Gay Marriage Legal

[mjr]

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

The only so-called "gotcha" is this:

Is there a circumstance, assuming both parties are consenting and of legal age, where marriage should not be allowed? If so, why?

[Lachrymose]

I called your bluff, mjr. Want to address it?

[mjr]

I called your bluff, mjr. Want to address it?

Absolutely I'll address it.

There was no bluff. You're consistent with your position. I'm just trying to see where others draw the line.

[Lachrymose]

Fair enough.

Edit: I'll admit I *seem* to be in the minority in my consistency here. I await others' responses as well.

[mjr]

Fair enough.

Edit: I'll admit I *seem* to be in the minority in my consistency here. I await others' responses as well.

Yeah, I mean, if it's supposed to be about "marriage equality", if a brother and a sister want to marry, why is that illegal? Shouldn't they have the same marriage equality?

Your position is consistent in that they should.

[Gravekeeper]

Yeah, I mean, if it's supposed to be about "marriage equality", if a brother and a sister want to marry, why is that illegal? Shouldn't they have the same marriage equality?

Your position is consistent in that they should.

This is still an idiotic argument you are trying to make and you're doing so by trying to twist a term which does not and has not ever meant what you are arguing. If you are going to, yet again, try to equate this with incest then please, again, demonstrate how gay marriage is a genetic problem.

Also, what in the world are you trying to prove by arguing "consistency"? This is not a simple 100% black or white argument. There are valid reasons behind the taboo of incest. There are no valid reasons behind opposing gay marriage. Unless you think "I think two weiners is icky", "I think Jesus hates it" or "I think its seriously any of my business what other people do in the bedroom." are valid reasons.

[s_stabeler]

to newer the point about mental illness, I'd say there shouldn't be a ban. now, this appears to contradict my previous position. I'll explain: generational incest is the problem, but it's kind of hard to figure out where to draw the line- so an outright ban is the simplest way of doing it. In the case of mental illness, then the risk of the kid inheriting the mental illness is fixed- if you do have a kid, they'll have a similar risk to you. In the case of incest, the risk (if they also fall for a close relative) is increased further. Then there is the risk of there having been some form of power dynamics influencing the situation- for example, in a father/daughter or mother/son relationship, I would be wondering if the older person had been influencing the younger person.

ultimately, however, I agree with what other people are saying: WTF does it even matter if we don't agree with absolute marriage equality? the point is that at the moment, the prevailing opinion is that gay marriage should be legal. Does it mean that polygamy will be legalized at some point? i doubt it, but possibly, considering that it is far from universally banned. (and to be honest, provided that any restrictions are imposed on both sides- like existing wives have to approve a new one, and existing husbands have to approve a new husband- I fail to see the problem,) does it mean that my support for gay marriage is irrelevant? no. As I said, it is a different topic.

especially since it involves a logical fallacy: Y s not absolutely perfect, so since perfection is not on the table, yhe existing state Z should persist. Its' the same damn attitude that caused unreasonable complaints about the ACA ( people being paraded about as examples of people who lost monye due to the ACA, and it being trumpeted as proof the ACA just made the situation worse. Nope- while I have sympathy for them, and agree the ACA is not perfect, it is an improvement.)

[Canarr]

First of all: glad to see the US Supreme Court arrived in the 21st century. Hadn't expected it, to be honest.

The only so-called "gotcha" is this:

Is there a circumstance, assuming both parties are consenting and of legal age, where marriage should not be allowed? If so, why?

Second: yes, there should be. Siblings should not be allowed to pursue a romantic/sexual relationship of any kind. Neither should parents and their children, for that matter. The reason, for me, isn't incest, or any higher risk of genetic defects: it's simply that I don't believe people who basically grew up together will ever be able to have a truly equal relationship as a couple.

In my experience, there is always a difference in power between siblings, with the older one being the one with more power - simply due to the fact that the younger sibling will have been under the older's influence for basically all their life. The older one's approval is normally very important for the younger sibling, and so they will - consciously or not - modify their behavior to please their older brother or sister. They will like what they like, want what they want, and try to do what they do.

Of course, that's not true for all siblings; but it is for enough that I wouldn't feel comfortable allowing such a relationship for siblings, since I could never be certain that either party's consent is actually real, and not more or less groomed into them over many years.

And, to head off this particular point: yes, I would voice the same objections against relationships between cousins who were raised like siblings, or adoptive siblings without any kind of blood relation. On the other hand, I probably wouldn't object too strenuously against siblings raised separately, who don't meet until they're both adults, forming a a romantic/sexual relationship

And yes, I realise that'd be difficult to pack into a legal structure.

[Lachrymose]

That's an interesting point, Canarr, but we don't restrict non-family individuals from marrying due to differences in power.

As an example, take a boss and employee. And just to make it more analogous, let's say they've been in those positions for 30 years at the same place.

Should we restrict that? Or similar instances thereof?

Edit: Those are actual questions. Not being snarky in any way. I'm always up for reevaluating my views. Maybe we actually *should* restrict those and incestuous marriages for the same reason...I just don't know.

[Kheldarson]

That's an interesting point, Canarr, but we don't restrict non-family individuals from marrying due to differences in power.

As an example, take a boss and employee. And just to make it more analogous, let's say they've been in those positions for 30 years at the same place.

Should we restrict that? Or similar instances thereof?

We already do, to an extent. That's what sexual harassment laws in the work place are for. And most companies have internal rules about dating within departments or even working with family within departments.

[KabeRinnaul]

Well, that's more like it.

Thanks for all you do, mjr.

Anyway, as to the three standard homophobic straw-man arguments brought out here, yeah. I don't have terribly too much problem with them, once certain issues are addressed, which pretty much all involve consent and equality.

First, I think bestiality was mentioned. Well, considering that our definition of "animal" is woefully limited, if we're talking about a creature intelligent enough to indicate its understanding and consent, then sure. Go for it.



Feel free to insert your own "brony wants a pony waifu" joke here, too.

It's Applejack, for the record.

Polygamy is just a matter of more complex marriage contracts and somehow ensuring equality within the relationship.

GK and Canarr pretty much covered incest already. The real problem isn't the slightly-higher risk of genetic defects, but that incestuous relationships, being based on a previously-existing strong relationship, are rarely equal. This inequality tends to produce abusive relationships. But there are many types of relationship that can be founded in inequality and result in abuse, and those are rarely illegal. And this type of abusive relationship isn't going to be particularly hampered by remaining unmarried.

Frankly, this is one thing that I think the Catholic Church does right. You have to meet with a priest several times before the wedding in a Catholic marriage. Having a couple go through marriage counseling before they even get the marriage license might not be a bad idea.

[wolfie]

Second: yes, there should be. Siblings should not be allowed to pursue a romantic/sexual relationship of any kind. Neither should parents and their children, for that matter. The reason, for me, isn't incest, or any higher risk of genetic defects: it's simply that I don't believe people who basically grew up together will ever be able to have a truly equal relationship as a couple.

So where would you stand regarding the following couples getting together?

- Peter and Cindy (The Brady Bunch), biologically unrelated (i.e. no genetic issue) but raised as brother and sister since early in elementary school (would be superimposing a sexual relationship on a pre-existing sibling relationship).

- Luke and Leia (Star Wars), biologically brother and sister (genetic component is there), but separated as infants and later reunited as adults (no previous interaction as siblings).

Interestingly enough, among the kibbutzim (spelling? - collective farms in Israel), children are "creche raised" (instead of individual families, all the children from the collective are raised together). There are VERY few marriages between people close in age who were raised on the same kibbutz - looks like a case of not regarding "social family" as spouse material.

Polygamy is just a matter of more complex marriage contracts and somehow ensuring equality within the relationship.

Now that same-sex marriage is legal in the U.S., we can't assume that all sexual contact in a polygynous marriage (what most of us picture when we hear "polygamy" - one man, multiple women) is M-F. Does this mean that if 2 of the co-wives are closely related they could be charged with incest? Considering the small sizes and closed nature of the communities that practice polygyny, after a generation or two it would be very hard to find groups of women who are NOT of a prohibited degree of cosanguity.

[NecCat]

GK and Canarr pretty much covered incest already. The real problem isn't the slightly-higher risk of genetic defects, but that incestuous relationships, being based on a previously-existing strong relationship, are rarely equal. This inequality tends to produce abusive relationships.

Most (definitely not all) incestuous relationships are among family members who were not raised together

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction

There would be no pre-existing authority levels in such relationships to be more likely to cause abuse than any other relationship. I also find it hard to justify denying an entire subsection of relationship due to worry of genetic defects, since there is also an increased risk of genetic defects with:
People with existing medical conditions,
People who's parents or grandparents had medical conditions
People who conceive later in life
People who are exposed to certain chemicals or radiation at work during conception or gestation

The list is too long to continue. If we are not going to require everyone else to fit prime baby making criteria before conceiving how can society justify stopping one particular group - oh yeah, it's kind of icky, right?

I have no objection to allowing incestuous relationships between people that met as adults. (As a side note, I also have no objection to any other consenting adults marrying, including gay ones.)

[Gravekeeper]

Polygamy is a reaaaallly tricky one both legally and psychologically ( potential relationship power dynamics with more than 2 people, yikes ). Legally, because it is utterly rife for abuse because lets face it, regardless of the intent of such a law its going to be used primarily by religious fundies and with them, a host of abuse, misogyny, etc.

I am not saying anything about it as a relationship format, just as a theoretical legal construct in a modern country. Personally, I think it just seems to be the way certain people are wired and that is fine by me. Whatever floats your boat. The very few people I have known who have been genuinely poly have no more understood my monogamy than I understood their polygamy.

I don't really care who or what you want to stick it in or have it stuck in you by long as no ones being hurt, exploited, abused, etc. Whatever makes you happy, its not my business unless you're fucking on my lawn ( or directly fucking my lawn itself, if that's your thing. ). In which case I will turn the hose on you.

Other than that though.

[Rageaholic]

Homophobic asshole Bryan Fischer had a meltdown on twitter. He's calling 6/26 "the new 9/11". I knew there'd be butthurt, but this is crazy, even by fundie standards.