No its not about perceived rights, it's about an actual right which gay people do not currently have, a right which does not impinge upon the freedoms of others.



Would you care to explain why same sex marriage is those things rather than asserting them as fact?



It does nothing of the sort. It merely serves to highlight the desperation of the anti gay marriage brigade when they make such a comparison (as does comparing gay marriage to bestiality) and demonstrates that they are lacking in any kind of rational argument against same sex marriage.

I appreciate your honesty.

Of course I don't subscribe to the idea myself, I was simply demonstrating the slippery slope we have embarked upon, and also highlighting the hypocrisy of gay marriage supporters.

We must beg to differ for reasons that have been highlighted above. Are you for or against same sex marriage between siblings? That would give them the same rights as other loving couples and would not impinge on others' freedoms. The only reason heterosexual marriage betwen siblings is taboo is due to the risk of abnormality in offspring and so the argument that same sex siblings have equal rights is spurious - they do not have the same right as non-sibling homosexuals (assuming the draft legislation still discriminates against siblings).

My opinion relating to incestuous couples in completely irrelevant here I am making no judgement regarding incestuous relationships. I am merely explaining why the comparison between gay marriage and marriage between siblings is completely asinine. My opinion is that incest is a very complex subject but that it is of complete irrelevance to the issue of whether same sex marriage should be legal.

Comparisons aside, what is your view on same-sex relationships between siblings?

Give me an answer. Because at the minute it just looks like you're ducking out of a very difficult question.

It is not. Why should homosexual male siblings not be allowed to marry when other homosexual men might be? Stonewall, et al should be campaigning vigourously to prevent this discrimination. Are they? If not, why not? Is it hypocrisy?

Sigh, why must you continue this straw man argument?
Incest isn't relevant to the current regulations being proposed.

Of course it is. We are trying to examine the basis for allowing marriage and discrimination. See my immediately preceding post - why should gay siblings suffer discrimation as compared with other gay couples? It is plain wrong. If that is accepted where is the next line drawn and should any further lines be drawn? Maybe not. Maybe this infantile decision by the Commons is wrong. What do you reckon?

I've explained in my above post in response to Kirkstaller my opinion on incestuous relationships is irrelevant. The only point I am making is that there are very real differences between marriage between two people of the same sex and marriage between siblings.

I've also explained in my original post to Kirkstaller why preventing siblings from marrying does not deny them rights as homosexuality is classified as a sexual orientation whereas the attraction to a persons siblings (or parents/offspring) isn't.

This is ducking the issue. The only reason for the incest taboo in societies is the effect of future generations. With gay incest that is an irrelevance and so we are left with direct discrimination against incestous gays by inter alia non-incestuous gays. Morall unsound in my opinion. If you agree with gay marriage you must agree with incestuous gay marriage or you are hypocritical.

No it isn't it is an argument constructed to get out of any explanation of why same sex couples in a legal relationship shouldn't be allowed o marry.