Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But, you are. You just come to a different, I believe flawed, conclusion.
I agree.
Neither did the taboo against homosexuality. We got over that, but when I was a kid, it was just as big of a taboo as incest.
I agree
Then the reason to forbid incestuous marriages should not include references to their potential progeny. It isn't a valid reason, as you have pointed out.
Oh, believe me, as someone who had actually had to educate three such children, I agree. But that means it is in society's interest to prevent such children from being born, which, as stated above and below, we both believe has nothing to do with marriage.
We are in agreement. So why ban incestuous marriages?
Nope.
The reason to forbid incestuous marriages is based on their potential progeny. It is a valid reason, as I've pointed out. Because, given the societal taboos against incest, incest tends to occur within families that are isolated, for whatever reason, from the society around them. Incest tends to be symptomatic of other disfunctions within the family. And due to the isolation, incest becomes systemic within a family. When incest becomes systemic and is passed on from generation to generation, the risk of adverse genetic consequences increases. If it's just one couple then the ban seems illogical. But if it's familial, then society does have an interest in regulating incest.
The reason to forbid incestuous marriages is based on their potential progeny. It is a valid reason, as I've pointed out. Because, given the societal taboos against incest, incest tends to occur within families that are isolated, for whatever reason, from the society around them. Incest tends to be symptomatic of other disfunctions within the family. And due to the isolation, incest becomes systemic within a family. When incest becomes systemic and is passed on from generation to generation, the risk of adverse genetic consequences increases. If it's just one couple then the ban seems illogical. But if it's familial, then society does have an interest in regulating incest.
I agree with you on genetics but if we're allowing female/female and male/male unions, is there any reason to ban mother/daughter, father/son? There's no genetics involved here. Obviously, both would have to be of the legal age of consent but, assuming both were adults, is there any reason to ban these unions? Why would they be any different than any other gay union?
I agree with you on genetics but if we're allowing female/female and male/male unions, is there any reason to ban mother/daughter, father/son? There's no genetics involved here. Obviously, both would have to be of the legal age of consent but, assuming both were adults, is there any reason to ban these unions? Why would they be any different than any other gay union?
I can't think of any reason to ban them. It's icky, but then lots of sexual practices are icky. Who am I to judge?
I agree with you on genetics but if we're allowing female/female and male/male unions, is there any reason to ban mother/daughter, father/son? There's no genetics involved here. Obviously, both would have to be of the legal age of consent but, assuming both were adults, is there any reason to ban these unions? Why would they be any different than any other gay union?
There is usually an imbalance of power, and often a history of abuse. That is of huge concern.
Yes.
However, as I noted earlier, the OP has conflated three completely unrelated situations to prove a non-existent point and I have no intention of fanning those flames.
Thread title says it all. If you support redefining marriage, do you support a mother marrying her daughter, if they both are consenting adults? Or a father and son? Why or why not? Thanks
Come on man. Totally overboard and an unfair poll.
My partner and I have been together 25 years, longer than most straight marriages. Why shouldn't we be entitled to the same legal status, tax breaks, etc as a hetero couple?
So if its okay to view incest or anything other than unrelated adults as creepy, and you dont think you should be called a bigot, than those that thing homosexuality is creepy should not be viewed as bigots either.
You pro-homosexual marriage crowd have railed on and on about its all about "love". If that were the case, then incest, polygamy, and other things should be just fine in your book too. Its either only about love or its not.
And yes, some of us do note how suddenly due to this thread, youve changed it from just love to love between two consenting adults. Funny how now you get to define marriage strictly but those that view it as man and woman can not..... Sorry, but that is called hypocrisy.
Come on man. Totally overboard and an unfair poll.
My partner and I have been together 25 years, longer than most straight marriages. Why shouldn't we be entitled to the same legal status, tax breaks, etc as a hetero couple?
I would agree with the that. I just do not think it should fall under the same definition of marriage. I see it as a domestic partnership, a legal union. Not marriage. It really should not be a problem to view gay unions different than marriage of husband and wife. There are key differences and we shouldnt pretend like there isnt.
The reason to forbid incestuous marriages is based on their potential progeny. It is a valid reason, as I've pointed out. Because, given the societal taboos against incest, incest tends to occur within families that are isolated, for whatever reason, from the society around them. Incest tends to be symptomatic of other disfunctions within the family. And due to the isolation, incest becomes systemic within a family. When incest becomes systemic and is passed on from generation to generation, the risk of adverse genetic consequences increases. If it's just one couple then the ban seems illogical. But if it's familial, then society does have an interest in regulating incest.
Lol so you think there are no societal taboos against homosexuality? You're reaching.
Come on man. Totally overboard and an unfair poll.
My partner and I have been together 25 years, longer than most straight marriages. Why shouldn't we be entitled to the same legal status, tax breaks, etc as a hetero couple?
Because you're both of the same gender and thus can't be married. It's an unholy union.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
