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.
Looks like like we suddenly have a believer in “traditional” marriage. So you kept the “two” part of the definition and tossed the rest. Sorry, you can’t pick and choose. Anything goes now. What goes around comes around.
I'm just saying they are not comparable. i would never advocate traditional marriage, because I'm in one. I believe that in both cases consenting adults can decide who they want to marry.
I do agree completely with your last paragraph. In fact, your points totally help support the idea of being able to marry a blood relative.
I have long said that everyone should have the right to legally have "their person" for the reasons you mentioned (legally care for, inherit, etc). And if someone wants that person to be, for example, her own sister (or other blood relative), then why not? As you said, the relationship doesn't have to include sex, but rather to provide the legal and financial benefits of marriage.
My best friend and I have often talked/joked about being each other's "person" in our old age if we are both widowed. It hadn't occurred to me until I read your post that we could actually do that, legally.
I'm mostly with you. However, with blood relationships (depending on the relationship) they may already be covered by the law, such as children and parents. Plus, if a person puts in their will that they want all of their inheritance to go to a certain blood relative - again, dependent upon the relationship -it may not be challenged or the court would at least recognize that relationship. However, if a person puts in their will that they want all their inheritance to go to their favorite neighbor, any surviving family could very easily challenge that because there is no recognized relationship.
Also, first cousin marriage is legally recognized and allowed in some places, including some of these united states, so incest is actually allowed to a certain degree. Where's all the objection to that I wonder?
But yes, I do believe people should be able to have their person (thanks Cristina Yang!) and that should be legally recognized, and no they don't need to be "in love" for it to happen. I think you and your friend should go for it!
But yes, I do believe people should be able to have their person (thanks Cristina Yang!) and that should be legally recognized, and no they don't need to be "in love" for it to happen. I think you and your friend should go for it!
Ahhh, you picked up on my Grey's Anatomy reference! Even though Mer & Christina's use of the term "my person" had absolutely nothing to do with SSM or legal relationship of any kind, it always did make me think about how everyone needs at least one "my person."
There is no can of worms. In no way does gay marriage make polygamy legal. Marriage is a contract that legally makes TWO people next of kin, their gender is irrelevant, and has absolutely no bearing on any of the marriage rights, or responsibilities. In the US each person can only have one legally recognized spouse, gay marriage has done nothing to change that.
IMO, polygamy between consenting adults should not be prosecuted, but only the first wife would be entitled to the legal next of kin rights, and responsibilities such as spousal benefits, automatic inheritance, medical decisions, etc. No one needs to go to jail, but additional wives have no spousal rights.
Yeah, but now it opens the door to blood relatives marrying, as others have pointed out, especially since 'incest' is no longer considered a crime in many countries - nor is there any reason nowadays that it should be.
So I hope it swings WIDE open because real equality should allow ANY TWO consenting adults to marry.
If they're both over 18, more power to them. Sometimes I wish I had a "sister wife".
Well you may very well get what you want, literally.
In theory, if you follow the liberal thinking that two men or two women can marry, then why not two brothers, or two sisters?
Why not fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, etc.?
Why should the government have any say in who, or even how many people someone can love and marry?
Now it might be easy to say "we must have some limits, so incest has to be out".
Well when you open Pandora's Box, you do not have the luxury of picking and choosing which things are perverted, and which ones are not.
1) Why did our government originally provide incentives for men and women to get married, but leave homosexuals out?
For starters, homos were in the closet, and heteros didn't even bother thinking about them. Historically, well before our country was founded, marriage has always been between one man and woman.
More importantly, it encouraged people to marry, and within that stable family unit, they would produce more citizens(i.e. babies) to help grow the ranks.
Furthermore, a stable environment with two parents were more likely to raise good patriotic citizens that were socially well adjusted.
2) Why did they prohibit close blood relatives from getting married?
The obvious reason is that sexual intercourse was presumed to occur, and the resulting citizens (of which they would want numbers wise) would stand a high probability of being sick/deformed or genetically inferior.
Hence the reason is still in place today, along with the social stigma attached (one of the few social stigmas left in our "people do whatever they want and you WILL respect their lifestyle choices" society)
Of course we are talking about sex between close blood relatives of the opposite sex.
HOWEVER, and try to follow along.
If you take away the fear of sex producing birth defects, what legitimate reason could you possibly give for preventing marriage between close blood relatives of the same sex?
Again, to use the homosexual apologists and uber liberals view, preventing consenting adults who "love each other" not to marry is wrong.
Now the SCOTUS has incorrectly ruled it is a Constitutional right.
Regardless, by what convoluted hypocritical reasoning can you tell Charles and Steve who love each other, and are consenting adults, they cannot marry just because they are first cousins
Remember the compelling reason for prohibiting such unions with first cousins and the like was fear heteros would produce birth defected babies. But with same sex first cousins, their sexual activities will not produce children. So how can you deny them marriage when "they love each other" ???
The next step of course would be parents/children of the same sex or siblings.
Regarding multiple wives/husbands, AJ Scalia predicted several years ago that homosexual marriage would be a logical extension of an earlier courts ruling. He also said polygamy would be likely as well.
He was derided for being an alarmist by those who either couldn't see it coming, or were secretly happy it would, though they wouldn't admit it because they wanted to get a foot in the door first.
Yet, clearly other countries are already on to making it legal for 3 people to marry, as happened with three men in Thailand. They actually have a name for it, called a "Throuple".
So why is it legal prohibit marriages from any sort of gender, family, or number combinations?
Heck the old days of Mormon polygamy, or Arabians having a "haram of wives" seemed very backward in this modern day.
Who would have ever predicted that because of a few SCOTUS rulings, we would be going back to anything goes.
Well you may very well get what you want, literally.
In theory, if you follow the liberal thinking that two men or two women can marry, then why not two brothers, or two sisters?
Why not fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, etc.?
Why should the government have any say in who, or even how many people someone can love and marry?
Now it might be easy to say "we must have some limits, so incest has to be out".
Well when you open Pandora's Box, you do not have the luxury of picking and choosing which things are perverted, and which ones are not.
1) Why did our government originally provide incentives for men and women to get married, but leave homosexuals out?
For starters, homos were in the closet, and heteros didn't even bother thinking about them. Historically, well before our country was founded, marriage has always been between one man and woman.
More importantly, it encouraged people to marry, and within that stable family unit, they would produce more citizens(i.e. babies) to help grow the ranks.
Furthermore, a stable environment with two parents were more likely to raise good patriotic citizens that were socially well adjusted.
2) Why did they prohibit close blood relatives from getting married?
The obvious reason is that sexual intercourse was presumed to occur, and the resulting citizens (of which they would want numbers wise) would stand a high probability of being sick/deformed or genetically inferior.
Hence the reason is still in place today, along with the social stigma attached (one of the few social stigmas left in our "people do whatever they want and you WILL respect their lifestyle choices" society)
Of course we are talking about sex between close blood relatives of the opposite sex.
HOWEVER, and try to follow along.
If you take away the fear of sex producing birth defects, what legitimate reason could you possibly give for preventing marriage between close blood relatives of the same sex?
Again, to use the homosexual apologists and uber liberals view, preventing consenting adults who "love each other" not to marry is wrong.
Now the SCOTUS has incorrectly ruled it is a Constitutional right.
Regardless, by what convoluted hypocritical reasoning can you tell Charles and Steve who love each other, and are consenting adults, they cannot marry just because they are first cousins
Remember the compelling reason for prohibiting such unions with first cousins and the like was fear heteros would produce birth defected babies. But with same sex first cousins, their sexual activities will not produce children. So how can you deny them marriage when "they love each other" ???
The next step of course would be parents/children of the same sex or siblings.
Regarding multiple wives/husbands, AJ Scalia predicted several years ago that homosexual marriage would be a logical extension of an earlier courts ruling. He also said polygamy would be likely as well.
He was derided for being an alarmist by those who either couldn't see it coming, or were secretly happy it would, though they wouldn't admit it because they wanted to get a foot in the door first.
Yet, clearly other countries are already on to making it legal for 3 people to marry, as happened with three men in Thailand. They actually have a name for it, called a "Throuple".
So why is it legal prohibit marriages from any sort of gender, family, or number combinations?
Heck the old days of Mormon polygamy, or Arabians having a "haram of wives" seemed very backward in this modern day.
Who would have ever predicted that because of a few SCOTUS rulings, we would be going back to anything goes.
`
First cousin marriage is, and has been, legal in many states for some time. Where has the religious outrage been for the last 50 years about this?
Brother/sister, sister/sister, brother/brother, father/daughter, father/son, mother/son., mother/daughter, grandfather..... You get the picture. Waiting to grab the popcorn and watch. What justification is there to forbid it? They are consenting adults.
I didn't make it clear that I was actually agreeing with you, that as long as there are only TWO parties and they are consenting adults, everything is up for grabs.
Just because I don't like or approve of something (incest in this case) doesn't mean there should be a law against it. There are states that have laws against incest (not just marriage but the sexual act itself) on the books. As abhorrent as I find the act, I have trouble denying two consenting adults the freedom to do as they please in the bedroom. Actually I don't have the right to even ponder what they do in the bedroom.
And gosh only knows how many people are right now unknowlingly married to blood relatives, what with artificial insemination et al. If/when such relationships come to light, does that mean their marriages are automatically invalidated?
One legal argument that could be made is that the prohibitive laws are gender/race neutral. So the question remains, does the state have a *legitimate* stake in regulating the activity, as they certainly do in the question of polygamy?
Yep, grabbing the popcorn.
Last edited by biscuitmom; 07-04-2015 at 11:40 PM..
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.
Even though Mer & Christina's use of the term "my person" had absolutely nothing to do with SSM or legal relationship of any kind, it always did make me think about how everyone needs at least one "my person."
