The sacred institution of marriage...

[Maoilbheannacht]

And marrying for love didn't really occur until the 19th century. Your point?



Considering that heterosexual incest and heterosexual polygamy are equally illegal, there isn't much footing to do so. All successful court activity has revolved around the notion of "equality," not "special rights," contrary to the rhetoric one hears from the far right.

Melon

Well, once again, explain why the adult gay uncle cannot marry his adult gay nephew? How about adult gay first cousins? Why is that an issue of special rights as opposed to one of equality?

In heterosexual incest, the primary arguement against it is the birth defects of potential offspring. In Gay incest, this problem does not exist.

 

[toscano]

What? Nice avoidance of the issue.

Not really. Again, not even a 'nice try' . You really will have to do better.

Really, how many laws hold back the white straight male? I'd like to know.

I don't owe you an answer. You don't know, simnple as that. (here's a clue though, my parents were WWII evacuees and other countries DO discriminate, even against white straight males) How 'bout you grasshoppa, been discriminated against by law ?

You're not getting it, I know equality is not a priority for most. That's exactly why Bush is in the office. The bigot vote helped him quite a bit.

And you're not getting it. The Reps were smart enough to make an issue out of something most people would normally not care about had an alternative been placed in front of them that could intelligently address issue that might have have had more of an impact in their lives.

But just like the issue you avoided earlier.

I get straw-man arguments, I just choose not to indulge them

And all of this proves my point. We have a lot of bigots in this country.

You seriously believe everyone who voted for Bush did so solely on an anti-gay bigot level ? Or perhaps because the opposition was an incompetent buffoon incapable of forming a policy position he could stand behind for more than 10 minutes ?

 

[melon]

Hetero incest is obviously always going to be illegal because of the birth defects of potential offspring.

Considering that it doesn't take marriage to have children, this is generally a side topic. Even then, I believe that there are a few states in the U.S. where you can marry all the way up to your first cousin. In other words, unless you want to marry someone in your immediate family, you certainly have wide latitude to commit legal incest in the U.S. Unlike the fact that every state ignores gay marriages in Massachusetts, these incestuous heterosexual marriages are recognized across the board, provided you were married in the handful of states where it is legal.

As for polygamy, just because it became and issue and the law considers it to be illegal now, does not mean a society in the future could make a different decision on the issue.

Well, it's for the society of the future to come to that conclusion. For our current society, this is pretty much a non-issue that only bigots dig up to oppose gay marriage. Ironically, the Utah DOMA essentially made it much more difficult to prosecute de-facto polygamy, since it made it illegal to define these relationships as common-law "marriages." They are, instead, strangers choosing to co-habitate, which is not illegal.

Melon

 

[melon]

Well, once again, explain why the adult gay uncle cannot marry his adult gay nephew? How about adult gay first cousins? Why is that an issue of special rights as opposed to one of equality?

Find me a gay uncle who wants to marry his gay nephew, and we'll have this discussion.

It's a matter of "special rights" only if it is illegal for a heterosexual uncle to marry his heterosexual niece. The question of "children" is irrelevant, particularly since one or both parties involved could be medically infertile. As such, your question of mutant children would be irrelevant.

Melon

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

It is such an insanely minute issue though, can you name any consentual gay incestuous partners that want to get married? It is taking the most extreme minority of minorities and using something so perverse to hold up progress.

How many openly gay people could you name 25 years ago? If your going to allow marriage beyond adult hetero couples, then your going to need to look at everything and define what is and what is not legal. Avoiding settling these issues is what holds up progress.

 

[toscano]

What a wonderful legacy you're preparing for your grandchildren.


"Yes, it was illegal, and remained so, because people like me thought it was a low priority to work to end intolerance and inequality because we thought there were bigger issues to deal with."

Try: "It was illegal, and while not fair to that very small part of society, I had neither the energy or time to spare on fighting the cause for that segment of the population because I was working my ass off to ensure your Mother/Father were well fed, sheltered, clothed and educated, so that they in turn were better prepared to provide for you. I did vote for the political party more sympathetic to their cause, but they were a bunch of idiots who couldnt get themselves in a one-horse race because most people at that time didn't have gay marriage as a priority in their lives"

I can live with myself. Thanks for caring about my grandkids-to-be.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Considering that it doesn't take marriage to have children, this is generally a side topic. Even then, I believe that there are a few states in the U.S. where you can marry all the way up to your first cousin. In other words, unless you want to marry someone in your immediate family, you certainly have wide latitude to commit legal incest in the U.S. Unlike the fact that every state ignores gay marriages in Massachusetts, these incestuous heterosexual marriages are recognized across the board, provided you were married in the handful of states where it is legal.



Well, it's for the society of the future to come to that conclusion. For our current society, this is pretty much a non-issue that only bigots dig up to oppose gay marriage. Ironically, the Utah DOMA essentially made it much more difficult to prosecute de-facto polygamy, since it made it illegal to define these relationships as common-law "marriages." They are, instead, strangers choosing to co-habitate, which is not illegal.

Melon

I don't know of any states where its legal for first cousins and Uncle/niece, Aunt/nephew marriages to happen.

 

[anitram]

I don't know of any states where its legal for first cousins and Uncle/niece, Aunt/nephew marriages to happen.

Um...

Twenty-four states prohibit marriages between first cousins, and another seven permit them only under special circumstances. Utah, for example, permits first cousins to marry only provided both spouses are over age 65, or at least 55 with evidence of sterility. North Carolina permits first cousins to marry unless they are "double first cousins" (cousins through more than one line). Maine permits first cousins to marry only upon presentation of a certificate of genetic counseling. The remaining nineteen states and the District of Columbia permit first-cousin marriages without restriction.

From CNN.

 

[A_Wanderer]

How many openly gay people could you name 25 years ago? If your going to allow marriage beyond adult hetero couples, then your going to need to look at everything and define what is and what is not legal. Avoiding settling these issues is what holds up progress.

Fine define it on the basis of consent and harm

1) All parties must consent to the relationship and the form of it's legal sanction.

2) All parties must be capable of offering that consent, this disqualifies children, animals and the severely mentally retarded.

3) The relationship cannot involuntarily infringe upon the rights or liberties of parties within or parties outside.

This would allow straight marriage, gay marriage and polygamous marriage between people

It would also allow to some degree legal sanction of incestuous relationships, but importantly the social conditioning of people from a young age is a natural force against this. Quite simply the number of inviable incestuous relationships would be so low and hurt so few people I would not oppose it outright - I cannot see good cause to oppse them even on the basis of the gross factor.

 

[BVS]

Not really. Again, not even a 'nice try' . You really will have to do better.

You can keep ignoring it, I really don't care.

I don't owe you an answer. You don't know, simnple as that. (here's a clue though, my parents were WWII evacuees and other countries DO discriminate, even against white straight males) How 'bout you grasshoppa, been discriminated against by law ?

I'm not talking about other countries. No, I'm a straight white male.

And you're not getting it. The Reps were smart enough to make an issue out of something most people would normally not care about had an alternative been placed in front of them that could intelligently address issue that might have have had more of an impact in their lives.

I agree they were smart to make this an issue, that way the bigots come out to vote. Still doesn't make it right.

I get straw-man arguments, I just choose not to indulge them

But you are...

You seriously believe everyone who voted for Bush did so solely on an anti-gay bigot level ? Or perhaps because the opposition was an incompetent buffoon incapable of forming a policy position he could stand behind for more than 10 minutes ?

Did I say everyone? No, but the "moral vote" did come out and help his cause. You can't deny that.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Find me a gay uncle who wants to marry his gay nephew, and we'll have this discussion.

It's a matter of "special rights" only if it is illegal for a heterosexual uncle to marry his heterosexual niece. The question of "children" is irrelevant, particularly since one or both parties involved could be medically infertile. As such, your question of mutant children would be irrelevant.

Melon

But hetero couples where one individual have been termed medically infertile have on rare occasions produced offspring. What this means is that there is always a chance no matter how small when it comes to the issue of Hetero immediate family members getting married. With Gay immediate family members, the chance for reproduction is zero. The question of childern is why the hetero immediate family member marriage is illegal. But since Gay immediate family members cannot produce childern, this cannot be a reason used to make such a union illegal.

Wouldn't it be better to settle the entire issue as opposed to avoiding the discussion. Its obvious that such relationships exist despite the fact that few people know of them. Not so different from the way it was decades ago with Gay people.

 

[anitram]

What this means is that there is always a chance no matter how small when it comes to the issue of Hetero immediate family members getting married.

Yeah, my cousin without a uterus might magically conceive someday.

You're talking about such insignificant statistical improbabilities here, honestly.

 

[BVS]

I can live with myself. Thanks for caring about my grandkids-to-be.

I'm glad you can. And believe me there were many during segregation that used the same excuse you just did to hide their racism.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Wouldn't it be better to settle the entire issue as opposed to avoiding the discussion. Its obvious that such relationships exist despite the fact that few people know of them. Not so different from the way it was decades ago with Gay people.

No it really isn't, heterosexual sex is an evolutionary mechanism to encourage variation in a species, we are biologically hard wired to not engage in incest. Homosexuality is also a biological phenomena perhaps to do with protecting genetic material down the generations, a gay uncle may prove adventageous in providing for offspring and will share 25% genetic material with his neice or nephew. Incest however does not encourage variation or the survival of the genetic information, the similarity between immediate family members leads not only to inviable offspring (but one problem) but weakened immune systems and potential birth defects, there is some argument that in extreme stresses the increased rate of mutation by forced incest may help a species to survive but in general it is a disadvantage and is not practiced.

 

[martha]

Try: "It was illegal, and while not fair to that very small part of society, I had neither the energy or time to spare on fighting the cause for that segment of the population ...."

You must be so proud when you look in the mirror. I'm glad the men in the early part of the last century didn't all think this way when women were trying to wrestle to right to vote from men like you.

 

[martha]

But since Gay immediate family members cannot produce childern, this cannot be a reason used to make such a union illegal.

Dude, you really need to get over this obsession with gay family members marrying.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You know lets have some reason why incestuous gay relationships as insanely rare as they are should be banned.

-Who are these hypothetical homos hurting?
-Why is what they are doing wrong?

It's almost as if people have a problem with faggotry.

 

[anitram]

Dude, you really need to get over this obsession with gay family members marrying.

It used to be bestiality with this crowd, but I guess when they looked at places like Canada and Spain and didn't see a sudden rash of man-giraffe marriages they had to find another angle?

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Um...



From CNN.

WOW, I stand corrected! Thanks for posting that. I actually thought that the controversy was with second cousins with some states saying it was ok while others were banning it.


The article did say this though about the closer relationships and the state laws on them.


"Every state today has a statute defining eligibility for marriage, and each and every one prohibits marriages between parents and children, sisters and brothers, uncles and nieces, and aunts and nephews. Some prohibit all ancestor/descendant marriages, regardless of degree. Four states extend the prohibition to marriages between parents and their adopted children."

 

[BVS]

Dude, you really need to get over this obsession with gay family members marrying.

I know.

I mean oh my god, what if I think I'm so hot and I clone myself, can I marry my clone?

 

[A_Wanderer]

I know.

I mean oh my god, what if I think I'm so hot and I clone myself, can I marry my clone?

Are we going to outlaw masturbation now

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

No it really isn't, heterosexual sex is an evolutionary mechanism to encourage variation in a species, we are biologically hard wired to not engage in incest. Homosexuality is also a biological phenomena perhaps to do with protecting genetic material down the generations, a gay uncle may prove adventageous in providing for offspring and will share 25% genetic material with his neice or nephew. Incest however does not encourage variation or the survival of the genetic information, the similarity between immediate family members leads not only to inviable offspring (but one problem) but weakened immune systems and potential birth defects, there is some argument that in extreme stresses the increased rate of mutation by forced incest may help a species to survive but in general it is a disadvantage and is not practiced.

I was just talking about resolving all the legal issues surrounding who an adult individual has a right to marry and why.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And I was making a scientific case on the nature of human sexuality and that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are considered normal expressions of human sexuality, in the case of incest the biological motivation is inherently lacking and it's frequency is extremely rare, the vast majority of people lack sexual attraction to their immediate family.

From a purely logical position if we construct laws of marriage contract from a position built on consent and harm then both gay marriage and hetereosexual marriage can be justified and if taken to the logical extreme so can inviable incestuous pairings but the frequency of these is so low that it is a nonissue in the context of this debate.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

It used to be bestiality with this crowd, but I guess when they looked at places like Canada and Spain and didn't see a sudden rash of man-giraffe marriages they had to find another angle?

So anyone that brings up the question of who an adult individual has a right to marry and why is automatically a right wing fundamentalist christian bent on preventing gay marriage?

 

[A_Wanderer]

So anyone that brings up the question of who an adult individual has a right to marry and why is automatically a right wing fundamentalist christian bent on preventing gay marriage?

It is not the case of an adult individual deciding to marry some inanimate object or passive entity, it is two or more adult individuals and yes it is their business and their business alone, in an ideal world the state would be completely out of marriage, the churches could elect to santify or not sanctify partnerships and individuals would be free to lvie their lives the way that they want to, but thats not going to happen as long as people are intent on enforcing morality though the government.

 

[BVS]

So anyone that brings up the question of who an adult individual has a right to marry and why is automatically a right wing fundamentalist christian bent on preventing gay marriage?

It used to be bestiality with this crowd, but I guess when they looked at places like Canada and Spain and didn't see a sudden rash of man-giraffe marriages they had to find another angle?

Wow I never saw the words right wing, fundamentalist, or christian in that quote.

You have a true talent of reading the secret text.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

And I was making a scientific case on the nature of human sexuality and that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are considered normal expressions of human sexuality, in the case of incest the biological motivation is inherently lacking and it's frequency is extremely rare, the vast majority of people lack sexual attraction to their immediate family.

From a purely logical position if we construct laws of marriage contract from a position built on consent and harm then both gay marriage and hetereosexual marriage can be justified and if taken to the logical extreme so can inviable incestuous pairings but the frequency of these is so low that it is a nonissue in the context of this debate.

Well, how low does the frequency have to be for it to be a non-issue? For individuals that this happens to, it is certainly an issue and shouldn't the law be prepared to deal with every contingency?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Individuals that this happens too? The ones that aren't huring anybody by their sexual kink that would want recognition?

Since they are not violating the rights or liberties of others then there is no good cause to not sanction them.

I think that on the basis of the principles that justify marriage that are being used that incestuous inviable pairings can recieve sanction, I also think that the frequency of these pairings is so impossibly low that in the scheme of things it will be a non-issue and definitely not cause to ban gay marraige.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Wow I never saw the words right wing, fundamentalist, or christian in that quote.

You have a true talent of reading the secret text.

What does "this crowd" refer to then?

 

[BVS]

What does "this crowd" refer to then?

You may want to ask the poster before assuming.