OP
OP
MadelynIris
Refugee
ok - so it's not just about the % of birth defects - there are other moral stigmas associated with it too right?
Marriage Laws
- Thread starter MadelynIris
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
the demand probably isn't too great either -- and, again, these people have options to marry people other than their first cousins. if, however, the traditional argument against it was defective offspring, and if the risk of birth defects isn't as great as we thought, then you might be able to make a case.
as far as moral stigmas ... i think that's mostly cultural. i tend to think "ick," but then i don't know anyone who has married their first cousin, let alone distant cousin, so perhaps my opinion would change if i were to meet such people.
morality isn't much of a factor, though, when determining the criteria to be met for civil marriage. legality, however, is.
as far as moral stigmas ... i think that's mostly cultural. i tend to think "ick," but then i don't know anyone who has married their first cousin, let alone distant cousin, so perhaps my opinion would change if i were to meet such people.
morality isn't much of a factor, though, when determining the criteria to be met for civil marriage. legality, however, is.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Well, it was considered a bit scandalous when Edgar Allan Poe married his cousin in the 1830's, although that might have had as much to do with her age (she was only thirteen) as the fact that they were cousins. They were actually not biologically cousins; Poe's real parents were dead by the time he was two. So it's not that there's never been any controversy over cousin marriages. I'm just saying that some of my own ancestors don't seem to have objected to it, and we are talking about people who thought dancing was a sin.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i do think, though, that under-age marriages might be a point of comparison. they are now illegal, whereas before they were very common especially in the south. think Loretta Lynn, or Jerry Lee Lewis. he married his cousin at 13, she got married at about the same age, despite, you know, 5000 years of tradition.
why is that now illegal?
why is that now illegal?
OP
OP
MadelynIris
Refugee
if you give me a bit of leeway here:
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Let's not forget Jerry Lee Lewis. So I haven't exactly seen movements for constitution ammendments.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
basically, the reason why homosexual marriage is apart from these issues is because homosexuality is an involuntary, unchoosen orientation that harms no one. the homosexual has no options when it comes to marriage -- unless s/he were to marry a heterosexual, which happens all the time, but that marriage we'd have to regard as inauthentic since there cannot be romantic love between a straight man and a gay woman, say, or at least not reciprocated romantic love -- and gay marriage, or let's just call it "marriage equality" since that's what it's all about, expands the *legal* definition of marriage to include a small but significant minority group -- roughly 5% or so of the population -- who cannot participate at all in the insititution of marriage, nor share in it's benefits despite the taxes they pay, on the basis of an involuntary characteristic, like being left-handed or having red hair (looking in BVS's direction).
while two first cousins might be madly in love with one another, as we all know, you still have other options -- love is a many splendored thing, after all. the homosexual, on the other hand, has NO options when it comes to finding a suitable marriage partner.
but that's changing. and not a moment too soon.
while two first cousins might be madly in love with one another, as we all know, you still have other options -- love is a many splendored thing, after all. the homosexual, on the other hand, has NO options when it comes to finding a suitable marriage partner.
but that's changing. and not a moment too soon.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
MadelynIris said:
as i've stated, over and over, the comparison is inapplicable.
you've just equated incest with homosexuality. again.
if that's the only basis if your argument, you've got nothing.
OP
OP
MadelynIris
Refugee
Yes, underage marriages would be a better comparison.
You guys realize I was just using this as an example of the slippery slope argument. Whether for or against gay marriage - stepping out of the "established, traditional marriage" does encourage those in support of anything but the "traditional" to have their crack at the law in court.
Not that they couldn't before -- It's just that the lawyers will try to build cases on one another, and try to string together arguments based on victories of any kind outside of the "traditional" marriage.
So, bring it on I say. Lets hear it. Cousins, step siblings, adopted siblings, whatever.
You guys realize I was just using this as an example of the slippery slope argument. Whether for or against gay marriage - stepping out of the "established, traditional marriage" does encourage those in support of anything but the "traditional" to have their crack at the law in court.
Not that they couldn't before -- It's just that the lawyers will try to build cases on one another, and try to string together arguments based on victories of any kind outside of the "traditional" marriage.
So, bring it on I say. Lets hear it. Cousins, step siblings, adopted siblings, whatever.
OP
OP
MadelynIris
Refugee
No - I've equated cousin-marriage bigotry with racial predjudice.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
MadelynIris said:
no, you've subsituted "cousin based" marriage where i had the word homosexuality. i was making the comparison between discrimination on the basis of an involuntary characteristic, homosexualtiy, with another, race.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
MadelynIris said:
well, if all the arguments they have are the specious ones you've presented, this should all be over quick.
and you're *totally* misunderstanding the basis of gay marriage. there is no slippery slope.
the only applicable historical example was the former ban on interracial marriage.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
This comparison is laughable. You live your life being black, you live your life being gay, you live your life being straight, but who claims to be born in love with their cousin?
OP
OP
MadelynIris
Refugee
sorry - it's getting rather algabraic with all of the subsitutions and comparison.
X = homosexuality
CM = cousin marrying
B = blacks
X = homosexuality
CM = cousin marrying
B = blacks
OP
OP
MadelynIris
Refugee
but who claims to be born in love with their cousins
West Virginians?
West Virginians?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
MadelynIris said:
um, bigoted statement aside ... no one is born in love with anyone, you *fall* in love with someone.
you are born black. you are (probably ... and this is *way* complex, but the important thing is that it is involuntary) born gay.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Now 4 pages and no comparison...
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
BonoVoxSupastar said:Now 4 pages and no comparison...
ah, well, it's our fault. we took the bait.
MadelynIris said:
You omitted the fact that 27 states already permit it. Chances are, too, that if these married couples moved to a state that bans performing them, that state would likely recognize their marriage as they would any heterosexual couple.
The article also states that first cousin marriages are very common and legal in the Middle East, Europe, Canada, Africa, and Asia. Queen Victoria married her first cousin. I believe that FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt were first cousins (correct me if I'm wrong).
If you were trying to be "cute," your point is moot. To all the happily married first cousins out there, who am I to stick my nose in and object? It's none of my business.
Melon
Last edited:
U2Bama
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I'm quite embarassed and disgusted that my state allows any cousins to marry each other. I only discovered it by looking at that link for the "Cousins' Rights" organization in the article. And yes, I realize it's possible that somewhere in my lineage, there were cousins who married each other. Unfortunately, there were also ancestors who fought for the Confederacy, and that doesn't make it right.
In Mobile County, Alabama, there was a case a couple of years back involving an adult father and his adult daughter and their marriage and sexual relations. I don't mean to be offensive to anyone here, but I find cousins and parents/children marrying each other to be disturbing.
~U2Alabama
In Mobile County, Alabama, there was a case a couple of years back involving an adult father and his adult daughter and their marriage and sexual relations. I don't mean to be offensive to anyone here, but I find cousins and parents/children marrying each other to be disturbing.
~U2Alabama
Just to be contrary, why do we feel the need to interfere with someone else's love interests? I mean, just because I think the thought of marrying any of my first cousins to be disgusting, why should my disgust translate to a law making it illegal? Why do we care? I mean, really.
Melon
Melon
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
Irvine511 said:
First off I don't see where every comparison must be perfectly aligned to be worthy of discussion. In the real world these comparisons WILL be made, and to merely dismiss them out of hand will get you nowhere, and might even make many people oppose you even more strongly. I suggest learning to calmly discuss situations that even only peripherally match, because chances are very good most people are not going to think of perfect matches. And the fact is it's in your best interest not to piss off the people (John and Mary Typical Hetero's who vote) who hold your ability to marry as you wish, by telling them so bluntly that they don't know their asses from their elbows.
Oh, and by the way, even your example of interracial marriages does not match perfectly. After all any person of a particular race can marry any other heterosexual within their race, barring family members. So you'd best not use that comparison either.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
melon said:
. As long as they're consenting adults, and as long as they are madly in love with each other, isn't that all that really matters? Maybe I'm just strange, but I honestly have a hell of a lot more important things in life to worry about than whether or not two men or two women get married, or whether or not cousins get married, or siblings. I wouldn't even know it happened unless they were friends of mine or unless I were to bump into some random couple somewhere, and they were to tell me, so I just don't feel it's my place to really get all up in arms about it. And like melon, I don't understand why others do care.
Angela
OP
OP
MadelynIris
Refugee
Only laughable if you think people aren't discriminated against by their actions.
So, I'm not laughing.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
MadelynIris said:
But being discriminated against by your actions and by your being are two complete different things.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
indra said:
sorry, but in FYM, a discussion forum as opposed to a polite conversation had at the supermarket, on the street, or in a restaurant, i am going to tell someone who doesn't know their ass from their elbow that they don't know their ass from their elbow -- and give a reason why.
of course no two situations are exactly comparable, but i think the comparison between homosexual marriage and first cousin marriage is inapplicable upon the grounds that MI tried to make them. i said so, and made my case for the inapplicability of the argument that then renders all the legal arguments that follow totally moot. that was my opinion, and i offered several supporting arguments that went far deeper than "you don't know your ass from your elbow."
and, on a personal note, i am getting really sick of all of this "debate" around the issue -- and if you look at the first post in the thread, it was explicitly gay-baiting ... "get with the times."
and i'm going to make another provocative statement: the argument is essentially over, at least legall in massachusetts and california (see my earlier thread for the legal ruling). and those that cling to these notions of "traditional marriage" are, in my unscientifically substantiated opinion, simply holding onto archaic biases that would probably fall away if they were to actually get to know a real, live gay person and see how a real, life gay relationship, often with children, functions.
i'm not going to call it ignorance, but i am going to call it lack of exposure. so it's my job, in a sense, to be "out" and to teach straight people -- yes, yes, that *is* patronizing, i know, but i don't really care -- who probably aren't exposed to homosexuality very much that it is EXACTLY the same as heterosexuality, in terms of physical attraction and emotional orientation.
you bring up one point in the interracial marriage comparison that is good. however, the distinction i was making between gay marriage and first cousin marriage, and this distinction's connection to the interracial marriage, was that people were being denied the right to marry on the basis of an involuntary, inchangable characteristic. that, to me, is the strong link between the two, and there are no such similarly strong links to be made in the case for gay marriage and for first-cousin marriage.
Last edited:
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Personally, cousin marriages don't bother me. But I can see how they can bother some people. Royal families, like the Habsburgs, went to hell in a haybasket with all sorts of "madnesses" no doubt caused by too much kin-marriage since they were only allowed to marry other royalty. There is alot of talk these days about the problems with the British royals; have they had too much of this? Queen Victoria married her cousin, and George and Mary (Elizabeth's grandparents) were also cousins, second cousins, I think. I don't know, I think I'm getting confused.
U2Bama
Rock n' Roll Doggie
melon said:
Honestly, melon, I do see your point. But I still object to the thought of flesh and blood mating with itself. You may have changed your views over the years, but you and I in the past had very similar views against dope, which, as you know, the pro-dope crowd can raise the same issue as your are raising here about cousins getting married.
And again, this issue is disgusting to me because it actually IS legal in my state and my state "benefits" from the jokes and images associated with cousins marrying each other. But this is only one of many legal issues in my state and its constitution that I find to be disturbing.
~U2Alabama
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I think if this was a moral issue then more stringent blood test and what not would be administered and made law. But the fact is people honestly don't care as long as they are heterosexual.
I for one can marry someone, and have probably a better chance marrying a cousin outside of my family than inside my family due to the fact that I have no clue as to my bloodline.
I for one can marry someone, and have probably a better chance marrying a cousin outside of my family than inside my family due to the fact that I have no clue as to my bloodline.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Okay heres one for you all, in an incestuous relationship it is deemed to be harmful because of the increased risk of genetic disease in offspring. Going by the same logic could society make it illegal for individuals who suffer from severe and heritable genetic diseases to procreate?
What is the line between protection and eugenics and where must it be drawn.
What is the line between protection and eugenics and where must it be drawn.
Similar threads
