NY State blesses ‘incest’ marriage between uncle, niece

The state’s highest court has toppled a cultural taboo — legalizing a degree of incest, at least between an uncle and niece — in a unanimous ruling.

While the laws against “parent-child and brother-sister marriages . . . are grounded in the almost universal horror with which such marriages are viewed . . . there is no comparably strong objection to uncle-niece marriages,” Tuesday’s ruling reads.

Judge Robert Smith of the Court of Appeals wrote that such unions were lawful in New York until 1893 and Rhode Island allows them.
NY State blesses incest 8217 marriage between uncle niece New York Post
----------------------------

Yeah, remember when we said once we start to redefine marriage that all of the perverts (liberals) will come out of the wood work and start to chant for their rights to marry?

Polygamy. bestiality, and yes incest marriages.

Well, here they are, right on que.

Aaaaand there are the liberals, supporting it.
We just keep slippin down that slope...
 
While the laws against “parent-child and brother-sister marriages . . . are grounded in the almost universal horror with which such marriages are viewed . . . there is no comparably strong objection to uncle-niece marriages,” Tuesday’s ruling reads.

So one appeals judge says that if a sexual practice or practices are repugnant to the majority, that is grounds for making/keeping those practices out of the bounds of marriage.

How does that finding line up with the various federal circuit findings that even when majorities object state by state, the repugnant behaviors have "rights" superior to the majority's decision on the repugnant sexual practices being legitimized in marriage?

They don't. The two decisions are diametrically-opposed in the sense of precedent and equality.
wouldn't "almost universal" mean the same as "a majority"?
 
I think the act of men having sex with each other is weird, and I think that having sex with your sister is weird. With that said, I believe in gay rights and gay marriage, therefore I must be consistent by condoning incest. You cant support one but not the other without being a hypocrite. I expect gay people in particular to be supportive of incest. Make no mistake, butt fucking a man sounds a lot worse to me than fucking my female cousin. Neither scenario is great, but the gay sex stuff is a nightmare to a heterosexual. If I was tied up and helpless, I would rather see a guy holding a knife than a guy holding a bottle of lube.
 
To those who say there is no slipperly slop, that marriage equality won't lead to polygamy and incest:

You are either:

1. stupid and don't believe in what you claim you do.

or

2. a complete liar. How can you argue for marriage equality, to marry the person you love, while wanting to throw people in jail for marrying the person they love? Gays don't get charged with a crime for trying to marry even where it isn't legal. Incest and polygamists get charged with crimes for trying. They have it a lot worse.
 
To those who say there is no slipperly slop, that marriage equality won't lead to polygamy and incest: You are either: 1. stupid and don't believe in what you claim you do. or 2. a complete liar. How can you argue for marriage equality, to marry the person you love, while wanting to throw people in jail for marrying the person they love? Gays don't get charged with a crime for trying to marry even where it isn't legal. Incest and polygamists get charged with crimes for trying. They have it a lot worse.

Yep! Technically speaking, any state with the law rendered "dead by limbo/attrition" as to marriage being only "between a man and a woman" now actually and factually has legal polygamy and incest and any other conceivable consenting adult marriage ALREADY "LEGAL"....as legal as gay marriage...
 
Once again:

As the Court said in Wisconsin's same gender marriage case:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
Raising concerns isn't a legal reason to deny something. Legalizing pot would raise concerns. many things raise concerns. There's no more reason to assume polygamy might become abusive than any other marriage. He or she was making a political decision and forcing it onto the masses.

Forcing what on the masses?

You think that the judge in Wisconsin is forcing the masses to 'gay marry'?

Sorry- you will never be forced to marry anyone you don't want to, not even in Wisconsin.
 
To those who say there is no slipperly slop, that marriage equality won't lead to polygamy and incest: You are either: 1. stupid and don't believe in what you claim you do. or 2. a complete liar. How can you argue for marriage equality, to marry the person you love, while wanting to throw people in jail for marrying the person they love? Gays don't get charged with a crime for trying to marry even where it isn't legal. Incest and polygamists get charged with crimes for trying. They have it a lot worse.

Yep! Technically speaking, any state with the law rendered "dead by limbo/attrition" as to marriage being only "between a man and a woman" now actually and factually has legal polygamy and incest and any other conceivable consenting adult marriage ALREADY "LEGAL"....as legal as gay marriage...

Pure bat guano crazy.

Silhouette- I think you need to step up and prove your theory.

March down to the court house and try to get a marriage license for you and your brother- explain how that is now your legal right.

Let us know how that goes.
 
To those who say there is no slipperly slop, that marriage equality won't lead to polygamy and incest:

You are either:

1. stupid and don't believe in what you claim you do.

or

2. a complete liar. How can you argue for marriage equality, to marry the person you love, while wanting to throw people in jail for marrying the person they love? Gays don't get charged with a crime for trying to marry even where it isn't legal. Incest and polygamists get charged with crimes for trying. They have it a lot worse.

How could the Lovings argue for marriage equality even though people could be thrown in jail for incest?

How could anyone argue for voting equality for blacks when women still couldn't vote?

This whole thing about incest and polygamy are strawmen raised by homophobes who hate the idea of homosexuals being able to marry like my wife and I are married.

Homosexuals have sued for marriage equality with my wife and I- and I support that.

You can argue about incest and polygamy as much as you want- if you want to sue the State arguing that you have the right to marry your Brother- I support your right to sue.

But what I support is marriage equality for same gender couples.

Nothing more and nothing less.

Oh- and the courts have rejected your slippery slope arguments every time....because its sooooooooo convincing.....
 
The state’s highest court has toppled a cultural taboo — legalizing a degree of incest, at least between an uncle and niece — in a unanimous ruling.

While the laws against “parent-child and brother-sister marriages . . . are grounded in the almost universal horror with which such marriages are viewed . . . there is no comparably strong objection to uncle-niece marriages,” Tuesday’s ruling reads.

Judge Robert Smith of the Court of Appeals wrote that such unions were lawful in New York until 1893 and Rhode Island allows them.
NY State blesses incest 8217 marriage between uncle niece New York Post
----------------------------

Yeah, remember when we said once we start to redefine marriage that all of the perverts (liberals) will come out of the wood work and start to chant for their rights to marry?

Polygamy. bestiality, and yes incest marriages.

Well, here they are, right on que.

Aaaaand there are the liberals, supporting it.
We just keep slippin down that slope...

Which slope is it- marriage between uncles and nieces were legal until 1893.....when they were made illegal........if there was a slippery slope wouldn't that mean there were all sorts of more marriages should be illegal now?
 
This is more about the "ick factor" than anything else. Here in Missouri at least, incestuous marriages are illegal even in the case of step-relatives and relatives-in-law (i.e. where no blood relation exists.)

The incest taboo is found in every culture throughout history. Well, almost every culture. Hawaiin and some of the south Pacific islander cultures were okay with it. As were European and Scandinavian cultures. Which to this day are okay with it. Legal in a few countries already, and a few more are pushing to legalize it.

Latest research into offspring of close relatives suggest the genetic problems which crop up may not be as dire as once thought. And with modern genetic engineering and manipulation it's reasonable to conclude that eventually safeguards, prevention, and mitigation will make them no more risky than any other pairing. Once the genetic concern is eliminated, what remains as a reason to forbid it?
 
This is more about the "ick factor" than anything else. Here in Missouri at least, incestuous marriages are illegal even in the case of step-relatives and relatives-in-law (i.e. where no blood relation exists.)

The incest taboo is found in every culture throughout history. Well, almost every culture. Hawaiin and some of the south Pacific islander cultures were okay with it. As were European and Scandinavian cultures. Which to this day are okay with it. Legal in a few countries already, and a few more are pushing to legalize it.

Latest research into offspring of close relatives suggest the genetic problems which crop up may not be as dire as once thought. And with modern genetic engineering and manipulation it's reasonable to conclude that eventually safeguards, prevention, and mitigation will make them no more risky than any other pairing. Once the genetic concern is eliminated, what remains as a reason to forbid it?
The "ick factor"?

You mean like how two dudes monkey-humping playing at "mom and dad" to little boys they got some lesbian to have for them as "their children"? That kind of "ick factor"?

Who defines in this country what is "icky" BTW? A majority or a minority?
 
This is more about the "ick factor" than anything else. Here in Missouri at least, incestuous marriages are illegal even in the case of step-relatives and relatives-in-law (i.e. where no blood relation exists.)

The incest taboo is found in every culture throughout history. Well, almost every culture. Hawaiin and some of the south Pacific islander cultures were okay with it. As were European and Scandinavian cultures. Which to this day are okay with it. Legal in a few countries already, and a few more are pushing to legalize it.

Latest research into offspring of close relatives suggest the genetic problems which crop up may not be as dire as once thought. And with modern genetic engineering and manipulation it's reasonable to conclude that eventually safeguards, prevention, and mitigation will make them no more risky than any other pairing. Once the genetic concern is eliminated, what remains as a reason to forbid it?
The "ick factor"?

You mean like how two dudes monkey-humping playing at "mom and dad" to little boys they got some lesbian to have for them as "their children"? That kind of "ick factor"?

Who defines in this country what is "icky" BTW? A majority or a minority?


"Icky" is an entirely subjective assesment. Can be just one person's opinion. Scat to me is icky, perhaps to most, but not all. Do I support banning it legally? Hell no. Each to their own. BDSM isn't "icky" as much as it makes me laugh when people shift into or out of character. :)

If you don't like something sexual why think about it? I don't like scat play and consequently, but for this very thread haven't thought about it in years. Last thing I wanna do is write or think about it regularly so it's worth wondering why you and others who obviously disapprove of gay sex obsessively think about it.
 
Some idiot married a bridge here; consummated and all......the twisted pervert!! Female at that!

Not recognised by the state but lauded in the "popular" press. (Sydney)

Stupid!Stupid! Stupid!

Greg
Only because the bridge could not run away!
 
"Icky" is an entirely subjective assesment. Can be just one person's opinion. Scat to me is icky, perhaps to most, but not all. Do I support banning it legally? Hell no. Each to their own. BDSM isn't "icky" as much as it makes me laugh when people shift into or out of character. :)

If you don't like something sexual why think about it? I don't like scat play and consequently, but for this very thread haven't thought about it in years. Last thing I wanna do is write or think about it regularly so it's worth wondering why you and others who obviously disapprove of gay sex obsessively think about it.

We aren't talking about "something sexual" (the old isolate and divert tactic). We are talking about "something sexual wanting to marry and call itself parents to children".

See the difference? When you add the rest of the context of the discussion, it changes the whole picture. Next time, try doing that.
 
I feel like the entire marriage issue lies somewhere in opposite world.

Conservatives want more Government telling society what is right or wrong on the issue.
Liberals want that damn Government out of people's lives on the matter.

It just goes to show you that team-playing partisan dickweeding is a strong sauce to be hitting.

You have it exactly backwards: Liberals want Government endorsement and benefits for everything.
 
The state’s highest court has toppled a cultural taboo — legalizing a degree of incest, at least between an uncle and niece — in a unanimous ruling.

While the laws against “parent-child and brother-sister marriages . . . are grounded in the almost universal horror with which such marriages are viewed . . . there is no comparably strong objection to uncle-niece marriages,” Tuesday’s ruling reads.

"Universal horror" is no basis for a judicial ruling. Each State has a right to specify the conditions of a marriage contract. On a related note, should incest be a criminal offense? The primary concern is its effects on children but, with the availability of contraceptives and abortifacients, why worry about a speck of protoplasm?
 
I feel like the entire marriage issue lies somewhere in opposite world.

Conservatives want more Government telling society what is right or wrong on the issue.
Liberals want that damn Government out of people's lives on the matter.

It just goes to show you that team-playing partisan dickweeding is a strong sauce to be hitting.

You have it exactly backwards: Liberals want Government endorsement and benefits for everything.
and concervatives want the government to say no bad boy bad boy dont get married two fellas, youre disgusting.
 
"Universal horror" is no basis for a judicial ruling. Each State has a right to specify the conditions of a marriage contract. On a related note, should incest be a criminal offense? The primary concern is its effects on children but, with the availability of contraceptives and abortifacients, why worry about a speck of protoplasm?
If a brother or sister were infertile or sterilized, it would be a non-issue. Agreed, "Universal horror" is just another way of saying "repugnant to the majority" which is the same as gay marriage...
 
"Universal horror" is no basis for a judicial ruling. Each State has a right to specify the conditions of a marriage contract. On a related note, should incest be a criminal offense? The primary concern is its effects on children but, with the availability of contraceptives and abortifacients, why worry about a speck of protoplasm?
If a brother or sister were infertile or sterilized, it would be a non-issue. Agreed, "Universal horror" is just another way of saying "repugnant to the majority" which is the same as gay marriage...

Incest ban upheld by appeals court - SFGate

A state appeals court has upheld California's criminal laws against incest in the case of a 38-year-old Contra Costa County man convicted of having sex with his 36-year-old sister.

The First District Court of Appeal on Monday rejected a defense argument that a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, striking down state laws against gay sexual activity, had effectively legalized all private sexual conduct between consenting adults.

His appeal cited language in the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that rejected society's longtime moral disapproval of homosexual conduct as a basis for criminalizing gay or lesbian sex. "Our obligation is to enforce the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code," the high court said.

But the appeals court said post-2003 rulings in California and other states have upheld laws against incest on other grounds, such as studies showing a greatly increased risk of genetic defects in children of siblings. Even if the sex in this case had been consensual - a question the verdict did not resolve - it could be criminally punished for reasons unrelated to moral disapproval, the court said.

"California's interests in protecting the integrity of the family unit and protecting against inbreeding are sufficiently important to justify (the state's) incest prohibitions," said Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline in the 3-0 ruling.


Courts have already rejected Silhouettes silly arguments.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top