Active Users:384 Time:16/06/2025 09:36:12 PM
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. Isaac Send a noteboard - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM
I think of the nature of marriage, in a legal sense, anyway, as a partnership between two consenting people. That would rule out polygamy, I think, but I am not sure if the number is actually important from a legal perspective.


I've never really found a viable definition of marriage outside religious or traditional context that doesn't have some arbitrary cutoffs, I guess the parallel legally would be exclusive contracts, X agrees to buy or lease or whatever solely to/from Y, problem being, that works fine for why you can't commit bigamy without everyone involved being okay with it, it doesn't really explain why Uncle Sam has a seat at the table. Bob Johnson might agree to exclusively license his new patent to Boeing, but the government doesn't really have any business telling him he has to enter an exclusive contract with somebody. Regardless I just don't think marriage works well in a modern legal context, I've never seen a definition beyond utter libertarianism that did seem to discriminate against someone.

So long as it is understood that marriage must be between consenting adults, I don't think it would be a huge issue, as the real problems with polygamy tend to come from underage girls being forced to marry.


Well, grooming to, though it's tricky to make the case that girls who are raised to think polygamy is okay because their parents are are actually being brainwashed. Still, I can't think of any culture it is or has been common in that didn't have abuses, though other circumstances were factors too.

As for incest, the issue is not about an ability to procreate, but rather the genetic damage done to children of incestuous relationships. Not sure how that affects stuff.


Yes, it's that genetic damage thing. Ignoring that sterility is an option, according to the Journal of Genetic Counseling, first cousins are only 2% more likely to have gene defects then normal, alternatively, a woman at 35 is something like twenty times, or 2000%, more likely to give birth to a Down's Baby then a 21 year old, and it's even higher beyond 35. While in the past they didn't know what the hell genes were, just had vague notions incest caused problems, we now know a lot more. If we can ban first cousins from marrying because they might have children, and ban it without an exemption for sterility, can't we ban 35 year old woman from marrying by that same logic? It's an abhorrent concept, but I can't think of a good reason beyond genetic defects and there are ways to reasonably prevent that from happening. The bans don't say "No incest marriages unless you've had a vasectomy" they say "No period", and that makes me feel we sort use genetic defects as an escape route to avoid a nasty train of thought, not because of its actual scientific and logical soundness.
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
Reply to message
Let's ban all Christian Marriage. - 07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM 1633 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 1034 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 617 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 1022 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 980 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1140 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 1072 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 982 Views
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 507 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 540 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 1043 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 956 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 1212 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 967 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 1053 Views
Not really - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 915 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 1046 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
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 780 Views
It should be noted again... - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 1076 Views
and how is it not a right? - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 950 Views
My definition of rights... - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 1073 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 831 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 949 Views
To clarify for you - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 856 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1305 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 880 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 495 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 806 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 798 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 923 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 924 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 1047 Views

Reply to Message