Marriage Debate

[Meadmaker]

Do they want to get married? If so, why stop them?

Fair enough. According to id, marriage can be between any two consenting adults.


And that's fine. It's logically consistent. I see nothing inherently wrong with that view.

Does anyone disagree with ID?

 

[bluess]

Fair enough. According to id, marriage can be between any two consenting adults.


And that's fine. It's logically consistent. I see nothing inherently wrong with that view.

Does anyone disagree with ID?

The only issue I see is direct blood relations getting married. Aren't those marriages covered under current law? Can a brother marry his blood-line sister?

Edited: I just posted this and realized how dumb it was. There shouldn't be any problem with two female relations getting married if they so desired and are both of age of consent. Ditto two males.

I'm not sure where I stand on a father/daughter or mother/son or sister/brother marriage.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well, the case in point did involve a direct blood line, so you and ID are in opposition.

As for current law , blood relatives are forbidden to marry,although the exact definitions of who can and can't marry due to incest control varies from state to state. I don't know about non-US laws.

 

[HeavyAaron]

A man and a woman who have know each other for less than a day can walk into a courthouse, pay a small fee, say a few words in front of a justice of the peace, and receive all the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage.

Not to dispariage your point. But this much is rarely the case. I was recently marriaged in one of the easier state to marry, and it's not that clean, easy, or quick (just referring to the government interaction part.) It is government buerocracy we're talking about. It's a royal pain in the butt.

Aaron

 

[bluess]

The only issue I see is direct blood relations getting married. Aren't those marriages covered under current law? Can a brother marry his blood-line sister?

Edited: I just posted this and realized how dumb it was. There shouldn't be any problem with two female relations getting married if they so desired and are both of age of consent. Ditto two males.

I'm not sure where I stand on a father/daughter or mother/son or sister/brother marriage.

Thinking more, I have an issue with marriages between parents and children regardless of the genders involved. This has to do with my perception that consent may have been clouded by the parent/child relationship even when the child is grown.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Thinking more, I have an issue with marriages between parents and children regardless of the genders involved. This has to do with my perception that consent may have been clouded by the parent/child relationship even when the child is grown.

However, your concerns apply equally to same sex and opposite sex marriages alike. Since that is that case, neither being for nor against allowing blood relatives to marry is pertienent to the discussion of same sex marriages specifically.

 

[Terry]

Aside from the mistake of not having a lawyer with a copy of their will, Bob also made a mistake in not having given Ted medical power of attorney. You can grant this power to anyone, including relatives or even friends who are married to other people, so it's much more flexible than same sex marriage in terms of protecting your wishes, and it's available to everyone already. It's a shame that the importance of taking this step isn't being promoted by gay-rights advocates.

Medical power of attorney can be contested by blood-kin, as I understand it. However, it is not the case that gay-rights groups have failed to promote the importance of taking this step.

http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/resources.html?record=935
http://www.rainbowlaw.com/free.htm
http://www.buddybuddy.com/protect.html

and google will provide you with many more examples.

 

[Ziggurat]

You know what would really be effective at preventing this sort of victimization by religious modivated, predatory family members? Marriage.

Oh wait, you oppose that.

I presented what I believe to be the strongest case against same-sex marriage. What I did NOT do is state my personal preference for what I personally want. I would kindly ask that you refrain from assuming about me what you do not know.

 

[jnelso99]

Might be interesting reading...

http://web.morons.org/feature/marriage.jsp

Many of the "arguments" against gay marriage tend to be simply arguments against gays.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not the one trying to justify an irrational policy, Ziggy.

No, you're just trying to smear me by attributing a sentiment to me that I never expressed (namely, claiming that I was blaming the victim when I was not). Am I somehow not entitled to defend myself when such baseless accusations are made against me?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I presented what I believe to be the strongest case against same-sex marriage. What I did NOT do is state my personal preference for what I personally want. I would kindly ask that you refrain from assuming about me what you do not know.

Let me restate that you have given all outward signs of opposing it.

 

[Meadmaker]

I presented what I believe to be the strongest case against same-sex marriage. What I did NOT do is state my personal preference for what I personally want. I would kindly ask that you refrain from assuming about me what you do not know.

I tried that request, unsuccessfully.

 

[Huntster]

WTF does social security have to do with same-sex marriage?

They are both social programs that the government can and will **** up.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I tried that request, unsuccessfully.

If want others to stop thinking you're a deluded, religiously modivated bigot, stop acting like onee.

 

[Meadmaker]

However, your concerns apply equally to same sex and opposite sex marriages alike. Since that is that case, neither being for nor against allowing blood relatives to marry is pertienent to the discussion of same sex marriages specifically.

But it does address the question of why one or another ought to be allowed, by addressing the question of what marriage ought to be.

The question makes many uncomfortable, in the same way tha t the question of infertile couples makes opponents of gay marriage uncomfortable. It asks if any consenting adult at all should be excluded from marriage. I think that's a fair question.

Your answer, earlier, was no. That's intellectually consistent, and honest. Some people would prefer to answer, "I don't care, as long as their gender isn't the reason for exclusion." That's a great deal more wishy-washy.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

But it does address the question of why one or another ought to be allowed, by addressing the question of what marriage ought to be.

The question makes many uncomfortable, in the same way tha t the question of infertile couples makes opponents of gay marriage uncomfortable. It asks if any consenting adult at all should be excluded from marriage. I think that's a fair question.

Your answer, earlier, was no. That's intellectually consistent, and honest. Some people would prefer to answer, "I don't care, as long as their gender isn't the reason for exclusion." That's a great deal more wishy-washy.

That's not wishy-washy. It's based on a different rationale than mine is based on. I think any two or more consenting adults should be extended the same rights and privilages of marriage as we presently reserve only for heterosexual monogamous couples. Others may feel that monogamy is good, incest is bad, but homosexuality is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Ziggurat]

However, it is not the case that gay-rights groups have failed to promote the importance of taking this step.

That's good to hear, actually. Learn something new every day.

 

[bluess]

But it does address the question of why one or another ought to be allowed, by addressing the question of what marriage ought to be.

The question makes many uncomfortable, in the same way tha t the question of infertile couples makes opponents of gay marriage uncomfortable. It asks if any consenting adult at all should be excluded from marriage. I think that's a fair question.

Your answer, earlier, was no. That's intellectually consistent, and honest. Some people would prefer to answer, "I don't care, as long as their gender isn't the reason for exclusion." That's a great deal more wishy-washy.

Which is why I qualified my concern. Again, there are power structures within a parent-child relationship which I believe would affect the ability of the grown child to provide appropriate consent.

However, other non-related, hetero couples have managed to marry into abusive or dominant-submissive relationships, so maybe we should let the parents and children do so to.

Regardless, my concern crosses gender combinations.

What can I say, I'm a romantic. I like the idea of two people deciding to love each other for life. But if someone else's idea of marriage is successively younger trophy partners, that's up to them.

 

[thaiboxerken]

They are both social programs that the government can and will **** up.

And if homosexuals want the government to screw up their relationships, who are you do say different?

 

[Meadmaker]

What can I say, I'm a romantic. I like the idea of two people deciding to love each other for life. But if someone else's idea of marriage is successively younger trophy partners, that's up to them.

ID's idea of marriage is apparently an economic arrangement, and any romance or sex involved is their problem. Therefore, there's no problem with a mother marrying a daughter.

You, apparently, want the government to facilitate something called "love". I don't know why you would want that, but that's fine, too. If that's what you want marriage to be, then write the rules appropriately. Two consenting adults, not close blood relatives. Presumably, no - fault divorce when the love is gone, right?