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.
I said in your other thread that I don't believe someone who has grown up in a household with a parent can properly give consent, even if they are now legally an adult.
However, if the two people meet once the child is an adult and has not been influenced by the parent they want to marry growing up, then yes it's up to them whether or not they want to marry.
I do not support marriage when a weaker party has been coerced into it in any way - that includes marraige with a parent or sibling that you grew up with who may have excerted undue influence over you when you were a child, marriage when somebody is selling you off, ie arranged marriages, marriage with an animal who cannot properly give consent. Marriage of a child that's been arranged between a parent and a third party (like they do in religious cults).
For any contract to be legally binding both parties must enter into it of their own free will. For that reason I do not support what would constitute the majority of marriages that may occur between two close family members. However, if they meet and fall in love independently of the family unit, then who am I to tell them they can't marry?
So yes, with conditions, I support marriage equality for all AS LONG AS BOTH PARTIES ARE CAPABLE OF ENTERING INTO THE CONTRACT WILLINGLY AND WITH FULL COGNIZANCE.
A applaud your consistency. You're one of 4 non hypocrites in 39 pages.
I don't think they at all the same. Apple and orange.
This is the same argument that those against SSM marriage use with you. I have actually seen the apples and oranges analogy used in threads on this forum to argue against SSM. And I will give you back a rebuttal a pro-SSM person gave them. They are both fruit, so yes, they are the same. If it works for gender, it works for numbers, and it works for previous relationships. When I say equality I actually mean it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkhunter
Do you think its OK for a husband and wife to have anal sex?
Not my business. I could care less what consenting adults do in private.
Children and animals are not capable of giving consent, so no arguments there.
If we establish same sex marriage in this nation then we have taken procreation out of the consideration for the establishment of marriage parameters. And, lots of relationships create psychological problems and we don't outlaw them.
Not many other relationships other than incest can create emotional problems based in the relationship that the parties have to each other, plus the genetic issues are a concern. Procreation isn't part of the parameter for marriage now. Can you marry if you are infertile? Yes. In fact, that was one of the discussions that came up during the debate in the SCOTUS on prop 8--that fertility has never been a requirement of marriage in this country.
You are the one not being logical. With SSM we are saying procreation is not a consideration is determining who can marry. That is one of the underlying arguments for saying people's objections to SSM based on procreation ability are invalid. Either it is or it isn't. Infertile or elderly couple are brought up repeatedly during the SSM debate. And people are arguing, rightfully in my opinion, that the ability to successfully procreate without assistance should matter for everyone or it matters for no one. I am merely agreeing.
I am not agreeing with YOU.
Currently, the ability to procreate doesn't matter when it comes to marriage. Same-sex marriage has NOTHING to do with that.
The taboo against incest has nothing to do with marriage, either.
Procreation is not a consideration in determining whom one can marry. That is not an underlying argument at all. That is simple fact.
So, when you assert that people are arguing rightfully in your opinion, that the ability to successfully procreate without assistance should matter for everyone or for no one, you are constructing a strawman. The ability to procreate is irrelevant. It DOESN'T matter for anyone now. It is irrelevant to marriage.
But society's interest in preventing genetic anomalies from being concentrated within population subsets still exists. Marriage is not involved in that issue, in any way at all. Genetics and the problems with genetic diseases and conditions, and their cost to society are the issues at play in this issue.
I feel really sorry for gay people who are members of a family where there are people like the OP. My father in law, I am not sure what his personal believes were before, but when he found out his oldest daughter was gay he never judged and he treated her partner like his own kid. Both my sister in law and her partner are retired air force and have been together for 15 years. They want to get married more than anything but the state they live in will not allow it. I have a problem with that.
Currently, the ability to procreate doesn't matter when it comes to marriage. Same-sex marriage has NOTHING to do with that.
The taboo against incest has nothing to do with marriage, either.
Procreation is not a consideration in determining whom one can marry. That is not an underlying argument at all. That is simple fact.
So, when you assert that people are arguing rightfully in your opinion, that the ability to successfully procreate without assistance should matter for everyone or for no one, you are constructing a strawman. The ability to procreate is irrelevant. It DOESN'T matter for anyone now. It is irrelevant to marriage.
But society's interest in preventing genetic anomalies from being concentrated within population subsets still exists. Marriage is not involved in that issue, in any way at all. Genetics and the problems with genetic diseases and conditions, and their cost to society are the issues at play in this issue.
And that's why your logic fails you.
For the record, I find the OP's motivation for this thread deplorable, but I do believe she has a point. And to that end, I do support marriage for anyone who is fully and capably in love with anyone else. It's only fair.
However, I think the actual instance of incestual marriage would be so low as to really not have that much of an influence genetically (if I'm wrong about that someone correct me).
And we currently do not disallow marriage between two people who have a potentially disastrous genetic combination. We warn them about it, but they are free to take the chance. For example, a much older woman can marry with the higher risk of genetic abnormalities, as can two people who carry genes that may mean they pass on serious problems. We don't prevent them from getting married for those reasons, I don't think the blood test has been required for quite some time.
I think it's really up to the individual couple to make what I think is a moral decision for themselves.
But, you are. You just come to a different, I believe flawed, conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Currently, the ability to procreate doesn't matter when it comes to marriage. Same-sex marriage has NOTHING to do with that.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
The taboo against incest has nothing to do with marriage, either.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Procreation is not a consideration in determining whom one can marry. That is not an underlying argument at all. That is simple fact.
I agree
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
So, when you assert that people are arguing rightfully in your opinion, that the ability to successfully procreate without assistance should matter for everyone or for no one, you are constructing a strawman. The ability to procreate is irrelevant. It DOESN'T matter for anyone now. It is irrelevant to marriage.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
But society's interest in preventing genetic anomalies from being concentrated within population subsets still exists.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Marriage is not involved in that issue, in any way at all. Genetics and the problems with genetic diseases and conditions, and their cost to society are the issues at play in this issue.
We are in agreement. So why ban incestuous marriages?
For the record, I find the OP's motivation for this thread deplorable, but I do believe she has a point. And to that end, I do support marriage for anyone who is fully and capably in love with anyone else. It's only fair.
However, I think the actual instance of incestual marriage would be so low as to really not have that much of an influence genetically (if I'm wrong about that someone correct me).
And we currently do not disallow marriage between two people who have a potentially disastrous genetic combination. We warn them about it, but they are free to take the chance. For example, a much older woman can marry with the higher risk of genetic abnormalities, as can two people who carry genes that may mean they pass on serious problems. We don't prevent them from getting married for those reasons, I don't think the blood test has been required for quite some time.
I think it's really up to the individual couple to make what I think is a moral decision for themselves.
For the record, I find the OP's motivation for this thread deplorable, but I do believe she has a point. And to that end, I do support marriage for anyone who is fully and capably in love with anyone else. It's only fair.
However, I think the actual instance of incestual marriage would be so low as to really not have that much of an influence genetically (if I'm wrong about that someone correct me).
And we currently do not disallow marriage between two people who have a potentially disastrous genetic combination. We warn them about it, but they are free to take the chance. For example, a much older woman can marry with the higher risk of genetic abnormalities, as can two people who carry genes that may mean they pass on serious problems. We don't prevent them from getting married for those reasons, I don't think the blood test has been required for quite some time.
I think it's really up to the individual couple to make what I think is a moral decision for themselves.
The OP has a point only if you believe the three situations she describes have parity. They don't.
And I've stated myself that incestual marriage would not have much of an influence genetically. But incest isn't going to be an attractive option in the general population of the country. It becomes an option in isolated population subsets, where it is more likely to become systemic and abusive. And that is why the government has an interest in regulating incest, if not in outlawing it.
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.
