Civil Unions: A Step Foward

[jillian]

I think gays should be allowed to marry. Having said that, if the courts allowed to marry, what's to stop a brother and sister or father/daugter, etc. from going to the supreme court and demanding a marriage license?

That's a good point. And then there's polygamy. And people will say, oh of course they won't allow any of that because that's not right... uh huh.

why do you care if consenting adults *choose* to be polygamous?

 

[FXASHUN]

Don't think so, I know a little of people that are pro gay marriage that see no problem with polygamy either. Provided everyone involved is a consenting adult, not coerced into the situation. As for relatives marrying each other, I don't find it likely that people will be advocating for the laws currently preventing that to be overturned. They are on the books because of the genetic defects that are likely to occur in the offspring of people that closely related.

That's actually been disproven. Older women waiting later to get pregnant has been shown to be a greater risk of birth defects than incestuous offspring.

 

[garyd]

Marriage predates this country by centurys. And in any place other than a JP's office. The complete statement, usually runs by the power of God almighty I now pronounce you damn and Wife and God has joined let no man split assunder. That's why the state gets to do divorces, outside of Adultery the churches won't. Mentioning the government is not the standard practice outside of the hall of government because for us religious types the governments interest in this is largely illusory.

 

[garyd]

Most polygamous situations occur in either of two regards force of the Girl or woman, or ignorance on the part of the various women involved in the relationships

 

[Enigma]

That's actually been disproven. Older women waiting later to get pregnant has been shown to be a greater risk of birth defects than incestuous offspring.

Interesting, do you have a link with the data?

 

[Enigma]

Marriage predates this country by centurys. And in any place other than a JP's office. The complete statement, usually runs by the power of God almighty I now pronounce you damn and Wife and God has joined let no man split assunder. That's why the state gets to do divorces, outside of Adultery the churches won't. Mentioning the government is not the standard practice outside of the hall of government because for us religious types the governments interest in this is largely illusory.

You are certainly correct that marriage predates this country, but it was certainly not only a religious concept as it is not now. As you cited above there are people that get married at a justice of peace. Even though this is not a religious ceremony, it is still defined as a marriage. Why shouldn't people that are gay have the same rights?

 

[FXASHUN]

That's actually been disproven. Older women waiting later to get pregnant has been shown to be a greater risk of birth defects than incestuous offspring.

Interesting, do you have a link with the data?

Sure do...
Can't post links yet though. Here's the information.
The actual risk-multiplication effect of cousin marriage isn't clear. A study I cited six years ago concluded that having a child with your first cousin increased the risk of a significant birth defect from about 3-to-4 percent to about 4-to-7 percent. Wilkinson cites data showing that "since 1997 there have been 902 British children born with neurodegenerative conditions and 8% of those were in Bradford which only has 1% of the population." This appears to be the basis for Sample's report that "rare inherited brain disorders are eight times higher among Pakistani children born to married cousins than those born to unrelated parents." But Wilkinson adds that Australian geneticist Alan Bittles, supposedly the top expert on this subject,

has collated data on infant mortality in children born within first-cousin marriages from around the world and found that the extra increased risk of death is 1.2%. In terms of birth defects, he says, the risks rise from about 2% in the general population to 4% when the parents are closely related.

If Bittles' numbers are correct, they substantiate a somewhat embarrassing point made by defenders of cousin marriage. Embarrassing, that is, to all of us good Western folk who turn up our noses at the practice. The British Down's Syndrome Association has posted a chart showing the risk of producing a baby with the syndrome at various maternal ages. From age 20 to age 31, the risk doubles. From 31 to 35, it doubles again. From 35 to 38, it doubles again. From 38 to 41, it more than doubles again. Each delay multiplies the risk as much as cousin marriage multiplies the risks of all birth defects combined. By age 45, the probability of Down syndrome alone roughly matches the 4 percent cumulative risk of birth defects from cousin marriage.

 

[Modbert]

I think gays should be allowed to marry. Having said that, if the courts allowed to marry, what's to stop a brother and sister or father/daugter, etc. from going to the supreme court and demanding a marriage license?

Incest has been proven to show not only psychological harm to the child but to any offspring.

I hate this fucked up argument posed by the right "This opens up the door for incest and dogs/humans marrying".

BUZZ, THE PRICE IS WRONG. But of course, why throw logic into a situation?

The difference between two men and a cat/human or father/daughter marrying is that it's two consenting adults. If a mother/son tried to get a license, the mother has abused her psychological pull over her son.

It's no different then when a teacher abuses their trust in trying to get with a student.

 

[Enigma]

Sure do...
Can't post links yet though. Here's the information.
The actual risk-multiplication effect of cousin marriage isn't clear. A study I cited six years ago concluded that having a child with your first cousin increased the risk of a significant birth defect from about 3-to-4 percent to about 4-to-7 percent. Wilkinson cites data showing that "since 1997 there have been 902 British children born with neurodegenerative conditions and 8% of those were in Bradford which only has 1% of the population." This appears to be the basis for Sample's report that "rare inherited brain disorders are eight times higher among Pakistani children born to married cousins than those born to unrelated parents." But Wilkinson adds that Australian geneticist Alan Bittles, supposedly the top expert on this subject,

has collated data on infant mortality in children born within first-cousin marriages from around the world and found that the extra increased risk of death is 1.2%. In terms of birth defects, he says, the risks rise from about 2% in the general population to 4% when the parents are closely related.

If Bittles' numbers are correct, they substantiate a somewhat embarrassing point made by defenders of cousin marriage. Embarrassing, that is, to all of us good Western folk who turn up our noses at the practice. The British Down's Syndrome Association has posted a chart showing the risk of producing a baby with the syndrome at various maternal ages. From age 20 to age 31, the risk doubles. From 31 to 35, it doubles again. From 35 to 38, it doubles again. From 38 to 41, it more than doubles again. Each delay multiplies the risk as much as cousin marriage multiplies the risks of all birth defects combined. By age 45, the probability of Down syndrome alone roughly matches the 4 percent cumulative risk of birth defects from cousin marriage.

No problem about the link thing. What website did you get your info from? I'd be curious to read the studies further.

 

[Enigma]

I think gays should be allowed to marry. Having said that, if the courts allowed to marry, what's to stop a brother and sister or father/daugter, etc. from going to the supreme court and demanding a marriage license?

Incest has been proven to show not only psychological harm to the child but to any offspring.

I hate this fucked up argument posed by the right "This opens up the door for incest and dogs/humans marrying".

BUZZ, THE PRICE IS WRONG. But of course, why throw logic into a situation?

The difference between two men and a cat/human or father/daughter marrying is that it's two consenting adults. If a mother/son tried to get a license, the mother has abused her psychological pull over her son.

It's no different then when a teacher abuses their trust in trying to get with a student.

I hate this ridiculous argument as well. Legalizing gay marriage has nothing to do with anyone trying to open up the door for incestuous relationships or beastiality. Very good point about the psychological effects I didn't think to make above.

 

[Sunni Man]

Homo marraige is just basically legalized beastiality.

After all what Homos do is borderline sub human behavior.

 

[FXASHUN]

I think gays should be allowed to marry. Having said that, if the courts allowed to marry, what's to stop a brother and sister or father/daugter, etc. from going to the supreme court and demanding a marriage license?

Incest has been proven to show not only psychological harm to the child but to any offspring.

I hate this fucked up argument posed by the right "This opens up the door for incest and dogs/humans marrying".

BUZZ, THE PRICE IS WRONG. But of course, why throw logic into a situation?

The difference between two men and a cat/human or father/daughter marrying is that it's two consenting adults. If a mother/son tried to get a license, the mother has abused her psychological pull over her son.

It's no different then when a teacher abuses their trust in trying to get with a student.

Actually, you are bit wrong in all that hyperventilating.
There was already a case where siblings, both over the age of 18, adults, wanted to get married. It was struck down, by a technicality. I can't yet post links, but here's the case..
Muth v. Frank
And that's just the ones that bothered to push the issue.

Incest isn't just parents screwing kids, it's still incest if they are siblings too. And a father who "falls in love" with his daughter after the age of 18, while a sick bastard, still meets all other criteria for "marriage" if you just use the "any two humans" approach that same sex marriage advocates have to rely on.

 

[FXASHUN]

No problem about the link thing. What website did you get your info from? I'd be curious to read the studies further.

It was slate I believe. Just choose a few word segment of the post and google it. It should pop right up.

 

[FXASHUN]

I hate this ridiculous argument as well. Legalizing gay marriage has nothing to do with anyone trying to open up the door for incestuous relationships or beastiality. Very good point about the psychological effects I didn't think to make above.

I'm sure the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with "same sex marriage either, but that won't stop gay advocates from attempting to ride it.

Lawrence only dealt with the ability to have any type of sex you like. Yet that is also called into play as advocating for "same sex marriage".

I'm sure Black people marching on Selma never in their wildest dreams would have ever thought that the people who at that time were being arrested for sodomy would one day use that struggle as something to hang their coat on as similar to them claiming the unnatural same sex union has a "right" to marriage.

It's amazing how sometime "legalizing one thing" can have far reaching effects never intended by the original law. Still can't post links but here's an example.
Oh no, you say — surely this really is merely an academic question. Not at all; it has been as far as a federal court of appeal already, just last month, and may soon be on the docket of the Supreme Court. On June 22, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago decided the case of Muth v. Frank, unanimously upholding Wisconsin’s criminal prohibition of incest as constitutional. But the court’s reasoning was extremely bad — surprisingly so, given the undoubted legal acumen of its author — in dealing with the precedent relied upon by the petitioner in the case. That precedent was Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling declaring the unconstitutionality of laws against homosexual sodomy. And the author in Muth was Judge Daniel Manion, a Reagan appointee. It is understandable that Judge Manion, like the rest of us, recoiled from the absurdity that the Constitution protects incest. But his effort to avert the consequences of Lawrence’s radicalism is unsustainable, for a fair reading of that case makes it hard to avoid the conclusion that the Supreme Court's version of the Constitution does indeed protect incest (just as Justice Scalia claimed in his Lawrence dissent).

 

[Amanda]

I think gays should be allowed to marry. Having said that, if the courts allowed to marry, what's to stop a brother and sister or father/daugter, etc. from going to the supreme court and demanding a marriage license?

Incest has been proven to show not only psychological harm to the child but to any offspring.

I hate this fucked up argument posed by the right "This opens up the door for incest and dogs/humans marrying".

BUZZ, THE PRICE IS WRONG. But of course, why throw logic into a situation?

The difference between two men and a cat/human or father/daughter marrying is that it's two consenting adults. If a mother/son tried to get a license, the mother has abused her psychological pull over her son.

It's no different then when a teacher abuses their trust in trying to get with a student.

I hate this ridiculous argument as well. Legalizing gay marriage has nothing to do with anyone trying to open up the door for incestuous relationships or beastiality. Very good point about the psychological effects I didn't think to make above.

I didn't mention anything about going outside the species and I don't think I saw anyone else making that case either so you can try to make it look ridiculous but the fact remains that if start changing the definitions every one with an agenda will get in line and cry foul if you don't make an exception for them. Of course gay marriage doesn't intend to open those other doors, but it does none the less.

 

[elvis]

I think gays should be allowed to marry. Having said that, if the courts allowed to marry, what's to stop a brother and sister or father/daugter, etc. from going to the supreme court and demanding a marriage license?

Incest has been proven to show not only psychological harm to the child but to any offspring.

I hate this fucked up argument posed by the right "This opens up the door for incest and dogs/humans marrying".

BUZZ, THE PRICE IS WRONG. But of course, why throw logic into a situation?

The difference between two men and a cat/human or father/daughter marrying is that it's two consenting adults. If a mother/son tried to get a license, the mother has abused her psychological pull over her son.

It's no different then when a teacher abuses their trust in trying to get with a student.

It doesn't open the door for beatiality, because the dog can't choose. with the father/daughter, I was talking about the daughter being an adult.

 

[Modbert]

It doesn't open the door for beatiality, because the dog can't choose. with the father/daughter, I was talking about the daughter being an adult.

Still illegal under other certain laws.

 

[elvis]

It doesn't open the door for beatiality, because the dog can't choose. with the father/daughter, I was talking about the daughter being an adult.

Still illegal under other certain laws.

Right, but how are those laws constitutional?

 

[Modbert]

It doesn't open the door for beatiality, because the dog can't choose. with the father/daughter, I was talking about the daughter being an adult.

Still illegal under other certain laws.

Right, but how are those laws constitutional?

Crimes against Public Morals which is under the same guidelines as Prostitution and classification of laws in Criminal Law.

 

[elvis]

Still illegal under other certain laws.

Right, but how are those laws constitutional?

Crimes against Public Morals which is under the same guidelines as Prostitution and classification of laws in Criminal Law.

Oh, well I think prostitution should be legal as well, so....