Active Users:399 Time:16/06/2025 10:18:36 PM
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too snoopcester Send a noteboard - 09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM
The former, one of the reasons I raise incest is it is an example of the states being able to bar marriage between people, hence, arguments revolving around the states having no right to ban marriages are logically flawed. Arguments that the state should not possess that power are another matter, but as is, if someone states that no such right exist, they are overlooking precedent.


Ah, sounds like you are disagreeing on opinion then - around what is actually a right, what it intails and what, if anything, overrides it.

I should imagine we'd agree that 'messes' something might introduce into legislation aren't really good reasons to keep a ban on something. :P


An interesting point in this is that it isn't exactly a ban, just a limit on how far the rights and benefits of marriage should be spread. You can legally have a relationship with as many partners as you like, you're still just going to get the same as a couple do though and the simplest way to do it is to only allow a marriage between two people, since it doesn't involve rewriting a huge volume of laws. Still though, you can be married in religion to multiple partners (people moving to the UK who are married to multiple partners have to nominate one on moving here to be the one who recieves the benefits and rights)

That applies to polygamy pretty often too. Or, say, someone adopting an adolescent then marrying them when they turn 18, pretty foul but I don't think "grooming" can be a blanket reason, since it wouldn't apply to people of the same age (sibs/cousins) in all likelihood. Also, every state has different laws and qualifiers for incest, some allow first cousins. But yes, of course there's the genetic defect thing, but gay unions can't produce kids, so incest unions who agree not too breed would seem equally legit, and again their is an issue, is incest the only situation where a higher-than-average-probability of genetic defects bars marriage, should it be, should others be for that reason, etc.


It is an old charge against polygamy - not sure it holds true in the same way though (since you can have a polygamous relationship, you just can't marry, so a clear difference there) and I'm not sure if it is actually a true issue now or just an old fear?
Most of your argument in there really is down to the fact there is a big grey area around exactly where the cut off points are... but then that exsts everywhere (different countries have different laws, after all). It is about balancing the rights of the people (those of having a relationship of their choice against their right to protection)

I'm slightly lost on what you are arguing with regards to children - same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because there is no risk of children but rather regardless of it. A male-female relationship carries a risk that they will have children - people can lie, doctors can mess up etc.
*MySmiley*

Robert Graves "There is no money in poetry, but then there is no poetry in money, either."

Henning Mankell "We must defend the open society, because if we start locking our doors, if we let fear decide, the person who committed the act of terror will win"
Reply to message
Let's ban all Christian Marriage. - 07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM 1634 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 1035 Views
One small problem... - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 1062 Views
Re tax. - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1102 Views
That seems sensible to me. - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 953 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1094 Views
Nice. *NM* - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 618 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1270 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 1086 Views
Who else should make those decisions? - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 1023 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 981 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1141 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 507 Views
Indeed - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 1073 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 1073 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 983 Views
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 508 Views
*Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 945 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 541 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 1044 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 1009 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 957 Views
whoops *NM* - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 464 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 993 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 938 Views
You cannot be that stupid. - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1213 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1320 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 926 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 968 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 511 Views
Did I say there was anything? - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1082 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 1000 Views
Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 953 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 941 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 1055 Views
Not really - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 915 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 1047 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 910 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 1064 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 1082 Views
... - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 959 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM 987 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM 925 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM 1034 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1093 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 899 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 1029 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 906 Views
Great post Danny - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 781 Views
It should be noted again... - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 1077 Views
and how is it not a right? - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 951 Views
My definition of rights... - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 1074 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 832 Views
+1 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1109 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 936 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 1064 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1246 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 925 Views
It also doesn't say they can - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 938 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 928 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 950 Views
To clarify for you - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 857 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1306 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 881 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 491 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 496 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1122 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 1006 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1089 Views
I agree - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 807 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1173 Views
Note it all you want... - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 799 Views
The best one yet. - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 1056 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 924 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 1034 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 925 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 1045 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 1048 Views

Reply to Message