Active Users:542 Time:05/04/2025 07:32:00 AM
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage Isaac Send a noteboard - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM
and discussing it as a legal and romantic bond between individuals (i don't mean romantic as in roses and candles, but that sort of love as opposed to familial or friendly love), then there's not that much wrong with incest or polygamy either.


Good honest answer. Probably best to limit it to a legal bond, since enforcing love as an aspect of marriage is effectively impossible, a mass invasion of privacy, and from a traditional POV often not the case, lots of 'traditional' marriages were basically just real estate deals and/or breeding compacts between families as you know. As various components of marriage go, love's mostly irrelevant to gay marriage anyway since barring a very few fiery eyed zealots no one seems to think gays can't love each other.

In the end, I believe marriage should be about bringing people who love each other into one whole and complete family, with all the various benefits families tend to have. Of course, an incestuous marriage would be rather redundant in this respect and defeat the purpose. Anyway, if this was merely about titles (wife/husband) and ceremonies, then this wouldn't be an issue at all, so I think that an incestuous marriage is a different situation as your family is already your family.


Titles tend to be important to people, since both Rush Limbaugh and Barrack Obama agree that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed but civil unions should be, would tend to make ya wonder what the debate is over, if not titles. I do happen to believe your definition, essentially bringing people together to form a new family node, ideally a loving one, is the preferred one, but pretty much all three - gay, poly, incest - and loveless marriages or elderly marriages fly into technical difficulties on that score. What I'm getting at with my OP is that virtually none of the objections or arguments in favor of just about any of these can't also apply to one of the others, and in part because there really is no set defined standard to get married. Incest being the weirdest of course, because as you say there is already a pre-existing love situation and pre-existing established titles and traditional relations, grandparents and aunts/uncles are regular involved with kids, often as a primary caregiver and living in the same home. However, that interference with pre-existing traditional roles that would apply to incest also flips onto gay marriage, there is not to my knowledge any tradition of it, even though obviously history is packed with examples of prolonged gay or non-romantic same gender family partnerships. We've also got that most 'love-centered' relations between people fall as romantic, family, or friend bonds, clearly most of us believe romantic and friend, and family and friend, are not only not mutually exclusive but added positives. So again, you get stuck with for/against arguments that would seem to apply equally well to other options.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein

King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
Reply to message
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 1022 Views
One small problem... - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 1040 Views
Re tax. - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1086 Views
That seems sensible to me. - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 934 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1079 Views
Nice. *NM* - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 608 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 1068 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
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 500 Views
Indeed - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 1058 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
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 502 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 532 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
Gah! You did that on purpose! - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 944 Views
whoops *NM* - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 454 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 978 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
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1306 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 909 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 950 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 504 Views
Did I say there was anything? - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1068 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
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 894 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 1048 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 1070 Views
... - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 943 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1078 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 885 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 1009 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 890 Views
Great post Danny - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 767 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
+1 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1092 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 915 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
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 909 Views
It also doesn't say they can - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 919 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 916 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 933 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
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 856 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 481 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 487 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1102 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 1068 Views
I agree - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 792 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1145 Views
Note it all you want... - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 783 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

Reply to Message