Well this isn't a hard one - how bout the fact that the population consists of too many morons, if it didn't then we might actually have a decent party in control at the moment. But nooooo, of course people voted for the liberals and guess why? Like I just said, because they're morons!
I'm sorry? How is it that the older generations are smarter?!? Here in Australia they have taken away all my hope for a future, they have taken away what matters most to myself and countless others, their ignorance has put the lives of innocent Australians at risk! And it is all because of ONE VOTE.
Now I won't go into political madness right now but let me just say this, I respect a person because of something they've done themselves, not for being a certain age. Also, respect must be earned and, therefore, before I respect some random elder, they should be respecting that their decisions, although are often not relevant to themselves, have a REAL impact on MY future and that they should choose them wisely being mindful of others.
Good point! Same sex marriage is a search for equality - but would we not be contradicting this by denying the marriage of a straight couple who are siblings, but allowing a same sex couple in the same instances to marry? Doesn't seem really fair.
It seems that no matter what is done, at least one group of people will always be left out. So, is it not easier to just say no to siblings marrying if saying yes would mean that there's possibilities of only allowing siblings of the same sex to do so, that if a straight couple was to marry they could not biologically reproduce, and that if a couple was able to do this that future generations would suffer greatly? I'm sorry, but, regardless of the circumstances, saying yes to the marriage of siblings is not a reach for equality as it is claimed to be. It is only a mere misconception of what equality really is. Equality is NOT the process of targeting a smaller, lesser in strength set of people in order to give "justice" to a more dominant group.
But was it not that the original purpose of marriage was to take a step into the prospect of family life? That to "marry" is to create a future in which you may share with the upcoming generations of one's own family?
Also, marriage is an act of law where the couple must be of a certain age - whereas sexual interactions between youth, although not recommended, physically cannot be "stopped" in the same ways in which marriage can. What makes you believe that a MARRIED couple would stick by this "forbidding" when 14 year olds don't? And what makes you certain that one could "forbid" sex between siblings so easily where they have little to no control over the situation? It is like a homophobic person trying to halt all same-sex sex.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the exact reason why the majority of all countries worldwide despise America. The idiocy in allowing pretty much ANYONE to have ownership of a gun. Like, wow! How stupid can you get?! The most common perception American see the gun as is a "tool to protect with", but guess what?!? You would not need this "protection" if they were illegal in the first place!
The only good use that America's guns would ever do is in the highly unlikely event of a zombie apocalypse. Which, like I just said, is highly unlikely.
No, and i do not say this to aggravate such couples but merely to rebut this topic.
One of the main reasons I state "no" is because siblings share similar dna, if the two (under physically possible circumstances) were to have a biological child together, there could be many negative outcomes. One of these is that incest allows diseases to spread more rapidly through the future generations of that family. I believe that this is not fair on the child being brought into the world as they would have no such choice in the matter.
