Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage
Isaac Send a noteboard - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM
and discussing it as a legal and romantic bond between individuals (i don't mean romantic as in roses and candles, but that sort of love as opposed to familial or friendly love), then there's not that much wrong with incest or polygamy either.
Good honest answer. Probably best to limit it to a legal bond, since enforcing love as an aspect of marriage is effectively impossible, a mass invasion of privacy, and from a traditional POV often not the case, lots of 'traditional' marriages were basically just real estate deals and/or breeding compacts between families as you know. As various components of marriage go, love's mostly irrelevant to gay marriage anyway since barring a very few fiery eyed zealots no one seems to think gays can't love each other.
In the end, I believe marriage should be about bringing people who love each other into one whole and complete family, with all the various benefits families tend to have. Of course, an incestuous marriage would be rather redundant in this respect and defeat the purpose. Anyway, if this was merely about titles (wife/husband) and ceremonies, then this wouldn't be an issue at all, so I think that an incestuous marriage is a different situation as your family is already your family.
Titles tend to be important to people, since both Rush Limbaugh and Barrack Obama agree that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed but civil unions should be, would tend to make ya wonder what the debate is over, if not titles. I do happen to believe your definition, essentially bringing people together to form a new family node, ideally a loving one, is the preferred one, but pretty much all three - gay, poly, incest - and loveless marriages or elderly marriages fly into technical difficulties on that score. What I'm getting at with my OP is that virtually none of the objections or arguments in favor of just about any of these can't also apply to one of the others, and in part because there really is no set defined standard to get married. Incest being the weirdest of course, because as you say there is already a pre-existing love situation and pre-existing established titles and traditional relations, grandparents and aunts/uncles are regular involved with kids, often as a primary caregiver and living in the same home. However, that interference with pre-existing traditional roles that would apply to incest also flips onto gay marriage, there is not to my knowledge any tradition of it, even though obviously history is packed with examples of prolonged gay or non-romantic same gender family partnerships. We've also got that most 'love-centered' relations between people fall as romantic, family, or friend bonds, clearly most of us believe romantic and friend, and family and friend, are not only not mutually exclusive but added positives. So again, you get stuck with for/against arguments that would seem to apply equally well to other options.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
Let's ban all Christian Marriage.
07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM
- 1499 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me.
07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM
- 929 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people.
07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM
- 1146 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there!
07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM
- 959 Views
Who else should make those decisions?
07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM
- 902 Views
I'd totally...
08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM
- 878 Views
I'd totally...
08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM
- 1018 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering.
08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM
- 943 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged
08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM
- 856 Views
*Shakes Head*
08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM
- 829 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM*
08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM
- 486 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense.
08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM
- 920 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense.
08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM
- 884 Views
Re: *Shakes Head*
08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM
- 875 Views
I still do not see how you think marriage is a "pointless" institution
08/08/2010 08:05:45 PM
- 972 Views
No, I was referring to same-sex marriage. Real marriage hardly counts as a novelty. *NM*
11/08/2010 02:28:43 PM
- 398 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about.
08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM
- 820 Views
You cannot be that stupid.
11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM
- 1102 Views
There's a lot of ridiculous arguments here, but I'll focus on just one of them...
11/08/2010 03:38:05 PM
- 986 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM
- 846 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad.
09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM
- 889 Views
Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM
- 836 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM
- 818 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM
- 936 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives.
11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM
- 965 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM
- 847 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM
- 814 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM
- 901 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM
- 918 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage
09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM
- 974 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage
10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM
- 794 Views
It should be noted again...
09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM
- 941 Views
and how is it not a right?
09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM
- 823 Views
My definition of rights...
09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM
- 947 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right.
10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM
- 724 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example
10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM
- 820 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis...
10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM
- 936 Views
If we need a more specific resolution...
10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM
- 1110 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM
- 814 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM
- 1115 Views
That's really a ridiculous stance, you do realize.
10/08/2010 03:23:02 PM
- 782 Views
The point is that marriage IS a right, one which cannot be denied based upon sexual orientation *NM*
10/08/2010 07:04:16 PM
- 651 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 03:46:56 PM
- 1002 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though.
10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM
- 814 Views
I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
10/08/2010 06:09:32 PM
- 806 Views
Re: I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
10/08/2010 06:33:56 PM
- 738 Views
It's mentioned as a right in some SC decision quoted in that Walker opinion. *NM*
10/08/2010 06:51:13 PM
- 409 Views
To clarify for you
10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM
- 743 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body...
10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM
- 1187 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body'
10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM
- 789 Views
The fact that it is capable of authorizing the use of military force makes it an enforcement body
10/08/2010 10:33:59 PM
- 1047 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless....
10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM
- 755 Views
Why don't YOU back up your assertion that the right to marry exists? *NM*
11/08/2010 03:16:02 PM
- 456 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right.
10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM
- 893 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction...
10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM
- 971 Views
Note it all you want...
10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM
- 686 Views
No, they seek to expand the terms of the partnership. Homosexuals can & do get married normally *NM*
11/08/2010 03:14:25 PM
- 458 Views
The best one yet.
10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM
- 932 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM
- 811 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM
- 915 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM
- 799 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM
- 917 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM
- 897 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM
- 888 Views