Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
snoopcester Send a noteboard - 09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM
The former, one of the reasons I raise incest is it is an example of the states being able to bar marriage between people, hence, arguments revolving around the states having no right to ban marriages are logically flawed. Arguments that the state should not possess that power are another matter, but as is, if someone states that no such right exist, they are overlooking precedent.
Ah, sounds like you are disagreeing on opinion then - around what is actually a right, what it intails and what, if anything, overrides it.
I should imagine we'd agree that 'messes' something might introduce into legislation aren't really good reasons to keep a ban on something. 

An interesting point in this is that it isn't exactly a ban, just a limit on how far the rights and benefits of marriage should be spread. You can legally have a relationship with as many partners as you like, you're still just going to get the same as a couple do though and the simplest way to do it is to only allow a marriage between two people, since it doesn't involve rewriting a huge volume of laws. Still though, you can be married in religion to multiple partners (people moving to the UK who are married to multiple partners have to nominate one on moving here to be the one who recieves the benefits and rights)
That applies to polygamy pretty often too. Or, say, someone adopting an adolescent then marrying them when they turn 18, pretty foul but I don't think "grooming" can be a blanket reason, since it wouldn't apply to people of the same age (sibs/cousins) in all likelihood. Also, every state has different laws and qualifiers for incest, some allow first cousins. But yes, of course there's the genetic defect thing, but gay unions can't produce kids, so incest unions who agree not too breed would seem equally legit, and again their is an issue, is incest the only situation where a higher-than-average-probability of genetic defects bars marriage, should it be, should others be for that reason, etc.
It is an old charge against polygamy - not sure it holds true in the same way though (since you can have a polygamous relationship, you just can't marry, so a clear difference there) and I'm not sure if it is actually a true issue now or just an old fear?
Most of your argument in there really is down to the fact there is a big grey area around exactly where the cut off points are... but then that exsts everywhere (different countries have different laws, after all). It is about balancing the rights of the people (those of having a relationship of their choice against their right to protection)
I'm slightly lost on what you are arguing with regards to children - same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because there is no risk of children but rather regardless of it. A male-female relationship carries a risk that they will have children - people can lie, doctors can mess up etc.
*MySmiley*
Robert Graves "There is no money in poetry, but then there is no poetry in money, either."
Henning Mankell "We must defend the open society, because if we start locking our doors, if we let fear decide, the person who committed the act of terror will win"
Robert Graves "There is no money in poetry, but then there is no poetry in money, either."
Henning Mankell "We must defend the open society, because if we start locking our doors, if we let fear decide, the person who committed the act of terror will win"
Let's ban all Christian Marriage.
07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM
- 1617 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me.
07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM
- 1023 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people.
07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM
- 1254 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there!
07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM
- 1069 Views
Who else should make those decisions?
07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM
- 1007 Views
I'd totally...
08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM
- 964 Views
I'd totally...
08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM
- 1124 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering.
08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM
- 1055 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged
08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM
- 964 Views
*Shakes Head*
08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM
- 925 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM*
08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM
- 533 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense.
08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM
- 1024 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense.
08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM
- 993 Views
Re: *Shakes Head*
08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM
- 978 Views
I still do not see how you think marriage is a "pointless" institution
08/08/2010 08:05:45 PM
- 1075 Views
No, I was referring to same-sex marriage. Real marriage hardly counts as a novelty. *NM*
11/08/2010 02:28:43 PM
- 443 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about.
08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM
- 923 Views
You cannot be that stupid.
11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM
- 1203 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
- 1076 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM
- 950 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad.
09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM
- 989 Views
Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM
- 936 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM
- 925 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM
- 1038 Views
Not really
09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM
- 897 Views
Re: Not really
09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM
- 1028 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives.
11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM
- 1070 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM
- 973 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM
- 910 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM
- 1017 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM
- 1033 Views
It should be noted again...
09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM
- 1061 Views
and how is it not a right?
09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM
- 934 Views
My definition of rights...
09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM
- 1059 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right.
10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM
- 819 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example
10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM
- 916 Views

You could just as easily move the emphasis...
10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM
- 1042 Views
If we need a more specific resolution...
10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM
- 1216 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM
- 911 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM
- 1228 Views
That's really a ridiculous stance, you do realize.
10/08/2010 03:23:02 PM
- 874 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
- 701 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 03:46:56 PM
- 1106 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though.
10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM
- 909 Views
I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
10/08/2010 06:09:32 PM
- 908 Views
Re: I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
10/08/2010 06:33:56 PM
- 842 Views
It's mentioned as a right in some SC decision quoted in that Walker opinion. *NM*
10/08/2010 06:51:13 PM
- 453 Views
To clarify for you
10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM
- 844 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body...
10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM
- 1283 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body'
10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM
- 882 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
- 1152 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless....
10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM
- 856 Views
Why don't YOU back up your assertion that the right to marry exists? *NM*
11/08/2010 03:16:02 PM
- 492 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right.
10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM
- 989 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction...
10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM
- 1069 Views
Note it all you want...
10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM
- 783 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
- 503 Views
The best one yet.
10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM
- 1041 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM
- 908 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM
- 1018 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM
- 905 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM
- 1029 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM
- 1014 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM
- 982 Views