Same-Sex Marriage Will Not Lead to Polygamous Marriage. Really?

[Big Don]

IIRC, the trouble from inbreeding comes after many generations, see pure bred dogs, European royals...

 

[granfire]

IIRC, the trouble from inbreeding comes after many generations, see pure bred dogs, European royals...

Well, the inbred royals have gone away. And in dogs it's only called inbreeding when it goes wrong. However, with dogs and inbred royals, you can put them out of their misery....normal people, not so much, society frowns upon those actions.

 

[granfire]

Marriage between cousins are becoming a problem in some communities here, especially when the parents and grandparents have married their cousins too.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm

Closed communities like the Amish in the US have a host of problems stemming from the lack of branches in the family tree.

 

[Blade96]

Silly! Unless you got a talking pencil....

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Cop out argument.

There are reasons for not allowing close relatives to be married.

I give you the underage one, since in the not so recent past 14 was considered a good age for a girl to be married. But then again this is were your argument bites itself in the tail and chases it: We do no longer consider 14 year olds or even 16 to be of age to consent. Part of the changing definitions.

Not a cop out argument, just something that you choose to not address.

I could just as easily argue that there are reasons for not allowing homosexuals to be married. You wouldn't allow me to just say that "there are reasons", would you.

And now, as has been shown, the reasons for such taboos, ostensibly off-spring issues, has apparently been overblown. So now what say you. What is the legitimate reason to keep these people from being married?

And even if it wasn't, what would give you the right to keep two people in love from being married, if that really is the issue here. Not to try to get off on a tangent, but even if they decided to have children, who are you to interfere with a woman's reproductive rights?

And age has never been an issue associated with the definition of marriage. That has to do with a morality issue. The basics of marriage have always constituted one man and one woman.

 

[elder999]

...and it's worth pointing out that while no state permits the marriage of sister and brother, it does happen, and more often than we'd like to think. Never mind cousins, or mother and son, or father and daughter:

Look here

or here

there's more....see for yourself.

 

[granfire]

Not a cop out argument, just something that you choose to not address.

I could just as easily argue that there are reasons for not allowing homosexuals to be married. You wouldn't allow me to just say that "there are reasons", would you.

Well, I said it a couple of times, the risks associated with reproduction of closely related individuals. And it seems it's been an apparent factor early on in civilazation because as far as I can tell every culture has that Taboo.

(and Elder, just because some do shag does not diminish the risk )

And now, as has been shown, the reasons for such taboos, ostensibly off-spring issues, has apparently been overblown. So now what say you. What is the legitimate reason to keep these people from being married?

it has been shown it's over blown? I do have a great interest in those things and no matter were I turn the consensus is in terms of reproduction that you don't pair first degree relatives. But let's leave it at that.

And even if it wasn't, what would give you the right to keep two people in love from being married, if that really is the issue here. Not to try to get off on a tangent, but even if they decided to have children, who are you to interfere with a woman's reproductive rights?

LOL, touche.

And age has never been an issue associated with the definition of marriage. That has to do with a morality issue. The basics of marriage have always constituted one man and one woman.

Well, it has been brought up in the numoerus of tangend silly arguments about dogs and pencils. There is a limit below which one can reasonably assume there can't be educated consent.

You know the OH EM GEE: gays getting married opens the flood gates for polygamists marrying little girls...or their dogs and ficusses.

And no, age has always been an issue of marriage. While children have been routinely promised to each other, the actual consumation does not take place until the parties have reach puberty. Which is, last I checked, an age thing.

Naturally, as all things seem to be, that, too is not set in stone. Girls seem to reach that point in their lives earlier that they used to in the past.

(but funny you should mention this, kids as young as 14 can get married with parental concent in many states, while you can't let your 20 year old have a beer...)

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Well, I said it a couple of times, the risks associated with reproduction of closely related individuals. And it seems it's been an apparent factor early on in civilazation because as far as I can tell every culture has that Taboo.

(and Elder, just because some do shag does not diminish the risk )


it has been shown it's over blown? I do have a great interest in those things and no matter were I turn the consensus is in terms of reproduction that you don't pair first degree relatives. But let's leave it at that.

I've looked over some of the research. From what I can tell reading scholarly articles, 1) scientific study is difficult as they have a hard time isolating control groups 2) even in first cousin marriages there is only about a 2.5% increase in abnormality.

And no, age has always been an issue of marriage. While children have been routinely promised to each other, the actual consumation does not take place until the parties have reach puberty. Which is, last I checked, an age thing.

Again, it is an issue with what is legal. But it did nothing to change the actual definition of marriage.

 

[Tez3]

The risks may be small when just one set of first cousins marry but the situation here among some Asian communities is that you have a boy and girl marryng who are first cousins but each set of parents have also married their first cousins and the boy's parents and the girl's parents are also very likely to be related. It gets hopelessly lost in trying to work out who is who, the down side is the increase in damaged children.

 

[Darksoul]

-I read through about 6 pages of this thread and then my eyes started to glaze over, so forgive me if I'm repeating something or someone.

-I understand tradition and roughly understand how things developed in the world and in the United States but when did someone or some group purchase the word or concept of 'marriage'? The impression I get from some is that they own the concept, therefore they can say how it applies to the world. Sure, some traditions have been around for centuries or more, but they also can change.

-When people get married, should they pay royalties somewhere? Copyright fee?


Andrew

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

-I read through about 6 pages of this thread and then my eyes started to glaze over, so forgive me if I'm repeating something or someone.

-I understand tradition and roughly understand how things developed in the world and in the United States but when did someone or some group purchase the word or concept of 'marriage'? The impression I get from some is that they own the concept, therefore they can say how it applies to the world. Sure, some traditions have been around for centuries or more, but they also can change.

-When people get married, should they pay royalties somewhere? Copyright fee?


Andrew

That could be turned around also to say that when did the non-traditional groups "purchase" the word and then get to define it?

 

[CanuckMA]

For all purposes, the gov't 'purchased' marriage when it started to tie a lot of fiscal and legal dependencies to it. Proponents of same-sex marriage want to be afforded the same rights.

 

[Darksoul]

-I don't think anyone should 'purchase' marriage. The concept of marriage is universal at this point, and I think defining it to exclude certain people is treating them as 2nd class citizens. 'Non-traditional' couples want the same as 'traditional' couples. There has been no proof that calling it marriage for gay or lesbian couples will tear society apart. Eventually, I feel, it will change, maybe not in the U.S., but change will happen. And people adapt, life moves on. As far as leading to polygamous marriages...I'm not sure how I feel about that.

-What we really should be concerned about is when zombies start seeking marriage


Andrew

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

For all purposes, the gov't 'purchased' marriage when it started to tie a lot of fiscal and legal dependencies to it. Proponents of same-sex marriage want to be afforded the same rights.

Which is why a lot of us advocate the government stay out of marriage all together, which would include different tax laws based on marriage.

 

[CanuckMA]

But it's more than tax laws. It's also about legal status. Next of kin, survivor benefits, etc. To prove that you need a simple, accepted document. A marriage certificate does that.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

But it's more than tax laws. It's also about legal status. Next of kin, survivor benefits, etc. To prove that you need a simple, accepted document. A marriage certificate does that.

You can use contracts, wills and power of attorney to accomplish the same things.

For example, next of kin issues can be accomplished with adoption. Considering that a homosexual couple can't conceive a baby anyway, adoption is about the only option.

Survivor's benefits can be done through private contract. A lot of businesses are recognizing same sex marriage for such things anyway, all without the intervention of the government.

 

[granfire]

You can use contracts, wills and power of attorney to accomplish the same things.

For example, next of kin issues can be accomplished with adoption. Considering that a homosexual couple can't conceive a baby anyway, adoption is about the only option.

Survivor's benefits can be done through private contract. A lot of businesses are recognizing same sex marriage for such things anyway, all without the intervention of the government.

True. But with one signature on the marriage liscence you have all of the above covered.
(and I believe there are situations where you have to be 'next of kin' and other documents just don't count.)

Also, in this age of raging homophobia a lot of states have considered or implemented a lot of restrictions to keep homosexuals from adopting children. Since being gay is a contagious condition, we all know

So while the marriage certificate might not help them out there (then again, when the state is that close minded, they won't agree to the civil union either...)

 

[CanuckMA]

You can use contracts, wills and power of attorney to accomplish the same things.

For example, next of kin issues can be accomplished with adoption. Considering that a homosexual couple can't conceive a baby anyway, adoption is about the only option.

Survivor's benefits can be done through private contract. A lot of businesses are recognizing same sex marriage for such things anyway, all without the intervention of the government.

Next of kin also includes your spouse. And the myriad of agreements would be a nightmare. If my spouse is in the hospital, my marriage certificate proves my legal status. It's easy. If I show with any other document, the family could contest it. Now you have to get the hospital legal dept involved.

Let me put it this way, would a notarized letter be acceptable as proof of birth? As opposed to a state issued birth certificate?

 

[Empty Hands]

If my spouse is in the hospital, my marriage certificate proves my legal status. It's easy. If I show with any other document, the family could contest it.

Not just can, it has happened many times. Families have been able to exclude homosexual partners from even visiting their partner in the hospital, no matter how many signed documents they have. The hospital goes along with it because without marriage, the partner is not "family."

That is one reason among many why homosexual couples are not satisfied with civil unions, they have been shown to be flawed in practice, and place an additional high legal burden on the couple in terms of contracts they must have drawn up. No heterosexual couple must do so, all they have to do is get married. Equal protection of the law, and all that.

 

[Darksoul]

-If all those straight people would stop having gay babies, this wouldn't be a problem anymore!

Hahaha!

-But I do agree with equal protection of the law.


Andrew