<p>So brand, what’s your point in post #38—that the injunction against incest is no more valid than the one against interracial marriage?</p>
<p>The two posts are not connected. They are something to think about in light of earlier statements.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the contrary, you said that we should abandon the consent issue on marriage. Since I can’t imagine getting Aniston to marry if she had to consent…</p>
<p>BTW, I never claimed she was property nor would I tolerate any person being treated as such. And I’m offering one rational basis for realizing that marriage between man (or woman) and beast is not possible even if you follow the best rational for change marriage today: Poochie is not qualified to marry you because there no way you can convince any rational person Poochie can give consent.</p>
<p>You can have sex with any of your property (based on the the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Consenting Adult principle, btw), just feel free not to share.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ask me again when you’ve been married as long as I have. And I seem to recall a period when sex without marriage was extremely common. Something about a summer of love or something. :D</p>
<p>BTW2, I thought this was the forum for stirring up arguments.</p>
<p>Incest has not always been considered unacceptable under all circumstances.</p>
<p>There have been some societies – such as ancient Egypt and Hawaii before the arrival of whites – where it was expected that the monarch would marry his sister and bear children with her. Only such children were considered royal enough to be future rulers. From what I have read, societies such as these realized that some of the offspring of such unions would be deformed, and the problem was dealt with by infanticide. Apparently, this was a price they were willing to pay in order to have their rulers be of royal descent from both the mother and father.</p>
<p>I’m not defending incest (I don’t even approve of the problems that have been created in some dog breeds through excessive inbreeding), but it has existed in some cultures.</p>
<p>(Hi poetsheart!)</p>
<p>Strick11:</p>
<p>Help me out here. I am not saying we should or must abandon consent on marriage. I am saying that it is quite likely unnecessary as a basis for marriage between a human and his property (like an animal). When you simply state that consent is required, it does not explain precisely why it is required. It simply declares something that in fact is not yet rationally established. What is the reason why we must have consent to marry our property when without consent we are able to have sex, legally, with it, and even do such painful things as neuter it and remove its claws? In Aniston’s case you cannot marry her because she isn’t your property, but it seems were she your property you could marry her without problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because property can’t give consent, or more properly, if something can give consent, by definition, it can’t be property. </p>
<p>The point follows from the re-definition of marriage as a partnership between consenting adults. No consent, not an adult, no marriage. Poochie can’t meet that definition. From there the conversation becomes irrelevant and, now doubt, irritating.</p>
<p>(Jennifer Aniston can give consent. No one’s said she’s property you except in your faux denial of her propertihood. It’s just the only chance I have with her is if you take “consenting” out of the definition of marriage. :D)</p>
<p>The point does not concern what we accept marriage to be, but rather the justification for our view of marriage. When you state that marriage has been redefined such that it is a “partnership between consenting adults” you do not show a compelling logic as to why this definition is most reasonable. We may just as easily declare marriage “a partnership between two organisms”, or “a relationship between two or more creatures who live together and have sex”, or “a sexual bond between a man and a woman”, etc. Consent does not exist in any of these definitions, and yet they are just as valid as yours. Mere declarations of these sorts are insufficient when it comes to appealing to the reason of others so that they support laws based on our views. What I need, from anyone, is some sort of reasoned approach justifying our view of marriage. Convention is not good enough because convention can, has, and still does, stand legally against gay marriage, bestiality, and incest.</p>
<p>As I noted earlier, the prevailing view of marriage has evolved. Rewind a couple centuries and you will see the definition of marriage was different then, just as the definition of a citizen was.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Guess its a good thing that we don’t live in a democracy, and that the rights of the minority are (theoretically) supposed to be protected. :)</p>
<p>My opinion of this is that if it is between consenting adults, there should be no state restrictions on marriage. Who are we to say how people live their private lives? The state has no legitimate interest in regulating marriage. As long as the adults are consenting, there should be no problem with gay marriage, polygamy, family marriages, etc. Churches and religions don’t have to like it, but they should not be allowed to infringe upon the rights of others.</p>
<p>In the end, it is a consent issue, and I’m surprised previous pages have become bogged down by the question of animals. Animals are not moral agents and do not have the capacity to consent. They are property, pure and simple. Marriage (or any other relationship, legal or otherwise) is simply not possible and should not be argued in reference to animals.</p>
<p>I just think it’s interesting: nowadays, since (to some extent) there is a social “stigma” to being gay/being accepted as gay, people who are gay generally are much more careful.</p>
<p>i.e.: In high school (I’m a student), I saw PLENTY of straight couples giving off more PDA than I would have liked (disgusting, really) yet none of my gay/lesbian friends EVER did so much as hold hands. It was kind of sad.</p>
<p>When you think about it, in some ways, straight couples are just that much more privileged and they’re taking advantage (again I’m straight – not trying to be critical). If you look at marriage, I think a 50% divorce rate is pathetic. It’s something that gay people want legalized and straight people can marry and divorce fifty times over and take advatange of it without being held accountable (well, you might be frowned upon by some people, but you get my point). It’s kind of sad. It’s kind of how I view apathy – when you can get whatever you want, you don’t care. (It’s my theory on Paris Hilton and Britney Spears; they can buy/do whatever they want because they can afford to but they probably don’t care. – as shown by drunk driving, poor parenting, etc.)</p>
<p>I have a friend who grew up with lesbian parents and had no problem with it (biological mother + stepmom). Her dad was abusive and died in a drunk driving accident when she was one, I think. And (despite or in spite of her parents being gay, whichever way you look at it), she is one of the smartest, most opinionated, and accepting girls I know. </p>
<p>I think it’s better for a child to be adopted by two loving gay parents than being alone or with abusive parents.</p>
<p>It’s all perspective, though. I doubt my reasoning is going to convince a person who doesn’t have the same opinion as me, just as they aren’t as likely to convince me that gay people shouldn’t marry…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure I need to. To the extent that there’s a prevailing view that government shouldn’t interfere in the actions of consenting adults, reinforced by an increasing body of judicial opinions, it’s self justifying. I was arguing a “should be”, not a “has been”. It’s a logical extension of the trend.</p>
<p>Government does have an interest in marriage, of course, since it sets and enforces the rights of partners during a marriage and on death or other dissolution. Otherwise, what happens between consenting adults is none of its business. The rub is when government doesn’t distribute the rights it controls equally across different sets of consenting adults. </p>
<p>Insisting that the rights be extended to one set of consenting adults traditionally discriminated against, but not the others isn’t the answer. If we’re going to end the discrimination, let’s end it. YMMV</p>
<p>If you have a different view of what marriage should be or a theory for redefining marriage, state and defend it.</p>
<p>I will say that, while parsing my point to this level is silly because it stretches the definition of marriage beyond experience and reason, there is a good reason to object to taking “consent” out of the equation. Marriage without consent has been considered slavery. That was the legal basis for outlawing polygamy in the first place.</p>
<p>Doesn’t it seem to you that we need reasons grounded in something more fundamental than a “prevailing view”? I don’t think this is self-justifying, especially when it comes to compelling the obedience of a society by use of law. It seems to me we ought to seek only to compel on the basis of what is rational—not on what is popular.</p>
<p>My aim is not to push a definition of marriage. I want to understand if the most rational definition comes from some fundamental source or whether it can be separated from such things and defined on its own. If it can be separated, then gay marriage is fine. If not, then it possibly has problems.</p>
<p>Anyway, thanks so much for indulging me.</p>
<p>To my mind- the question isn’t should we allow those in a same sex relationship to be married because that should be up to their church or state, but should we discriminate against adults who are not related but consider themselves a family for: insurance purposes,tax exemptions, joint property rights, ability to rent or purchase a home, hiring and firing-jobs, parenting responsibilities…?</p>
<p>[No we should not discriminate](<a href=“Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage</a>)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whatever is logical ought to be acceptable, not necessarily whatever has been the norm in the past. Either marriage (as defined by the government, not the church) is an evolving concept or it is not. Were it not, many of the people we see getting married today would not be capable of doing so. Thus, as the definition of marriage has been pliable in the past, it is not asking too much to question the current definition and suggest yet another change. Indeed, the government has often molded the definitions of such terms in the past (citizen, voter, etc.) to reflect what is logical.</p>
<p>How is it that we judge what is logical unless we compare it to some axiomatic state or value, some unchangeable principle without which existence is impossible? For example, for years it was illegal for people of different races to marry. However the fact is, and has always been, that all humans, every single one of us, is comprised of different races (especially since each person is quite literally a race unto himself). In banning marriage between two races, we essentially banned the logic that gives rise to our species. It is therefore most evident we were wrong on that issue, and that by reason a change was necessary. What is the axiom by which we might compel another change in marriage? I do not yet see how other marriage forms reference our species so that banning them is to ban what is human (i.e. the principle upon which we are based).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you support polygamy? It meets all the conditions you name (watch an episode of “Big Love”). </p>
<p>Isn’t the only objection to polygamy religious, too?</p>
<p>I don’t have cable so I havent’ watched Big love-
I am familiar with some jack Mormon famiies- ( from the news- my sister and her relatives are main stream LDS) but many of those young women seem to have been pressured before they were 18- that I am against</p>
<p>But if adults- who arent already related to each other- want to form a polygamous relationship- I don’t see how it is any of my business.
For societies purpose- I think it is more advantageous to have a “bigamist” relationship- one man with many wives and more children for example- to be appropriately legal and appropriately taxed, rather than the law only recognizing the original marriage and then viewing the rest as eligible for welfare. </p>
<p>I think raising the issue of if you believe this- then you must believe that- is sidetracking from the main issue of-
does same sex marriage threaten heterosexual marriages?
And my response would be- no it does not.
Should we discriminate against couples in a same sex relationship?
No we should not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It sounds great and I think that most people would agree with it, however almost all posters have very different interpretations of being logical. In fact, many posts in support of incest, polygamy and even marriages to animal partners possess flawless [url= <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic]logic[/url”>Logic - Wikipedia]logic[/url</a>]</p>
<p>This is a brilliant thread I really enjoyed it! It clearly illustrates several issues accompanying most social or political reforms:
- Its impossible to come up with a solution acceptable for every early supporter of the reform any approved reform is likely to invoke loud protests and calls for new reforms quoting the previous one as a precedent. Should we expect an incest marriages resolution any time soon?
- Very often its hard to be PC without sounding senseless or plain foolish.
- Confused and frustrated respondents who cant offer a solution turn to hostility and accusations of the OP.<br>
- Some propositions from the respondents, although undoubtfully well-meant, literally send chills down my spine. Genetic control before marriage? Prohibiting childbearing for people with genetic risks? Eugenic selection standards? All of these in the name of liberal reform proposed for the sake of human rights and against discrimination?</p>
<p>So, I am still curious, is their any consensus from gay marriage supporters? Do we need a marriage law equally representing all individuals in our society? Yes or No?</p>
<p>P.S. For the record, I totally agree with EK4 regarding gay and polygamous relationships.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Society has fortunately increased in intelligence, and therefore its ability to reason and use logic, over time. Thus something as powerful as marriage should not be so easily restricted to an eternal, unchanging definition. What do you think instigated the previous change that you reference? Certainly it was not the majority, though most of us today are intelligent enough to realize that the modification of the definition only allowed people more freedom and did nothing to set society back. The same could be said for the issue at hand now. What good will come of it? There are certainly many who will praise the benefits of marriage between individuals of the same sex. What evil shall come of it? Of course there are many reasons that can be tied to religion, yet you will have a difficult time finding the negative effects on society that gay marriage would have. Most criticisms that have been thrown around are mere speculation - i.e. the birthrate would decline as the percentage of gay people “explodes” lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I certainly do. What harm comes of polygamy? Moreover, it is not as if the matter is a common one. In the end, society is limiting the rights (indeed the religious rights) of a small group of individuals whose actions, if permissable, would not have a negative impact on the rest of us.</p>
<p>Until someone can present me with the negative possiblities (not tied to the Bible or religion please as I do not care), any claim that homosexual marriages or polygamy are wrong seems unfounded. Now of course we can extend the discussion to incest, marriage with any organism, etc. Incest quite clearly does have a negative effect on, at the very least, the children that the couple may have. Marriage with another organism seems as if it would carry many unknown risks, just as sex with an animal would. All of these are “taboo” topics but, nonetheless, they occur within a small majority of the population and would eventually have to be addressed. IMO, it seems illogical to legally recognize incestuous marriage or marriage between a human and something non-human. This ironically (and somewhat hypocritically) goes back to customary tradition (and perhaps common sense) as well, but at the very least the risks that I’ve noted above should be considered.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope. If you’re going to make a virtually unprecedented change to marriage, it’s fair to look at the impact that change will have on other changes for which there is a long established precedent. You also presume that people asking the question do so because they’re against all the other potential changes to marriage. </p>
<p>Note that there’s a strong difference between bigamy and plural marriage, primarily that in bigamy not all the parties to the marriage are aware of each other. That would, should, remain illegal.</p>