Gay Marriage Legal

[wolfie]

I wonder if some of the states opposed to gay marriage will bring in legislation along the lines of "For purposes of marriage, all men are deemed to be brothers, and all women are deemed to be sisters".

[mjr]

Hey, why not let brothers and sisters get married? Or first cousins? Or second cousins? Or third cousins? Or heck, and uncle and a niece (provided the legal age requirement is met)?

Maybe we'll end up with a lot more people being their own grandpa.

You know, if they're consenting adults and love each other in that way...why not?

[s_stabeler]

Hey, why not let brothers and sisters get married? Or first cousins? Or second cousins? Or third cousins? Or heck, and uncle and a niece (provided the legal age requirement is met)?

Maybe we'll end up with a lot more people being their own grandpa.

You know, if they're consenting adults and love each other in that way...why not?

it's a different topic, but the issue with incest is that it increases the risk of genetic problems. it's not a massive increase ( it's something like 3% risk to 5% risk) but as increasing generations are incestuous, it increases. So my personal opinion is they can have whatever relationship they want, but they probably should not have kids. ( it's why I know there is an exception to incest laws in a few places where one of the two are sterile)

[Lachrymose]

Hey, why not let brothers and sisters get married? Or first cousins? Or second cousins? Or third cousins? Or heck, and uncle and a niece (provided the legal age requirement is met)?

Maybe we'll end up with a lot more people being their own grandpa.

You know, if they're consenting adults and love each other in that way...why not?

Agreed.

[Jester]

I do have Facebook friends who are opposed to this ruling for various reasons.

I have not had any of them de-friend me for my clearly positive posts about it. Nor have I de-friended any of them. Probably because the conservative friends I do have either (a) actually support this ruling, (b) don't care about it, (c) have not said a word about it, or (d) have been respectful in their objections. In other words, no wing nuts, no meltdowns.

We disagree on this issue, and we're still friends. But we express our disagreement politely and respectfully. No name-calling, no histrionics, no Bible-thumping. I think a lot of people have either accepted it as part of the time we live in, have resigned themselves to the reality of it, or just aren't saying much about it.

To be fair, most of my friends are on board with this. And many of my more conservative friends either live in Key West or visit here often, so the whole gay thing is not foreign or strange to them. Most of them, to be honest, are not opposed to the gay lifestyle, just gay marriage. What can I say? I only know the more tolerant conservatives. Lol!

[Gravekeeper]

Hey, why not let brothers and sisters get married? Or first cousins? Or second cousins? Or third cousins? Or heck, and uncle and a niece (provided the legal age requirement is met)?

Maybe we'll end up with a lot more people being their own grandpa.

You know, if they're consenting adults and love each other in that way...why not?

Not sure if serious ( Because this "Argument" is incredibly fucking stupid ).

Also it's already legal to marry your first cousin in 21 states, your second cousin in 48 and your third cousin in all of them. -.-

[mjr]

So then you believe there IS a line that can be drawn about who can marry whom.

Correct?

[s_stabeler]

when it only affects the two,people involved, then no, I don't believe that a line can be drawn. ( I'll even go as far as to say that an animal that was truly capable of consent would be no problem- I'd consider it icky, but the reason for anti-bestiality laws is an animal's inability to consent)

However, when a particular marriage can affect people other than the participants in said marriage- as in the case of incest- then it is legitimate to draw the line.

[Lachrymose]

So then you believe there IS a line that can be drawn about who can marry whom.

Correct?

I absolutely do not.

I believe two (or more) consenting adults, no matter who they are, should be able to marry. I'm personally not into marrying members of my own family or polygamy, but who am I to deny it to others?

(I'm aware there might be logistical issues with this, but perhaps these should be next to be worked out.)

[Anthony K. S.]

Hey, why not let brothers and sisters get married? Or first cousins? Or second cousins? Or third cousins? Or heck, and uncle and a niece (provided the legal age requirement is met)?

You know what?

You're absolutely right.

We ought to just ban heterosexual marriage altogether. That way, we wouldn't have to worry about stuff like that.

[Lindsay B.]

This could have been the Plessy vs. Ferguson of our time. Instead, it will stand tall and proud as the Brown vs. Board of Education of same-sex marriage.

Here in New York, same-sex marriage has been legal for close to four years. I have gay and lesbian friends who have been able to have their bonds of love recognized by the state, something they have far too long been denied. And now ...



My to all of the same-sex couples who will finally be able to obtain the long-overdue legal recognition of their marriages.

[Rapscallion]

Hey, why not let brothers and sisters get married? Or first cousins? Or second cousins? Or third cousins? Or heck, and uncle and a niece (provided the legal age requirement is met)?

Maybe we'll end up with a lot more people being their own grandpa.

You know, if they're consenting adults and love each other in that way...why not?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJPm52rmKYI

Just throwing that in there.

Rapscallion

[Lindsay B.]

However, when a particular marriage can affect people other than the participants in said marriage- as in the case of incest- then it is legitimate to draw the line.

This is a very difficult point for me to resolve.

I have a friend (who I have mentioned in a couple of other threads) who has a mental illness, one that is now thankfully controlled with medication and therapy. She and her fiance have decided not to have children, because of the possibility of inheriting her illness. (They are considering adoption instead.)

... But if they wished to have a biological child, should they not be allowed to? Also, if we were to accept that procreation is naturally a part of marriage, then should my friend not be allowed to get married at all?

As you mentioned earlier, there is an increased risk of genetic problems if an incestuous couple were to have children. But does this justify a legal barrier? We do not, after all, bar people with hereditary illnesses from getting married or having children if they choose to. Nor, I believe, should we.

Please understand, I am not arguing for or against allowing people who are biological relatives to marry. What I am trying to do is find a position that is internally consistent. In other words, I don't want to be a hypocrite.

But this is, as you said, a separate topic. I don't see any reason why permitting same-sex marriage would require permitting incestuous marriage. In fact, as Anthony pointed out, a marriage between a brother and sister actually has more in common with a traditional heterosexual marriage than same-sex marriage.

[MadMike]

What I'm not liking right now is my mother in law posting things like "GOD says what marriage is, not the Supreme Court!"

Gotta love these people who live under the mistaken belief that this country is a theocracy.

[Gravekeeper]

So then you believe there IS a line that can be drawn about who can marry whom.

Correct?

I breathlessly await whatever "gotcha" point you think you're making here. -.-

Also, for the record, marrying your cousin is only taboo in western culture. Even from a genetic standpoint, two cousins marrying carries a very minimal genetic risk. Its generational cousin incest with no outside blood, ala European royalty, that leads to all sorts of problems.

Obviously, direct relatives is another matter all together.

But, this is all moot though unless you are seriously about to argue that gays marrying has some sort of demonstrable negative effect on the gene pool, let alone society as a whole.