Active Users:1063 Time:14/11/2024 06:37:16 AM
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. :P


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"
Reply to message
Let's ban all Christian Marriage. - 07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM 1530 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 958 Views
One small problem... - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 978 Views
Re tax. - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1011 Views
That seems sensible to me. - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 854 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1013 Views
Nice. *NM* - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 583 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1180 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 992 Views
Who else should make those decisions? - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 940 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 905 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1052 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 472 Views
Indeed - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 990 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 977 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 891 Views
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 474 Views
*Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 860 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 503 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 953 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 915 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 870 Views
whoops *NM* - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 437 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 906 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 851 Views
You cannot be that stupid. - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1137 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1225 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 846 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 881 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 474 Views
Did I say there was anything? - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 998 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 918 Views
Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 871 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 854 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 965 Views
Not really - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 823 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 954 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 835 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 980 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 995 Views
... - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 875 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM 883 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM 845 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM 940 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1009 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 820 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 935 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 820 Views
Great post Danny - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 690 Views
It should be noted again... - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 985 Views
and how is it not a right? - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 857 Views
My definition of rights... - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 985 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 750 Views
+1 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1036 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 847 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 972 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1157 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 845 Views
It also doesn't say they can - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 850 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 841 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 865 Views
To clarify for you - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 773 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1218 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 782 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 454 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 459 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1027 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 923 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1002 Views
I agree - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 728 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1081 Views
Note it all you want... - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 721 Views
The best one yet. - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 969 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 846 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 953 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 833 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 955 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 930 Views

Reply to Message