Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Then quote the court rulings supporting it. Or will these be like your 'lawmakers who disagree' with me? More meaningless gibberish of you citing yourself?Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?
It is not up to the individual to disprove your claim of state compelling interest.
If you have a case to make for incest marriage and polygamy....make it.
What are the odds you'll give us the same snivelling excuses that Pop always does?
Polygamists are already making it.
Incestophiles will eventually make it.
Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?
It is not up to the individual to disprove your claim of state compelling interest. If this were the case, the state could just deem whatever to be in 'compelling interest' and that would be that. A free society such as ours is not shackled to such tyranny, we are a self-governing society. We can challenge what you claim to be "compelling interest" the same as it was challenged for gays or any number of other individuals who had an issue with their rights through the years. We can also establish what IS or ISN'T a "compelling interest" and forge that into law because we retain that power as the people.
The onus is on YOU to provide a "compelling interest" and if you cannot provide one we all agree on and accept, then it can be brought into question... which it has been. None of you has provided a sufficient "compelling interest" in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling. You sound exactly like the people who opposed gay marriage. It's as if those justifications are all legitimate again!
I have been hanging back and watching this shit fly for a while now and I just can’t stand it anymore. To say that close relative marriage is the same as same sex marriage is that same and if the latter is allowed , so must the former is just as stupid as stupid gets. I wrote this well prior to Obergefell and it still has relevance now. If anyone thinks that they will kill gay marriage with this sort of nonsensical fear mongering, you are sadly mistaken. The burden of proof to provide a compelling reason-or at least a rational basis- for not allowing related people to marry. Without taking a position on it here, this is one way they are likely to be able to do just that. Note that none of these reasons have anything to do with unrelated same sex couples.
On Marriage Between Close Relatives: By Progressive Patriot 1.2.14
So the argument is that if gay marriage is to be allowed, there is no reason to not allow marriage between brothers and sisters; parents and siblings and in short, any two consenting adults. Furthermore, anyone who opposes that idea is being accused of hypocrisy and of being opposed to true equality……marriage for all.
Before I proceed, I want to be perfectly clear about the fact that I know exactly why people raise this and other similar issues. It’s a blatant and intellectually dishonest attempt to derail the conversation regarding marriage equality- marriage that is equal to what Heterosexuals enjoy-nothing more- and to thwart the progress being made by the gay community in combating bigotry
They are using a logical fallacy in the form of weak analogy because there are important and distinct difference between marriages involving unrelated people, as opposed to closely related people. As we will see below, there are many pitfalls related to inbreeding, beyond the obvious biological/ genetic issues. The relationship between close relatives, married or not will never be comparable to that of two unrelated people.
Moreover it is an appeal to hypocrisy, a type of ad hominem in which the opponent is attacked for being inconsistent rather than making an argument directly related to the issue, because they are unable to do so. It matters little if there is in fact any inconsistency, or hypocrisy because the issue has no bearing on the merits of the main argument-in this case for gay marriage.
So, while I will-to a point- indulge those making this argument, I am not fooled by it for a nanosecond. They’re making a simple matter complicated and attempting to stoke the fears of others who may be prone to think, oh my god!
Now to get to the point. I am well aware of the fact that while there is no universal prohibition against consanguineous marriage, however “all human societies however primitive or geographically isolated, prohibit the mating of first degree relatives, namely the mating between parents and children and brothers and sisters (incest)”. http://www.infolanka.com/org/genetics/essays/essayrj3.htm
Aside from siblings and parent-child marriage, and such, kin groupings may be extremely nepotistic and distrusting of non-family members in the larger society. In this context, non-democratic regimes emerge as a consequence of individuals turning to reliable kinship groupings for support rather than to the state or the free market. It has been found, for example, that societies having high levels of familism tend to have low levels of generalized trust and civic engagement (Realo, Allik, & Greenfield, 2008), two important correlates of democracy. Moreover, to people in closely related kin groups, individualism and the recognition of individual rights, which are part of the cultural idiom of democracy, are perceived as strange and counterintuitive ideological abstractions (Sailer, 2004 - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/cousin-marriage-and-thdemocracy.html#sthash.YYRm9Or4.dpuf
In addition, while over time marriage has taken on many forms and meaning, and the relationships between that participants have evolved, one point that there seems to be a wide consensus on is that a central part of marriage is to form a new family out of two existing families, in order to pool resources and create alliances. To propose marriage between close relatives, regardless of whether or not they are sexual relationships is going beyond redefining marriage and family to destroying the concept of the family unit as we know it. Family lines and relationships would be blurred and distorted beyond recognition, and rendered meaningless. A daughter might also be a wife, a brother might also be a husband. Would he be a father or an uncle to any children that she might bear? Consider the legal and social ramifications.
Some societies are endogamous in nature- meaning societies that are stratified—that is, divided into unequal classes—often prescribe different degrees of endogamy where marriage opportunities are narrowly defined within a group. We on the other hand are an exogamous society. Through exogamy, otherwise unrelated households or lineages will form relationships through marriage, thus strengthening social solidarity. Opportunities for marriage are generally open and cross class, religious and ethnic lines resulting in a more diverse and thus healthier society. Yes, I should say, there is indeed a compelling government and societal interest in not allowing close relative marriage. It should be understood by the traditionalists, that close relative marriage would be the real departure from tradition.
For the second time....when did I ever say that marriage requires sex?
Just quote me. Or....you can continue to run, desperately trying to change the topic. Either works for me.
When you imply that same sex sibling marriage would be incestuous we can easily see the warped, hater dupe world you live in.
That's not a quote. That's you making up a narrative for me that I've never uttered as a hapless deflection of a cartoon simple request:
Make your case for incest marriage and polygamy.
You speak of nothing else. In any thread. You're simply obsessed. But when asked to present your argument....you flee. Even you treat your claims like garbage.
Why would you expect me to treat you claims any differently?
You keep claiming I promote illegal activities, which I never have, then have the utter audacity to ask for a quote from me?
Par for the course for someone who argues that his fellow citizens be denied the very rights he enjoys. And why does he argue that, because these nice, law abiding citizens were born the way they were.
Next you will want to turn back the clock to when sodamy was illegal and we through gays and blacks into prison for simply exsersizing their God given rights!
Go back to your clan of knuckle draggers and let us progressive Americans take care of things.
I say that you speak of nothing but incest marriage and polygamy. On any thread. They are your sole topic of conversation, your personal obsession.
Make your case for polygamy and incest marriage. As you certainly couldn't quote me ever saying that sex is a requirement of marriage.
I have NEVER promoted illegal activity you knuckle dragging racist bigot.
Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?
It is not up to the individual to disprove your claim of state compelling interest. If this were the case, the state could just deem whatever to be in 'compelling interest' and that would be that. A free society such as ours is not shackled to such tyranny, we are a self-governing society. We can challenge what you claim to be "compelling interest" the same as it was challenged for gays or any number of other individuals who had an issue with their rights through the years. We can also establish what IS or ISN'T a "compelling interest" and forge that into law because we retain that power as the people.
The onus is on YOU to provide a "compelling interest" and if you cannot provide one we all agree on and accept, then it can be brought into question... which it has been. None of you has provided a sufficient "compelling interest" in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling. You sound exactly like the people who opposed gay marriage. It's as if those justifications are all legitimate again!
I have been hanging back and watching this shit fly for a while now and I just can’t stand it anymore. To say that close relative marriage is the same as same sex marriage is that same and if the latter is allowed , so must the former is just as stupid as stupid gets. I wrote this well prior to Obergefell and it still has relevance now. If anyone thinks that they will kill gay marriage with this sort of nonsensical fear mongering, you are sadly mistaken. The burden of proof to provide a compelling reason-or at least a rational basis- for not allowing related people to marry. Without taking a position on it here, this is one way they are likely to be able to do just that. Note that none of these reasons have anything to do with unrelated same sex couples.
On Marriage Between Close Relatives: By Progressive Patriot 1.2.14
So the argument is that if gay marriage is to be allowed, there is no reason to not allow marriage between brothers and sisters; parents and siblings and in short, any two consenting adults. Furthermore, anyone who opposes that idea is being accused of hypocrisy and of being opposed to true equality……marriage for all.
Before I proceed, I want to be perfectly clear about the fact that I know exactly why people raise this and other similar issues. It’s a blatant and intellectually dishonest attempt to derail the conversation regarding marriage equality- marriage that is equal to what Heterosexuals enjoy-nothing more- and to thwart the progress being made by the gay community in combating bigotry
They are using a logical fallacy in the form of weak analogy because there are important and distinct difference between marriages involving unrelated people, as opposed to closely related people. As we will see below, there are many pitfalls related to inbreeding, beyond the obvious biological/ genetic issues. The relationship between close relatives, married or not will never be comparable to that of two unrelated people.
Moreover it is an appeal to hypocrisy, a type of ad hominem in which the opponent is attacked for being inconsistent rather than making an argument directly related to the issue, because they are unable to do so. It matters little if there is in fact any inconsistency, or hypocrisy because the issue has no bearing on the merits of the main argument-in this case for gay marriage.
So, while I will-to a point- indulge those making this argument, I am not fooled by it for a nanosecond. They’re making a simple matter complicated and attempting to stoke the fears of others who may be prone to think, oh my god!
Now to get to the point. I am well aware of the fact that while there is no universal prohibition against consanguineous marriage, however “all human societies however primitive or geographically isolated, prohibit the mating of first degree relatives, namely the mating between parents and children and brothers and sisters (incest)”. http://www.infolanka.com/org/genetics/essays/essayrj3.htm
Aside from siblings and parent-child marriage, and such, kin groupings may be extremely nepotistic and distrusting of non-family members in the larger society. In this context, non-democratic regimes emerge as a consequence of individuals turning to reliable kinship groupings for support rather than to the state or the free market. It has been found, for example, that societies having high levels of familism tend to have low levels of generalized trust and civic engagement (Realo, Allik, & Greenfield, 2008), two important correlates of democracy. Moreover, to people in closely related kin groups, individualism and the recognition of individual rights, which are part of the cultural idiom of democracy, are perceived as strange and counterintuitive ideological abstractions (Sailer, 2004 - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/cousin-marriage-and-thdemocracy.html#sthash.YYRm9Or4.dpuf
In addition, while over time marriage has taken on many forms and meaning, and the relationships between that participants have evolved, one point that there seems to be a wide consensus on is that a central part of marriage is to form a new family out of two existing families, in order to pool resources and create alliances. To propose marriage between close relatives, regardless of whether or not they are sexual relationships is going beyond redefining marriage and family to destroying the concept of the family unit as we know it. Family lines and relationships would be blurred and distorted beyond recognition, and rendered meaningless. A daughter might also be a wife, a brother might also be a husband. Would he be a father or an uncle to any children that she might bear? Consider the legal and social ramifications.
Some societies are endogamous in nature- meaning societies that are stratified—that is, divided into unequal classes—often prescribe different degrees of endogamy where marriage opportunities are narrowly defined within a group. We on the other hand are an exogamous society. Through exogamy, otherwise unrelated households or lineages will form relationships through marriage, thus strengthening social solidarity. Opportunities for marriage are generally open and cross class, religious and ethnic lines resulting in a more diverse and thus healthier society. Yes, I should say, there is indeed a compelling government and societal interest in not allowing close relative marriage. It should be understood by the traditionalists, that close relative marriage would be the real departure from tradition.
I get it, same sex sibling marriage is different than same sex marriage so it shouldn't be legal, but same sex marriage is different then opposite sex marriage so it should......
When you imply that same sex sibling marriage would be incestuous we can easily see the warped, hater dupe world you live in.
That's not a quote. That's you making up a narrative for me that I've never uttered as a hapless deflection of a cartoon simple request:
Make your case for incest marriage and polygamy.
You speak of nothing else. In any thread. You're simply obsessed. But when asked to present your argument....you flee. Even you treat your claims like garbage.
Why would you expect me to treat you claims any differently?
You keep claiming I promote illegal activities, which I never have, then have the utter audacity to ask for a quote from me?
Par for the course for someone who argues that his fellow citizens be denied the very rights he enjoys. And why does he argue that, because these nice, law abiding citizens were born the way they were.
Next you will want to turn back the clock to when sodamy was illegal and we through gays and blacks into prison for simply exsersizing their God given rights!
Go back to your clan of knuckle draggers and let us progressive Americans take care of things.
I say that you speak of nothing but incest marriage and polygamy. On any thread. They are your sole topic of conversation, your personal obsession.
Make your case for polygamy and incest marriage. As you certainly couldn't quote me ever saying that sex is a requirement of marriage.
I have NEVER promoted illegal activity you knuckle dragging racist bigot.
You speak of nothing else but incest marriage and polygamy. In any thread, on any topic. Incest marriage and polygamy are your personal obsessions. You will discuss nothing else.
But when I ask you to simply make your case, to present your arguments regarding equal protection, due process, to cite the cases that you believe support your argument for incest marriage and polygamy....
.......you flee.
Shrugs....keep running.
That's not a quote. That's you making up a narrative for me that I've never uttered as a hapless deflection of a cartoon simple request:
Make your case for incest marriage and polygamy.
You speak of nothing else. In any thread. You're simply obsessed. But when asked to present your argument....you flee. Even you treat your claims like garbage.
Why would you expect me to treat you claims any differently?
You keep claiming I promote illegal activities, which I never have, then have the utter audacity to ask for a quote from me?
Par for the course for someone who argues that his fellow citizens be denied the very rights he enjoys. And why does he argue that, because these nice, law abiding citizens were born the way they were.
Next you will want to turn back the clock to when sodamy was illegal and we through gays and blacks into prison for simply exsersizing their God given rights!
Go back to your clan of knuckle draggers and let us progressive Americans take care of things.
I say that you speak of nothing but incest marriage and polygamy. On any thread. They are your sole topic of conversation, your personal obsession.
Make your case for polygamy and incest marriage. As you certainly couldn't quote me ever saying that sex is a requirement of marriage.
I have NEVER promoted illegal activity you knuckle dragging racist bigot.
You speak of nothing else but incest marriage and polygamy. In any thread, on any topic. Incest marriage and polygamy are your personal obsessions. You will discuss nothing else.
But when I ask you to simply make your case, to present your arguments regarding equal protection, due process, to cite the cases that you believe support your argument for incest marriage and polygamy....
.......you flee.
Shrugs....keep running.
Incest is a crime, since you are acussing me of the promotion of a crime, why don't you just back that assertion up lil guy.
You keep claiming I promote illegal activities, which I never have, then have the utter audacity to ask for a quote from me?
Par for the course for someone who argues that his fellow citizens be denied the very rights he enjoys. And why does he argue that, because these nice, law abiding citizens were born the way they were.
Next you will want to turn back the clock to when sodamy was illegal and we through gays and blacks into prison for simply exsersizing their God given rights!
Go back to your clan of knuckle draggers and let us progressive Americans take care of things.
I say that you speak of nothing but incest marriage and polygamy. On any thread. They are your sole topic of conversation, your personal obsession.
Make your case for polygamy and incest marriage. As you certainly couldn't quote me ever saying that sex is a requirement of marriage.
I have NEVER promoted illegal activity you knuckle dragging racist bigot.
You speak of nothing else but incest marriage and polygamy. In any thread, on any topic. Incest marriage and polygamy are your personal obsessions. You will discuss nothing else.
But when I ask you to simply make your case, to present your arguments regarding equal protection, due process, to cite the cases that you believe support your argument for incest marriage and polygamy....
.......you flee.
Shrugs....keep running.
Incest is a crime, since you are acussing me of the promotion of a crime, why don't you just back that assertion up lil guy.
Like when you accused me of claiming that sex is a requirement of marriage?
Laughing....show me. Quote me making the claim.
I say that you speak of nothing but incest marriage and polygamy. On any thread. They are your sole topic of conversation, your personal obsession.
Make your case for polygamy and incest marriage. As you certainly couldn't quote me ever saying that sex is a requirement of marriage.
I have NEVER promoted illegal activity you knuckle dragging racist bigot.
You speak of nothing else but incest marriage and polygamy. In any thread, on any topic. Incest marriage and polygamy are your personal obsessions. You will discuss nothing else.
But when I ask you to simply make your case, to present your arguments regarding equal protection, due process, to cite the cases that you believe support your argument for incest marriage and polygamy....
.......you flee.
Shrugs....keep running.
Incest is a crime, since you are acussing me of the promotion of a crime, why don't you just back that assertion up lil guy.
Like when you accused me of claiming that sex is a requirement of marriage?
Laughing....show me. Quote me making the claim.
You claim my argument for same sex sibling marriage is somehow the same as incestuous marriage.
Now, move along child, let us progressive adults handle things. I'm sure mommy had some ice cream an cookies for Ya!
Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?
It is not up to the individual to disprove your claim of state compelling interest. If this were the case, the state could just deem whatever to be in 'compelling interest' and that would be that. A free society such as ours is not shackled to such tyranny, we are a self-governing society. We can challenge what you claim to be "compelling interest" the same as it was challenged for gays or any number of other individuals who had an issue with their rights through the years. We can also establish what IS or ISN'T a "compelling interest" and forge that into law because we retain that power as the people.
The onus is on YOU to provide a "compelling interest" and if you cannot provide one we all agree on and accept, then it can be brought into question... which it has been. None of you has provided a sufficient "compelling interest" in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling. You sound exactly like the people who opposed gay marriage. It's as if those justifications are all legitimate again!
I have been hanging back and watching this shit fly for a while now and I just can’t stand it anymore. To say that close relative marriage is the same as same sex marriage is that same and if the latter is allowed , so must the former is just as stupid as stupid gets. I wrote this well prior to Obergefell and it still has relevance now. If anyone thinks that they will kill gay marriage with this sort of nonsensical fear mongering, you are sadly mistaken. The burden of proof to provide a compelling reason-or at least a rational basis- for not allowing related people to marry. Without taking a position on it here, this is one way they are likely to be able to do just that. Note that none of these reasons have anything to do with unrelated same sex couples.
On Marriage Between Close Relatives: By Progressive Patriot 1.2.14
So the argument is that if gay marriage is to be allowed, there is no reason to not allow marriage between brothers and sisters; parents and siblings and in short, any two consenting adults. Furthermore, anyone who opposes that idea is being accused of hypocrisy and of being opposed to true equality……marriage for all.
Before I proceed, I want to be perfectly clear about the fact that I know exactly why people raise this and other similar issues. It’s a blatant and intellectually dishonest attempt to derail the conversation regarding marriage equality- marriage that is equal to what Heterosexuals enjoy-nothing more- and to thwart the progress being made by the gay community in combating bigotry
They are using a logical fallacy in the form of weak analogy because there are important and distinct difference between marriages involving unrelated people, as opposed to closely related people. As we will see below, there are many pitfalls related to inbreeding, beyond the obvious biological/ genetic issues. The relationship between close relatives, married or not will never be comparable to that of two unrelated people.
Moreover it is an appeal to hypocrisy, a type of ad hominem in which the opponent is attacked for being inconsistent rather than making an argument directly related to the issue, because they are unable to do so. It matters little if there is in fact any inconsistency, or hypocrisy because the issue has no bearing on the merits of the main argument-in this case for gay marriage.
So, while I will-to a point- indulge those making this argument, I am not fooled by it for a nanosecond. They’re making a simple matter complicated and attempting to stoke the fears of others who may be prone to think, oh my god!
Now to get to the point. I am well aware of the fact that while there is no universal prohibition against consanguineous marriage, however “all human societies however primitive or geographically isolated, prohibit the mating of first degree relatives, namely the mating between parents and children and brothers and sisters (incest)”. http://www.infolanka.com/org/genetics/essays/essayrj3.htm
Aside from siblings and parent-child marriage, and such, kin groupings may be extremely nepotistic and distrusting of non-family members in the larger society. In this context, non-democratic regimes emerge as a consequence of individuals turning to reliable kinship groupings for support rather than to the state or the free market. It has been found, for example, that societies having high levels of familism tend to have low levels of generalized trust and civic engagement (Realo, Allik, & Greenfield, 2008), two important correlates of democracy. Moreover, to people in closely related kin groups, individualism and the recognition of individual rights, which are part of the cultural idiom of democracy, are perceived as strange and counterintuitive ideological abstractions (Sailer, 2004 - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/cousin-marriage-and-thdemocracy.html#sthash.YYRm9Or4.dpuf
In addition, while over time marriage has taken on many forms and meaning, and the relationships between that participants have evolved, one point that there seems to be a wide consensus on is that a central part of marriage is to form a new family out of two existing families, in order to pool resources and create alliances. To propose marriage between close relatives, regardless of whether or not they are sexual relationships is going beyond redefining marriage and family to destroying the concept of the family unit as we know it. Family lines and relationships would be blurred and distorted beyond recognition, and rendered meaningless. A daughter might also be a wife, a brother might also be a husband. Would he be a father or an uncle to any children that she might bear? Consider the legal and social ramifications.
Some societies are endogamous in nature- meaning societies that are stratified—that is, divided into unequal classes—often prescribe different degrees of endogamy where marriage opportunities are narrowly defined within a group. We on the other hand are an exogamous society. Through exogamy, otherwise unrelated households or lineages will form relationships through marriage, thus strengthening social solidarity. Opportunities for marriage are generally open and cross class, religious and ethnic lines resulting in a more diverse and thus healthier society. Yes, I should say, there is indeed a compelling government and societal interest in not allowing close relative marriage. It should be understood by the traditionalists, that close relative marriage would be the real departure from tradition.
Obviously you missed the entire point, that being-since I have to spell it out -is NOT about them simply being different-but about the implications for society and thus the reasons why government may legitimately deny sibling marriage. Is it possible that you really don't get that or are you just playing stupidAre you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?
It is not up to the individual to disprove your claim of state compelling interest. If this were the case, the state could just deem whatever to be in 'compelling interest' and that would be that. A free society such as ours is not shackled to such tyranny, we are a self-governing society. We can challenge what you claim to be "compelling interest" the same as it was challenged for gays or any number of other individuals who had an issue with their rights through the years. We can also establish what IS or ISN'T a "compelling interest" and forge that into law because we retain that power as the people.
The onus is on YOU to provide a "compelling interest" and if you cannot provide one we all agree on and accept, then it can be brought into question... which it has been. None of you has provided a sufficient "compelling interest" in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling. You sound exactly like the people who opposed gay marriage. It's as if those justifications are all legitimate again!
I have been hanging back and watching this shit fly for a while now and I just can’t stand it anymore. To say that close relative marriage is the same as same sex marriage is that same and if the latter is allowed , so must the former is just as stupid as stupid gets. I wrote this well prior to Obergefell and it still has relevance now. If anyone thinks that they will kill gay marriage with this sort of nonsensical fear mongering, you are sadly mistaken. The burden of proof to provide a compelling reason-or at least a rational basis- for not allowing related people to marry. Without taking a position on it here, this is one way they are likely to be able to do just that. Note that none of these reasons have anything to do with unrelated same sex couples.
On Marriage Between Close Relatives: By Progressive Patriot 1.2.14
So the argument is that if gay marriage is to be allowed, there is no reason to not allow marriage between brothers and sisters; parents and siblings and in short, any two consenting adults. Furthermore, anyone who opposes that idea is being accused of hypocrisy and of being opposed to true equality……marriage for all.
Before I proceed, I want to be perfectly clear about the fact that I know exactly why people raise this and other similar issues. It’s a blatant and intellectually dishonest attempt to derail the conversation regarding marriage equality- marriage that is equal to what Heterosexuals enjoy-nothing more- and to thwart the progress being made by the gay community in combating bigotry
They are using a logical fallacy in the form of weak analogy because there are important and distinct difference between marriages involving unrelated people, as opposed to closely related people. As we will see below, there are many pitfalls related to inbreeding, beyond the obvious biological/ genetic issues. The relationship between close relatives, married or not will never be comparable to that of two unrelated people.
Moreover it is an appeal to hypocrisy, a type of ad hominem in which the opponent is attacked for being inconsistent rather than making an argument directly related to the issue, because they are unable to do so. It matters little if there is in fact any inconsistency, or hypocrisy because the issue has no bearing on the merits of the main argument-in this case for gay marriage.
So, while I will-to a point- indulge those making this argument, I am not fooled by it for a nanosecond. They’re making a simple matter complicated and attempting to stoke the fears of others who may be prone to think, oh my god!
Now to get to the point. I am well aware of the fact that while there is no universal prohibition against consanguineous marriage, however “all human societies however primitive or geographically isolated, prohibit the mating of first degree relatives, namely the mating between parents and children and brothers and sisters (incest)”. http://www.infolanka.com/org/genetics/essays/essayrj3.htm
Aside from siblings and parent-child marriage, and such, kin groupings may be extremely nepotistic and distrusting of non-family members in the larger society. In this context, non-democratic regimes emerge as a consequence of individuals turning to reliable kinship groupings for support rather than to the state or the free market. It has been found, for example, that societies having high levels of familism tend to have low levels of generalized trust and civic engagement (Realo, Allik, & Greenfield, 2008), two important correlates of democracy. Moreover, to people in closely related kin groups, individualism and the recognition of individual rights, which are part of the cultural idiom of democracy, are perceived as strange and counterintuitive ideological abstractions (Sailer, 2004 - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/cousin-marriage-and-thdemocracy.html#sthash.YYRm9Or4.dpuf
In addition, while over time marriage has taken on many forms and meaning, and the relationships between that participants have evolved, one point that there seems to be a wide consensus on is that a central part of marriage is to form a new family out of two existing families, in order to pool resources and create alliances. To propose marriage between close relatives, regardless of whether or not they are sexual relationships is going beyond redefining marriage and family to destroying the concept of the family unit as we know it. Family lines and relationships would be blurred and distorted beyond recognition, and rendered meaningless. A daughter might also be a wife, a brother might also be a husband. Would he be a father or an uncle to any children that she might bear? Consider the legal and social ramifications.
Some societies are endogamous in nature- meaning societies that are stratified—that is, divided into unequal classes—often prescribe different degrees of endogamy where marriage opportunities are narrowly defined within a group. We on the other hand are an exogamous society. Through exogamy, otherwise unrelated households or lineages will form relationships through marriage, thus strengthening social solidarity. Opportunities for marriage are generally open and cross class, religious and ethnic lines resulting in a more diverse and thus healthier society. Yes, I should say, there is indeed a compelling government and societal interest in not allowing close relative marriage. It should be understood by the traditionalists, that close relative marriage would be the real departure from tradition.
I get it, same sex sibling marriage is different than same sex marriage so it shouldn't be legal, but same sex marriage is different then opposite sex marriage so it should......
(Scratches head)
Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?
It is not up to the individual to disprove your claim of state compelling interest. If this were the case, the state could just deem whatever to be in 'compelling interest' and that would be that. A free society such as ours is not shackled to such tyranny, we are a self-governing society. We can challenge what you claim to be "compelling interest" the same as it was challenged for gays or any number of other individuals who had an issue with their rights through the years. We can also establish what IS or ISN'T a "compelling interest" and forge that into law because we retain that power as the people.
The onus is on YOU to provide a "compelling interest" and if you cannot provide one we all agree on and accept, then it can be brought into question... which it has been. None of you has provided a sufficient "compelling interest" in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling. You sound exactly like the people who opposed gay marriage. It's as if those justifications are all legitimate again!
I have been hanging back and watching this shit fly for a while now and I just can’t stand it anymore. To say that close relative marriage is the same as same sex marriage is that same and if the latter is allowed , so must the former is just as stupid as stupid gets. I wrote this well prior to Obergefell and it still has relevance now. If anyone thinks that they will kill gay marriage with this sort of nonsensical fear mongering, you are sadly mistaken. The burden of proof to provide a compelling reason-or at least a rational basis- for not allowing related people to marry. Without taking a position on it here, this is one way they are likely to be able to do just that. Note that none of these reasons have anything to do with unrelated same sex couples.
On Marriage Between Close Relatives: By Progressive Patriot 1.2.14
So the argument is that if gay marriage is to be allowed, there is no reason to not allow marriage between brothers and sisters; parents and siblings and in short, any two consenting adults. Furthermore, anyone who opposes that idea is being accused of hypocrisy and of being opposed to true equality……marriage for all.
Before I proceed, I want to be perfectly clear about the fact that I know exactly why people raise this and other similar issues. It’s a blatant and intellectually dishonest attempt to derail the conversation regarding marriage equality- marriage that is equal to what Heterosexuals enjoy-nothing more- and to thwart the progress being made by the gay community in combating bigotry
They are using a logical fallacy in the form of weak analogy because there are important and distinct difference between marriages involving unrelated people, as opposed to closely related people. As we will see below, there are many pitfalls related to inbreeding, beyond the obvious biological/ genetic issues. The relationship between close relatives, married or not will never be comparable to that of two unrelated people.
Moreover it is an appeal to hypocrisy, a type of ad hominem in which the opponent is attacked for being inconsistent rather than making an argument directly related to the issue, because they are unable to do so. It matters little if there is in fact any inconsistency, or hypocrisy because the issue has no bearing on the merits of the main argument-in this case for gay marriage.
So, while I will-to a point- indulge those making this argument, I am not fooled by it for a nanosecond. They’re making a simple matter complicated and attempting to stoke the fears of others who may be prone to think, oh my god!
Now to get to the point. I am well aware of the fact that while there is no universal prohibition against consanguineous marriage, however “all human societies however primitive or geographically isolated, prohibit the mating of first degree relatives, namely the mating between parents and children and brothers and sisters (incest)”. http://www.infolanka.com/org/genetics/essays/essayrj3.htm
Aside from siblings and parent-child marriage, and such, kin groupings may be extremely nepotistic and distrusting of non-family members in the larger society. In this context, non-democratic regimes emerge as a consequence of individuals turning to reliable kinship groupings for support rather than to the state or the free market. It has been found, for example, that societies having high levels of familism tend to have low levels of generalized trust and civic engagement (Realo, Allik, & Greenfield, 2008), two important correlates of democracy. Moreover, to people in closely related kin groups, individualism and the recognition of individual rights, which are part of the cultural idiom of democracy, are perceived as strange and counterintuitive ideological abstractions (Sailer, 2004 - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/cousin-marriage-and-thdemocracy.html#sthash.YYRm9Or4.dpuf
In addition, while over time marriage has taken on many forms and meaning, and the relationships between that participants have evolved, one point that there seems to be a wide consensus on is that a central part of marriage is to form a new family out of two existing families, in order to pool resources and create alliances. To propose marriage between close relatives, regardless of whether or not they are sexual relationships is going beyond redefining marriage and family to destroying the concept of the family unit as we know it. Family lines and relationships would be blurred and distorted beyond recognition, and rendered meaningless. A daughter might also be a wife, a brother might also be a husband. Would he be a father or an uncle to any children that she might bear? Consider the legal and social ramifications.
Some societies are endogamous in nature- meaning societies that are stratified—that is, divided into unequal classes—often prescribe different degrees of endogamy where marriage opportunities are narrowly defined within a group. We on the other hand are an exogamous society. Through exogamy, otherwise unrelated households or lineages will form relationships through marriage, thus strengthening social solidarity. Opportunities for marriage are generally open and cross class, religious and ethnic lines resulting in a more diverse and thus healthier society. Yes, I should say, there is indeed a compelling government and societal interest in not allowing close relative marriage. It should be understood by the traditionalists, that close relative marriage would be the real departure from tradition.
I find your source to be hilarious. It's like... Let me present the clear and unquestionable legal reasoning that sibling marriage will not be legalized because of gay marriage.... 1) Those who say it will are lying homophobic bigots. 2) In my opinion, it won't happen. 3) It's a form of Latin argument, absoluticus absurdium! 4) My pinhead paleontology friends tell me that no society ever had incest relationships. 5) Gay marriages are good for society.
How is "same sibling marriage" automatically assumed "incest marriage" but "same gender marriage" is not "homosexual marriage"? Wasn't the argument that marriage was not about sexual behavior? But now... it is? How can that be? It seems you have made the presumption that siblings desire doing some "icky" kind of sex act that you don't approve of?
Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?
It is not up to the individual to disprove your claim of state compelling interest. If this were the case, the state could just deem whatever to be in 'compelling interest' and that would be that. A free society such as ours is not shackled to such tyranny, we are a self-governing society. We can challenge what you claim to be "compelling interest" the same as it was challenged for gays or any number of other individuals who had an issue with their rights through the years. We can also establish what IS or ISN'T a "compelling interest" and forge that into law because we retain that power as the people.
The onus is on YOU to provide a "compelling interest" and if you cannot provide one we all agree on and accept, then it can be brought into question... which it has been. None of you has provided a sufficient "compelling interest" in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling. You sound exactly like the people who opposed gay marriage. It's as if those justifications are all legitimate again!
I have been hanging back and watching this shit fly for a while now and I just can’t stand it anymore. To say that close relative marriage is the same as same sex marriage is that same and if the latter is allowed , so must the former is just as stupid as stupid gets. I wrote this well prior to Obergefell and it still has relevance now. If anyone thinks that they will kill gay marriage with this sort of nonsensical fear mongering, you are sadly mistaken. The burden of proof to provide a compelling reason-or at least a rational basis- for not allowing related people to marry. Without taking a position on it here, this is one way they are likely to be able to do just that. Note that none of these reasons have anything to do with unrelated same sex couples.
On Marriage Between Close Relatives: By Progressive Patriot 1.2.14
So the argument is that if gay marriage is to be allowed, there is no reason to not allow marriage between brothers and sisters; parents and siblings and in short, any two consenting adults. Furthermore, anyone who opposes that idea is being accused of hypocrisy and of being opposed to true equality……marriage for all.
Before I proceed, I want to be perfectly clear about the fact that I know exactly why people raise this and other similar issues. It’s a blatant and intellectually dishonest attempt to derail the conversation regarding marriage equality- marriage that is equal to what Heterosexuals enjoy-nothing more- and to thwart the progress being made by the gay community in combating bigotry
They are using a logical fallacy in the form of weak analogy because there are important and distinct difference between marriages involving unrelated people, as opposed to closely related people. As we will see below, there are many pitfalls related to inbreeding, beyond the obvious biological/ genetic issues. The relationship between close relatives, married or not will never be comparable to that of two unrelated people.
Moreover it is an appeal to hypocrisy, a type of ad hominem in which the opponent is attacked for being inconsistent rather than making an argument directly related to the issue, because they are unable to do so. It matters little if there is in fact any inconsistency, or hypocrisy because the issue has no bearing on the merits of the main argument-in this case for gay marriage.
So, while I will-to a point- indulge those making this argument, I am not fooled by it for a nanosecond. They’re making a simple matter complicated and attempting to stoke the fears of others who may be prone to think, oh my god!
Now to get to the point. I am well aware of the fact that while there is no universal prohibition against consanguineous marriage, however “all human societies however primitive or geographically isolated, prohibit the mating of first degree relatives, namely the mating between parents and children and brothers and sisters (incest)”. http://www.infolanka.com/org/genetics/essays/essayrj3.htm
Aside from siblings and parent-child marriage, and such, kin groupings may be extremely nepotistic and distrusting of non-family members in the larger society. In this context, non-democratic regimes emerge as a consequence of individuals turning to reliable kinship groupings for support rather than to the state or the free market. It has been found, for example, that societies having high levels of familism tend to have low levels of generalized trust and civic engagement (Realo, Allik, & Greenfield, 2008), two important correlates of democracy. Moreover, to people in closely related kin groups, individualism and the recognition of individual rights, which are part of the cultural idiom of democracy, are perceived as strange and counterintuitive ideological abstractions (Sailer, 2004 - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/cousin-marriage-and-thdemocracy.html#sthash.YYRm9Or4.dpuf
In addition, while over time marriage has taken on many forms and meaning, and the relationships between that participants have evolved, one point that there seems to be a wide consensus on is that a central part of marriage is to form a new family out of two existing families, in order to pool resources and create alliances. To propose marriage between close relatives, regardless of whether or not they are sexual relationships is going beyond redefining marriage and family to destroying the concept of the family unit as we know it. Family lines and relationships would be blurred and distorted beyond recognition, and rendered meaningless. A daughter might also be a wife, a brother might also be a husband. Would he be a father or an uncle to any children that she might bear? Consider the legal and social ramifications.
Some societies are endogamous in nature- meaning societies that are stratified—that is, divided into unequal classes—often prescribe different degrees of endogamy where marriage opportunities are narrowly defined within a group. We on the other hand are an exogamous society. Through exogamy, otherwise unrelated households or lineages will form relationships through marriage, thus strengthening social solidarity. Opportunities for marriage are generally open and cross class, religious and ethnic lines resulting in a more diverse and thus healthier society. Yes, I should say, there is indeed a compelling government and societal interest in not allowing close relative marriage. It should be understood by the traditionalists, that close relative marriage would be the real departure from tradition.
I find your source to be hilarious. It's like... Let me present the clear and unquestionable legal reasoning that sibling marriage will not be legalized because of gay marriage.... 1) Those who say it will are lying homophobic bigots. 2) In my opinion, it won't happen. 3) It's a form of Latin argument, absoluticus absurdium! 4) My pinhead paleontology friends tell me that no society ever had incest relationships. 5) Gay marriages are good for society.
How is "same sibling marriage" automatically assumed "incest marriage" but "same gender marriage" is not "homosexual marriage"? Wasn't the argument that marriage was not about sexual behavior? But now... it is? How can that be? It seems you have made the presumption that siblings desire doing some "icky" kind of sex act that you don't approve of?
I asked my parents one time when I was visiting why they felt like gay marriage was ok since they were supposedly Christians. They both said the same thing, "I just don't care. It doesn't effect me so why should I care?"\.
I would like to point something out though. A marriage licence is a legally binding document. It has a definition. When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago, marriage had one definition. Now, it has 2. One could argue every single marriage licence is now void because the definition of marriage has changed and should one of the partners decide they don't want any contract with their name on it that uses the word "marriage" that now can mean two gay dudes, they should be able to walk away from it as a null and void contract. Any time you change the meaning of a contract retroactively you void the contract as it is written.
.
What Republicans really want to do is kill gays. Literally kill them so they are dead.
Nahh.. Now, it would be good if medical science finds a way to genetically eliminate homosexuality. I wonder if we'd have to fight the left for a woman's right to choose whether to have a gay or straight child?
Obviously you missed the entire point, that being-since I have to spell it out -is NOT about them simply being different-but about the implications for society and thus the reasons why government may legitimately deny sibling marriage. Is it possible that you really don't get that or are you just playing stupidAre you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?
It is not up to the individual to disprove your claim of state compelling interest. If this were the case, the state could just deem whatever to be in 'compelling interest' and that would be that. A free society such as ours is not shackled to such tyranny, we are a self-governing society. We can challenge what you claim to be "compelling interest" the same as it was challenged for gays or any number of other individuals who had an issue with their rights through the years. We can also establish what IS or ISN'T a "compelling interest" and forge that into law because we retain that power as the people.
The onus is on YOU to provide a "compelling interest" and if you cannot provide one we all agree on and accept, then it can be brought into question... which it has been. None of you has provided a sufficient "compelling interest" in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling. You sound exactly like the people who opposed gay marriage. It's as if those justifications are all legitimate again!
I have been hanging back and watching this shit fly for a while now and I just can’t stand it anymore. To say that close relative marriage is the same as same sex marriage is that same and if the latter is allowed , so must the former is just as stupid as stupid gets. I wrote this well prior to Obergefell and it still has relevance now. If anyone thinks that they will kill gay marriage with this sort of nonsensical fear mongering, you are sadly mistaken. The burden of proof to provide a compelling reason-or at least a rational basis- for not allowing related people to marry. Without taking a position on it here, this is one way they are likely to be able to do just that. Note that none of these reasons have anything to do with unrelated same sex couples.
On Marriage Between Close Relatives: By Progressive Patriot 1.2.14
So the argument is that if gay marriage is to be allowed, there is no reason to not allow marriage between brothers and sisters; parents and siblings and in short, any two consenting adults. Furthermore, anyone who opposes that idea is being accused of hypocrisy and of being opposed to true equality……marriage for all.
Before I proceed, I want to be perfectly clear about the fact that I know exactly why people raise this and other similar issues. It’s a blatant and intellectually dishonest attempt to derail the conversation regarding marriage equality- marriage that is equal to what Heterosexuals enjoy-nothing more- and to thwart the progress being made by the gay community in combating bigotry
They are using a logical fallacy in the form of weak analogy because there are important and distinct difference between marriages involving unrelated people, as opposed to closely related people. As we will see below, there are many pitfalls related to inbreeding, beyond the obvious biological/ genetic issues. The relationship between close relatives, married or not will never be comparable to that of two unrelated people.
Moreover it is an appeal to hypocrisy, a type of ad hominem in which the opponent is attacked for being inconsistent rather than making an argument directly related to the issue, because they are unable to do so. It matters little if there is in fact any inconsistency, or hypocrisy because the issue has no bearing on the merits of the main argument-in this case for gay marriage.
So, while I will-to a point- indulge those making this argument, I am not fooled by it for a nanosecond. They’re making a simple matter complicated and attempting to stoke the fears of others who may be prone to think, oh my god!
Now to get to the point. I am well aware of the fact that while there is no universal prohibition against consanguineous marriage, however “all human societies however primitive or geographically isolated, prohibit the mating of first degree relatives, namely the mating between parents and children and brothers and sisters (incest)”. http://www.infolanka.com/org/genetics/essays/essayrj3.htm
Aside from siblings and parent-child marriage, and such, kin groupings may be extremely nepotistic and distrusting of non-family members in the larger society. In this context, non-democratic regimes emerge as a consequence of individuals turning to reliable kinship groupings for support rather than to the state or the free market. It has been found, for example, that societies having high levels of familism tend to have low levels of generalized trust and civic engagement (Realo, Allik, & Greenfield, 2008), two important correlates of democracy. Moreover, to people in closely related kin groups, individualism and the recognition of individual rights, which are part of the cultural idiom of democracy, are perceived as strange and counterintuitive ideological abstractions (Sailer, 2004 - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/cousin-marriage-and-thdemocracy.html#sthash.YYRm9Or4.dpuf
In addition, while over time marriage has taken on many forms and meaning, and the relationships between that participants have evolved, one point that there seems to be a wide consensus on is that a central part of marriage is to form a new family out of two existing families, in order to pool resources and create alliances. To propose marriage between close relatives, regardless of whether or not they are sexual relationships is going beyond redefining marriage and family to destroying the concept of the family unit as we know it. Family lines and relationships would be blurred and distorted beyond recognition, and rendered meaningless. A daughter might also be a wife, a brother might also be a husband. Would he be a father or an uncle to any children that she might bear? Consider the legal and social ramifications.
Some societies are endogamous in nature- meaning societies that are stratified—that is, divided into unequal classes—often prescribe different degrees of endogamy where marriage opportunities are narrowly defined within a group. We on the other hand are an exogamous society. Through exogamy, otherwise unrelated households or lineages will form relationships through marriage, thus strengthening social solidarity. Opportunities for marriage are generally open and cross class, religious and ethnic lines resulting in a more diverse and thus healthier society. Yes, I should say, there is indeed a compelling government and societal interest in not allowing close relative marriage. It should be understood by the traditionalists, that close relative marriage would be the real departure from tradition.
I get it, same sex sibling marriage is different than same sex marriage so it shouldn't be legal, but same sex marriage is different then opposite sex marriage so it should......
(Scratches head)
I have NEVER promoted illegal activity you knuckle dragging racist bigot.
You speak of nothing else but incest marriage and polygamy. In any thread, on any topic. Incest marriage and polygamy are your personal obsessions. You will discuss nothing else.
But when I ask you to simply make your case, to present your arguments regarding equal protection, due process, to cite the cases that you believe support your argument for incest marriage and polygamy....
.......you flee.
Shrugs....keep running.
Incest is a crime, since you are acussing me of the promotion of a crime, why don't you just back that assertion up lil guy.
Like when you accused me of claiming that sex is a requirement of marriage?
Laughing....show me. Quote me making the claim.
You claim my argument for same sex sibling marriage is somehow the same as incestuous marriage.
Now, move along child, let us progressive adults handle things. I'm sure mommy had some ice cream an cookies for Ya!
You claimed that that I said sex is a requirement for marriage.
Quote me saying that. So far you're only quoting yourself. Which isn't the same thing, is it Troll?
Obviously you missed the entire point, that being-since I have to spell it out -is NOT about them simply being different-but about the implications for society and thus the reasons why government may legitimately deny sibling marriage. Is it possible that you really don't get that or are you just playing stupidAre you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?
It is not up to the individual to disprove your claim of state compelling interest. If this were the case, the state could just deem whatever to be in 'compelling interest' and that would be that. A free society such as ours is not shackled to such tyranny, we are a self-governing society. We can challenge what you claim to be "compelling interest" the same as it was challenged for gays or any number of other individuals who had an issue with their rights through the years. We can also establish what IS or ISN'T a "compelling interest" and forge that into law because we retain that power as the people.
The onus is on YOU to provide a "compelling interest" and if you cannot provide one we all agree on and accept, then it can be brought into question... which it has been. None of you has provided a sufficient "compelling interest" in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling. You sound exactly like the people who opposed gay marriage. It's as if those justifications are all legitimate again!
I have been hanging back and watching this shit fly for a while now and I just can’t stand it anymore. To say that close relative marriage is the same as same sex marriage is that same and if the latter is allowed , so must the former is just as stupid as stupid gets. I wrote this well prior to Obergefell and it still has relevance now. If anyone thinks that they will kill gay marriage with this sort of nonsensical fear mongering, you are sadly mistaken. The burden of proof to provide a compelling reason-or at least a rational basis- for not allowing related people to marry. Without taking a position on it here, this is one way they are likely to be able to do just that. Note that none of these reasons have anything to do with unrelated same sex couples.
On Marriage Between Close Relatives: By Progressive Patriot 1.2.14
So the argument is that if gay marriage is to be allowed, there is no reason to not allow marriage between brothers and sisters; parents and siblings and in short, any two consenting adults. Furthermore, anyone who opposes that idea is being accused of hypocrisy and of being opposed to true equality……marriage for all.
Before I proceed, I want to be perfectly clear about the fact that I know exactly why people raise this and other similar issues. It’s a blatant and intellectually dishonest attempt to derail the conversation regarding marriage equality- marriage that is equal to what Heterosexuals enjoy-nothing more- and to thwart the progress being made by the gay community in combating bigotry
They are using a logical fallacy in the form of weak analogy because there are important and distinct difference between marriages involving unrelated people, as opposed to closely related people. As we will see below, there are many pitfalls related to inbreeding, beyond the obvious biological/ genetic issues. The relationship between close relatives, married or not will never be comparable to that of two unrelated people.
Moreover it is an appeal to hypocrisy, a type of ad hominem in which the opponent is attacked for being inconsistent rather than making an argument directly related to the issue, because they are unable to do so. It matters little if there is in fact any inconsistency, or hypocrisy because the issue has no bearing on the merits of the main argument-in this case for gay marriage.
So, while I will-to a point- indulge those making this argument, I am not fooled by it for a nanosecond. They’re making a simple matter complicated and attempting to stoke the fears of others who may be prone to think, oh my god!
Now to get to the point. I am well aware of the fact that while there is no universal prohibition against consanguineous marriage, however “all human societies however primitive or geographically isolated, prohibit the mating of first degree relatives, namely the mating between parents and children and brothers and sisters (incest)”. http://www.infolanka.com/org/genetics/essays/essayrj3.htm
Aside from siblings and parent-child marriage, and such, kin groupings may be extremely nepotistic and distrusting of non-family members in the larger society. In this context, non-democratic regimes emerge as a consequence of individuals turning to reliable kinship groupings for support rather than to the state or the free market. It has been found, for example, that societies having high levels of familism tend to have low levels of generalized trust and civic engagement (Realo, Allik, & Greenfield, 2008), two important correlates of democracy. Moreover, to people in closely related kin groups, individualism and the recognition of individual rights, which are part of the cultural idiom of democracy, are perceived as strange and counterintuitive ideological abstractions (Sailer, 2004 - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/cousin-marriage-and-thdemocracy.html#sthash.YYRm9Or4.dpuf
In addition, while over time marriage has taken on many forms and meaning, and the relationships between that participants have evolved, one point that there seems to be a wide consensus on is that a central part of marriage is to form a new family out of two existing families, in order to pool resources and create alliances. To propose marriage between close relatives, regardless of whether or not they are sexual relationships is going beyond redefining marriage and family to destroying the concept of the family unit as we know it. Family lines and relationships would be blurred and distorted beyond recognition, and rendered meaningless. A daughter might also be a wife, a brother might also be a husband. Would he be a father or an uncle to any children that she might bear? Consider the legal and social ramifications.
Some societies are endogamous in nature- meaning societies that are stratified—that is, divided into unequal classes—often prescribe different degrees of endogamy where marriage opportunities are narrowly defined within a group. We on the other hand are an exogamous society. Through exogamy, otherwise unrelated households or lineages will form relationships through marriage, thus strengthening social solidarity. Opportunities for marriage are generally open and cross class, religious and ethnic lines resulting in a more diverse and thus healthier society. Yes, I should say, there is indeed a compelling government and societal interest in not allowing close relative marriage. It should be understood by the traditionalists, that close relative marriage would be the real departure from tradition.
I get it, same sex sibling marriage is different than same sex marriage so it shouldn't be legal, but same sex marriage is different then opposite sex marriage so it should......
(Scratches head)
Ohhhhh, implications for society which would be so much worse with same sex siblings marrying for purely financial reasons then any other same sex couples marrying for financial reasons.
Got it.
Same argument made by Virginia to deny the Lovings the right to marry.
And just exactly how do you claim to be a progressive?
What the couple sets as expressions of their expectation is not compelling to the state setting the secular law. Sex and procreation may be part of the couple's expressed desires but not bind at all on the state.I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. That has nothing to do with my post.
Did you not point out that there is some justification to the claim that sex is an integral part of marriage?
More accurately, sex can be an integral part of marriage. It doesn't have to be, but a refusal to engage in sex with a spouse for an extended period when both parties are physically capable can be considered grounds for divorce in some states. If neither party wants sex, there is no legal necessity.
Whether sex is satisfactory or unsatisfactory for the parties played no part that I saw, nor did I indicate I believe the state should be able to define what that means.
But what your argue is no different to a breakup of any corporate entities when the partners expressed an expectation of what those partners will bring to the corporation and they need a judge to complete the legal dissolution of the corp, because expectations were not met
The couple sets and expresses those expectations, not the State.
Sex is not a requirement or the state could set those requirements and could "audit" the couple for complience
BINGO!
The couple, not the State is allowed to set the expectations within the marriage.
Tradition may be that that the expectation within the partnership contain a sexual component, but the law requires none.
So what is the States compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the "right" to marry for the benefits afforded married couples?
There is a compelling interest: providing children with a mother and father who won't bear retarded children. ..
