From gay marriage to polygamy?

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: introvert

Incest is illegal because it has some biological repercussions that are damaging to society. Even plants and animals have evolved anti-incest properties.

You mean some have evolved "anti-incest properties". Incest is still widely practiced in the animal kingdom.

You are correct. Some, not all.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

but wont that open the door for people to marry animals or something?
that is usually where the gay marriage discussion winds up before too long

edit*
wow.
mentioned on the first page

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you're going to redefine it, you're going to redefine it.

At least both the Muslims and the Mormons can stand on religious right in the 1st as well as the 14th amendment when the suit goes forward.

Of course, what will you do when a father wants to marry his daughter or a mother her son? Who will you be to deny their love and deny them their dignity which seems to be what this legal civil right is now defined by.

a reply to: kruphix

But there is no equality issue. The legal issues with gay marriage were equality issues...which are protected by the Constitution.

They cant do it, its illegal , so there are equality issues.........

Who are you to tell people who they can and cant marry!

LOVE IS LOVE!

a reply to: MystikMushroom

People may wind up having two or three sets of kids with different spouses in their lifetime

I agree. That happens in different parts of the world now - and has for a long time

It works - and is not evil

Or backwards

:-)

Edit to add: OK - it kinda works. As well and as often as any kind of human relationship ever works. There are always drawbacks - problems - and then serious problems. Humans - what are you going to do?

originally posted by: Mugly
a reply to: Krazysh0t

but wont that open the door for people to marry animals or something?
that is usually where the gay marriage discussion winds up before too long

edit*
wow.
mentioned on the first page

That's already been mentioned and properly put to rest. An animal cannot represent itself in court or understand a legally-binding contract. Therefore the entire argument is null and void.

a reply to: BinaryGreyArea

Have you ever studied college level sociology and/or psychology? You will realize that a healthy happy vibrant society MUST always have certain taboos and mores that they adhere to, things they, as a society, set up and deem moral or immoral. Without a society's taboos and mores, the society becomes chaotic, immoral, and will eventually decline and decay.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: kruphix

But there is no equality issue. The legal issues with gay marriage were equality issues...which are protected by the Constitution.

They cant do it, its illegal , so there are equality issues.........

Who are you to tell people who they can and cant marry!

LOVE IS LOVE!

Who is telling them WHO they can marry....maybe WHAT they can marry...but not WHO.

Who implies a person...not an animal.

You show me an animal that can read, understand, (or at least be explained to and acknowledge they understand) and sign a binding contract...then we can talk. (ha...talk...show me an animal that can talk...then we can talk).

a reply to: BinaryGreyArea

It used to be, therefore clearly what is illegal and what is not can be changed.

Absolutely. Please, by all means be the champion of that cause and let's see how much support there is for it.

Again why we don't you support making incest legal, but childbearing from it illegal?

Again, equal application of the law. You cannot tell people that they cannot have children whether they are in a marriage or not, while others can. That's akin to having to have a licence to breed.

Do you think the current fact that incest is illegal is preventing it from happening?

No.

Why prevent an incest couple that never reproduces from enjoying the same benefits of a gay couple? They've caused no harm.

Equal application of the law. You cannot allow certain groups to have rights that others cannot.

There is a reason incest is illegal and why no one in the gay marriage debate takes it seriously because it's only brought in by those that are trying to be intentionally obtuse.

a reply to: ketsuko

Of course, what will you do when a father wants to marry his daughter or a mother her son? Who will you be to deny their love and deny them their dignity which seems to be what this legal civil right is now defined by.

The point is valid. In which case, is it ethical for society to step in and require some kind of mandatory contraception that can only be done and undone by a doctor?

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea

originally posted by: introvert
Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not.

It used to be, therefore clearly what is illegal and what is not can be changed.

Again why don't you just support making incest legal, but childbearing from it illegal?

Do you think the current fact that incest is illegal is preventing it from happening? Why prevent an incest couple that never reproduces from enjoying the same benefits as a gay couple? They've caused no harm.

If you are for incest, and not just using it as a red herring, then go for it....start a movement, get support and get some laws changed.

If you get the support and society supports it...you will get incest made legal.

But to ask someone why they don't support "B" because you supported "A" is just completely illogical.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: BinaryGreyArea

Have you ever studied college level sociology and/or psychology? You will realize that a healthy happy vibrant society MUST always have certain taboos and mores that they adhere to, things they, as a society, set up and deem moral or immoral. Without a society's taboos and mores, the society becomes chaotic, immoral, and will eventually decline and decay.

Oh well, sane people used to realize that, but we are no longer living in the society of the sane. It's a Brave New World now where everything like those icky things you are talking about are so outmoded and OLD and should be CHANGED for the sake of CHANGE and stuff.

It's all about LOVE (read sex) now. SO get with the times and what people really want (to get off) and have tax breaks for doing it (in more ways than one).

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea

originally posted by: introvert
That's already been mentioned and properly put to rest. An animal cannot represent itself in court or understand a legally-binding contract. Therefore the entire argument is null and void.

This is spot on.

It's not about consent in the slightest as we have no problems ignoring whether the animal consents. It's about the inability to represent itself. No different from a toddler.

Were an animal to reach a point where it can communicate to the same level as a low IQ human that can enter into contracts and represent itself... the entire discussion would have to be opened up again though.

Yeah, and if that Sheep says any different...She's a liar.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Doom and Gloom
a reply to: Klassified

If they are willing to accept those risks then who are you to dictate whether or not they can have children?

Who are they to make that kind of decision for an as yet unborn child who cannot make that determination for itself? I think it would be quite cold and heartless of me to bring a child into this world with say... my mother, knowing the chances are good that child will suffer with defects as well as emotional and mental issues throughout their life.

So the fact that the woman in the link that I am going to provide is actually living as normal a life as possible is irrelevant?

Link

Was it heartless for her mother to allow her to come into this world with no arms? Are we now against those with birth defects?

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
Then you can't use consent as a reason to set that boundary... it's just your personal preference. We don't require their consent to become registered property of a human as a pet where they can be left outside in the weather, forced to carry people on their backs, do tricks for treats, become dinner, etc.

It's ALREADY the boundary. That is how marriage is defined legally. It's not like I'm adding this context.

So a state can choose to not recognize the marriage of a 15 year old and a 30 year old from another state? On what legal grounds does that hold up now?

The Tenth Amendment, provided that there exists a state in the union that lets a 15 year old be with a 30 year old. Though you may run into problems with transporting a minor across state lines as well.

Heterosexual non-incest couples also result in birth defects, and not all incest couplings result in birth defects. Older women and men also increases the chance of birth defects. Shall we put an age cap to prevent the "risk" there too?

Yes, but like I said, those birth defects are hard to account for. These ones are EASILY preventable because we've established correlation for it.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I want to say it was Arthur C. Clarke's book "Hammer of God" where I first was introduced to that idea. People lived for so many years that to be with the same person for 200 years wasn't really something people wanted to do. They got together, raised kids, watched them grow, retired for a bit together, parted ways amicably and found a new spouse.

If our lifespans allow for it, I think we actually might see something like that.

a reply to: Doom and Gloom

Was it heartless for her mother to allow her to come into this world with no arms? Are we now against those with birth defects?

That's a straw man, and I think you know it. Of course, we aren't against those with birth defects. But if you already know the chances are good your child will have them, and have a harsh life because of them, why get pregnant to begin with?