I would highly recommend looking things up when either unsure of a definition of questioning the veracity of a source. Our ability to reason is what makes us human after all.)
I am wondering George, since you tied the two together, and stated that we had an opportunity to reclaim the lead in "sexual self determination", what the connection between incest and homosexuality is? Is there any link? Or for that matter what is the link between incest, homosexuality and 'marriage' is, which you imply when you ask the question, "Will marriage be next?"
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 02 July 2015 at 07:37 AM
Similar to the dotted line between surveys of Muslims in the USA and the inevitable imposition of Sharia Law, the way things are moving in this nation.
Another question I have is- how does someone, connected to someone up here in rural Nevada County, CA, obtain a "complete set of the UN books"?
What the hell makes up the "complete set of the UN books"? Must either be out there for public consumption, for purchases ($499 with 20% off coupon) or I presume it was stolen or obtained illegally.
Posted by: Jon | 02 July 2015 at 08:00 AM
StevenF 737am - I didn't tie incest and homosexuality together, the promoters of "sexual self-determination" did. But since you ask, both of those behaviors are joined in what used to be agreed on as sexual licentiousness - sexual behaviors beyond the (formerly) accepted norm. The UN has been pushing decriminalization of homosexuality for years and supported its member states making such laws. I would not be surprised if (as BonnieM claims) they have extended their equal concerns to cover incest. We will see how the Germans handle this.
My insertion of 'marriage' as a connector should be clear. Homosexuals who practice formerly proscribed behaviors have now been allowed to marry, will incest follow a similar path?
Jon 800am - There is no "dotted line" there. The survey measured Muslim attitudes. Making the case that were they a sufficiently large cohort electorally, Sharia law would be proposed to be implemented in certain parts of the US, and the rest would follow in due course. Please note the fraction of American Muslims favoring violence within our borders to bring about their religious objectives.
The usual tactic at this point is to simply discredit the poll (which stops this conversation), however a stronger counter-argument would be to cite another poll with a larger sample size and similar questionnaire that produced a significantly different output. As I stated above, it is more than just interesting that the big name polling outfits don't have the balls to ask such questions, because they know the answers and consider their publishing of such results to be a PR disaster for them since the nation's liberals would howl bloody murder. Otherwise, just ask the questions and show everyone that American Muslims are just like the rest of us - docile, sharing our values, and busily assimilating into our western culture.
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 July 2015 at 09:27 AM
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 July 2015 at 09:27 AM
George, I am sorry I do not understand, who was the source of the term "sexual self-determination."
"That is open territory for Sacramento to sweep the field in opening up the pursuit of comprehensive “sexual self-determination”
Was that your term or are you quoting someone?
It is fine that "you would not be surprised" that the UN would endorse incest, but I am still wondering what policy statement by the UN you would be basing that on since I can't find it anywhere.
It is also fine that you connect marriage, homosexuality and incest, but since incest has nothing to do with homosexuality, it is like someone else saying they connect homosexuality with ice cream. There is no logical connection.
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 02 July 2015 at 10:25 AM
Anything goes is in what two people can do with each other. Well, maybe even more. Who is to tell a father he can't mate with his daughter or son? That would be getting in the way by government if the "love" each other. We cannot have any rules about "love". That would be judgmental.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 02 July 2015 at 10:33 AM
SteveF 1025am - 'Sexual self-determination' apparently is a term of art in the communities advocating rolling back traditional values and mores re sexual expression. This instance was taken from my above linked citation attributed to the Ethics Committee - “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination has more weight in such cases than the abstract protection of the family."
(As I've clarified before, I try to use quotes and semi-quotes very carefully. Quotes only enclose what someone has said or written, and semi-quotes enclose emphasized or highlighted terms/phrases and non-verbatim quotes that attempt to paraphrase or duplicate an uncited assertion. In short, quotes are sacrosanct.)
Please reread my 1101pm.
Re your "no logical connection". Perfect and valuable example of the different logics that we both use in such analyses. Homosexuals and incest practitioners both practice sexual behaviors formerly proscribed by society. Homosexuals have managed to roll back such proscriptions.
With sexual licentiousness on the march, the question about incestuous people replicating the victories of homosexuals begs itself. Since I'm ignorant of ice cream's sexual doings, I'm not in a position to equate the homosexuality/incest relationship with that of homosexuality/ice cream. I suppose that might take a liberal mind to see the equivalent disconnect you claim.
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 July 2015 at 10:47 AM
Caligula passed a law during his four year reign to allow himself to marry his sister and then his horse. I see nothing stopping the same happening now since "love" is the primary factor according to SCOTUS Kennedy.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 02 July 2015 at 10:54 AM
The visible and vocal movement in America for Gay rights started- at the latest- at the moment of the Stonewall Bar raids in NYC, June 1969. Where is anything resembling a movement toward incest rights in America? Can someone document it for me? Thanks.
Posted by: Jon | 02 July 2015 at 11:16 AM
George
Sodomy was once illegal in virtually all states and still is in a few. There were people who actually did prison time on those charges. It is a strict Christian taboo in many Churches due to biblical interpretations Are you suggesting we should reinstate those laws? The question is what is a reasonable standard that is acceptable to the American people. Gay marriage is accepted by around 60% according to most polls which means it's time has come.
Nobody ever commented on the question as to why the government has to be involved in marriage.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 02 July 2015 at 11:56 AM
Honestly do you think a man buggering another man is "normal"?
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 02 July 2015 at 12:13 PM
The question is not what you or I think about it Todd but whether is should be against the law. And by the way what is "normal" and who makes that determination. Are you proposing we have some kind of police action against behavior deemed "not normal" by whomever makes that determination ?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 02 July 2015 at 12:33 PM
Todd,
That question is irrelevant and not in line with Dr. Rebane's new rules. How about taking a shot at questions regarding an issue you yourself have raised.
Where is the evidence of a movement to legitimize incest in America, and further- classify associated incest-related marriage rights under the recent Supreme Court ruling? If you cannot begin to answer, just indicate so- so we can get off this silly debate.
Posted by: Jon | 02 July 2015 at 12:38 PM
PaulE 1156am - Your comment implies that Americans' attitudes toward sexual acts by homosexuals has been static, and was recently discovered to be above 50%. Such attitudes have changed markedly during the last fifty years (look up your own refs, I'm too lazy to do it again). Given such volatility of public attitudes, especially from the recently gruberized, no one should be surprised if the movement to expand 'sexual self-determination' will eventually (soon?) include various kinds of incest and even more. We're already on the slippery slope, and there are no logical reasons (especially in liberal minds) to halt the slide - or, if you will, 'social progress'.
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 July 2015 at 12:46 PM
George
Why should the government be involved in marriage and private affairs among consensual adults ?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 02 July 2015 at 12:56 PM
PaulE 1246pm - Is this early Alzheimer's? when have I advocated any government involvement in 'marriage' or 'garriage' other than enforcing legitimate contracts. That, after all, is a collective function of government. Between whom and what they do in such relationships is their business - it is not up to me to dis/approve. But I do reserve the right to choose with whom I will assemble and/or do business.
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 July 2015 at 01:00 PM
"But I do reserve the right to choose with whom I will assemble and/or do business."
George,
Is that not the same exact response we heard at southern lunch counters, circa 1958?
Posted by: Jon | 02 July 2015 at 01:23 PM
George
Then what is the point in your protesting the SCOTUS decision honoring gay marriage as legitimate?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 02 July 2015 at 01:50 PM
Gay marriage is an abomination. It does not accomplish what marriage was created for. The passing on of one's genes to create a new person. The family. That basic unit of any civilization. Government licensed it to keep tract of it and to then be the Judge's when the "contract" expired. The blessings of children for the world is now kaput in our once proud land. Men buggering each other does not further the civilization and the exact opposite is the result.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 02 July 2015 at 02:17 PM
Jon & PaulE - Gentlemen, this discussion is difficult if you continue applying your simplistic templates on this blog. A closer reading of my words would have revealed that my protest of the SCOTUS decision was based on their legislating from the bench, override of federalism, and the semantics of using the same label for their union thereby creating an ambiguity with the label my wife have used for our union during more than a half-century. There was no issue with their having equivalent rights of union as determined by the several states.
And re my right to choose - yes it would be were I in the public accommodation business which I am not. Again, lesser minds (of course not yours) will immediately apply kindergarten logic and deduce that I am both homophobic and racist. I leave it to the students to figure out why that conclusion is false.
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 July 2015 at 02:18 PM
But they won't.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 02 July 2015 at 02:27 PM
Well that did not take long, 3 people applied for a marriage license in Montana yesterday. The man wanted to be legally married to his 'second' wife in their existing polygamous relationships.
Posted by: Don Bessee | 02 July 2015 at 02:33 PM
Todd
Then in your mind a couple in their 60's have no right to call themselves married because they are too old to to have children.
George
Your 2:18 took my breath away. While you do not imply you would necessarily refuse service to a person of color you seem to grant that right to someone who does. I take it you do not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Also it It ended racial segregation in schools and facilities that served the general public.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 02 July 2015 at 02:41 PM
PaulE 241pm - your response to ToddJ also took my breath away.
It appears that you didn't pick up the ramifications of "public accommodation". But yes, I grant others contingent rights similar to what I enjoy. And you are right, I do not like every chapter and verse of the CRA1964, particularly the Section 8 parts that destroyed the black family and middle class, and has been the fundamental cause of a culture that has taken tens of thousands of black lives, and doomed millions of others.
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 July 2015 at 02:59 PM
George
It was Todd that wrote....."what marriage was created for. The passing on of one's genes to create a new person."
Is it not a fair assumption based on Todds definition (2:17) of marriage that it does not include couples who are unable or have no desire to have children?
So George, aside from your concerns about Section 8 do you support the parts of the Civil Rights Act that (I quote myself" "outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Also it It ended racial segregation in schools and facilities that served the general public. "
Posted by: Paul Emery | 02 July 2015 at 03:14 PM
Paul Emery 2:41 PM. You can answer your own question. I have stated my position. The planet will not prosper with all these attacks on things that are natural and normal to the condition of people. It takes a lot to stand up to the destroyers of the culture of "feel good".
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 02 July 2015 at 03:15 PM
Todd
Where is the attack on things "normal and natural". I'm just trying to get a more complete picture of what you believe in. Is it "normal" for people to get married with no intention of having children?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 02 July 2015 at 03:30 PM
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 July 2015 at 02:18 PM
Well actually, I will. I think that George's point that since he is not in the public accommodations business, and is not contending that same sex couples have any different rights, then he is free to choose whom he associates with. That is a basic right and one I support.
The only question then seems to be with the use of the word 'marriage' and the access to the right the word bestows. If federal law were changed to allow same sex couples the exact same right opposite sex couples have, the don't they have a right to call it whatever they want? And if they choose to call it marriage how does that in any way diminish the rights George and his wife enjoy. It does not.
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 02 July 2015 at 03:42 PM
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 July 2015 at 02:59 PM
Sorry George, seeking a clarification again, do you mean Title VIII (Registration and Voting Statistics) or do you mean hoe the entire VRA1964 applied Article I Section 8 of the Constitution (Interstate Commerce) .
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 02 July 2015 at 03:52 PM
By the way George, I read the article but missed the reference to 'sexual self determination'
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 02 July 2015 at 03:55 PM
Paul Emery, normal is one man and one woman.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 02 July 2015 at 03:55 PM
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 02 July 2015 at 03:55 PM
Wow, now we get to personally decide what 'normal' is and apply it to others as opposed to living under a Constitution that bestows rights to us and defines the rights and limits of government? This is the exact thing I think people here often fear from government.
Steve
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 02 July 2015 at 04:00 PM
No, I think you need to read the dissenting opinions for the truth. Just as the SCOTUS once said blacks were property, the court is wrong. Normal is normal, no need to argue it. On;y people who desire to practice perversion can say normal is not normal.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 02 July 2015 at 04:15 PM
"Normal is normal, no need to argue it." T.Juvinall
Forever this phrase shall be remembered. This is one of the funniest things ever.
Posted by: Jon | 02 July 2015 at 04:21 PM
Yeah Steve
Once you get under the hood on this one things get fairly bizarre. Todd still refuses to expand marriage to those who have no desire or ability to have children also somehow he seems to hold the franchise on what is normal. And George seems to honor the rights of those to refuse service in their public business to anyone they wish based on any reason be it race, nationality, sexual preference or religion. It seems we're right back in Strom Thurmond's South Carolina when in 1948 as Senator he stated:
"all the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, into our schools, our churches and our places of recreation and amusement."
Posted by: Paul Emery | 02 July 2015 at 04:26 PM
StevenF 342pm et al - I'm not sure it is a 'right', but I and millions like me would like to have a unique word for a traditional heterosexual marriage, and 'marriage' has served well for thousands of years. I've suggested an alternative for homosexuals.
It's been some years, but I believe the Sec 8 I refer to is the one that provides minorities all the special dispensations under welfare programs. Eg a Sec 8A company was a subsidized minority owned company. Please check me on this.
Do a simple Ctrl-F search on the web page for "sexual self-determination". I cited the entire sentence also.
Paul 426pm - "And George seems to honor the rights of those to refuse service in their public business to anyone they wish based on any reason be it race, nationality, sexual preference or religion."
I said the exact opposite. It seems that this conversation is also over.
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 July 2015 at 04:41 PM
"On;y people who desire to practice perversion can say normal is not normal."
Not to mention the decidedly un-Chruchillian turn of a phrase. If one who is a pervert can support same sex marriage. I love it.
When thinking of some people here the quote, "“He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire" comes to mind.
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 02 July 2015 at 04:42 PM
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 July 2015 at 04:41 PM
Are you talking about section 8a minority owned business status?
https://www.sba.gov/blogs/8a-certification-minority-business-certification-how-does-business-get-certified
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 02 July 2015 at 04:47 PM
Steven Frisch | 02 July 2015 at 04:42 PM
One thing we can all rely on is Frisch and Paul Emery putting words into others mouths. What a hoot!
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 02 July 2015 at 05:03 PM
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 02 July 2015 at 05:03 PM
We don't have to put words into other people mouths here, they do a fine job of saying things that appear to be simultaneously crazy and contradictory all on their own.
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 02 July 2015 at 05:14 PM
Steven Frisch | 02 July 2015 at 05:14 PM
No you do it all the time. That is why your ilk are not believed. We speak the truth and the facts. Libs make it up.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 02 July 2015 at 05:39 PM
StevenF 447pm - I believe so. In the 70s I was helping two (black) colleagues start a minority owned business with what they referred to as Sec 8A financing - loans which the government would guarantee. They were really not ready to follow the stars in their eyes. But I wrote them a business plan that passed muster, as they were spending their funds buying company cars and fancy office furniture. It was kind of sad. They relayed wonderful stories of their friends doing exactly what they were doing. It was a hot time for minority businesses. And then it all came crashing down as they discovered that they had spent their money on the wrong things. But it took about about three years and multiple loans for the feds to finally say 'No mas!'
I contrast this with an Indian engineer friend who was a magnetic recording specialist. He started an 8A company with non-minority partners and built it into a marvelous business while making himself rich. So the program was definitely not a uniform failure, but more so than not since it didn't vet the business acumen of the borrowers, only their skin color.
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 July 2015 at 06:16 PM
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 July 2015 at 06:16 PM
OK so I think we are clear on what program you are referencing. That was a Small Business Administration program that provided loans to 8A qualified borrowers.
The designation under the small business administration still exists but it exists as an assistance program not a direct loan program. Participants get assistance to qualify for government contracts and points towards qualifying for federally guaranteed loans.
The conditions appear to much more exacting than you experienced some years ago.
"Participation in the 8(a) BD Program is divided into two phases over nine years: a four-year developmental stage and a five-year transition stage; the overall goal of which is to graduate 8(a) businesses that will go on to thrive in a competitive business environment."
https://www.sba.gov/content/about-8a-business-development-program
What I don't get is the connection between this program, your negative experience with two clearly unqualified borrowers, and the statement:
"...I do not like every chapter and verse of the CRA1964, particularly the Section 8 parts that destroyed the black family and middle class, and has been the fundamental cause of a culture that has taken tens of thousands of black lives, and doomed millions of others."
At a minimum I must point out that the SBA program is not a part of the CRA of 1964.
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 02 July 2015 at 06:30 PM
StevenF 630pm - Then I stand corrected, and am referencing the SBA program that with great laxity qualified those 'benefitting' from CRA1964. My other statements regarding the fate of black families, black education, and black-on-black murders stand.
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 July 2015 at 08:36 PM
Oh Bonnie, you have yet to comment on the source of your UN decree regarding incest. Do your Burgundy stained lips only wriggle with falsehood and innuendo when you think no one will question their source?
Posted by: joe smith | 03 July 2015 at 09:38 PM
You have to get a "marriage license" to have a civil ceremony. It shouldn't concern you who gets married or why. it's really none of your business and it will not effect you in any way if the couple next door is living together, married, or a same sex couple. Don't you have better things to worry about than what your neighbor is doing is his or her bedroom? Marriage is not defined by religion nor is religion defined by marriage.
And all this talk about SCOTUS disavowing your religious freedom by granting same sex marriages, I wonder if you believe that Muslims have the same rights to uphold their beliefs?
Posted by: Patricia Smith | 09 July 2015 at 05:07 PM
Patricia, it is already happening. I knew the SCOTUS decision was a attorney's wet dream and the suits are flying. Another nail in the coffin of a once great country. Now, anything goes.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 09 July 2015 at 05:12 PM
I note with expected dismay that no one wants the language to be expanded to differentiate between hetero and homo marriages, thus weakening the information carrying capacity of that once precise word. I can see why progressives want to muddle this in our Newspeak, but it's a puzzle why the Right wants to go along with the appended 'gay marriage'. So now, 'marriage' means what? both hetero and homo marriage? But 'gay marriage' means only homo marriage? OK, then what will we say when we refer to hetero marriage - 'straight marriage', 'traditional marriage', 'regular marriage', 'hetero marriage', ...??
As 'marriage' begins to be confused across the landscape of sexual orientation, I and many like me want to respond precisely when asked 'Are you married?', or should the question from now on be 'Are you homo/hetero married?' so as to avoid ambiguity? And we understand this to be only a temporary fix until 'married' will also cover the spousal relationship between siblings, and then parents and children, and then ... .
Posted by: George Rebane | 10 July 2015 at 01:44 PM