Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom


I think you pretty much nailed it here. Marriage should be a religious or spiritual cermemony and should not pertain to the state in any way. This means any permutation of social congress should be allowed. So long as both parties enter into it willingly and can cancel at anytime.

I don't agree with this at all. If marriage is a religious ceremony, then whose religion? Are you saying that two atheists can't get married? If a christian/muslim/hindu ceremony is legitimate then what about a wiccan ceremony? or, only slight less ridiculous, a jedi ceremony? or (god help us) a klingon ceremony? I got married last year in a non-religious ceremony. Are you telling me I don't have a wife?

We need to stop pandering to the religious lobby and front up to the fact that our concept of marriage has greatly changed. Marriage is primarily a social ceremony. It is the joining of two people in the eyes of their community. Calling the joining of 2 people regardless of their sex a "civil union" is just being pedantic. If you stand in front of your community (even if that community is only represented by a celebrant and some witnesses) and declare your love, you're married. The state should recognise marriage (in practical terms for next-of-kin, tax and so on) but it shouldn't make any decisions as to who can get married (provided all parties are of legal age, and are entering into the agreement of their own free will*).

That said, I don't really have a problem with the various religions refusing to marry same sex couples. If you don't like the rules, don't join the club.

As to the OP, while I'll admit the concept of an incestuous marriage makes me deeply uncomfortable, as long as it involves 2 consenting adults, I can't honestly see any moral justification for me to stop it.

For polygamy, as long as no-one is being coerced, honestly I couldn't care less. If a man is mad enough to want two women to boss him around, then good luck to him. [grin]

*Now there's an interesting question: should someone who is mentally handicapped be allowed to marry? I'm inclined to say it would be cruel to deny them, but equally it's easy to see how that could be open to abuse.

Quote: Original post by Kwizatz
I am atheist and skeptic, so couldn't care less about the "spiritual" side of it.

As am I... but Straudos... I don't know if you're trying to draw connotations between homosexuality and incest. I don't know, I personally don't care who marries who. Whatever makes you happy I suppose.

Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom


I think you pretty much nailed it here. Marriage should be a religious or spiritual cermemony and should not pertain to the state in any way. This means any permutation of social congress should be allowed. So long as both parties enter into it willingly and can cancel at anytime.

I don't agree with this at all. If marriage is a religious ceremony, then whose religion? Are you saying that two atheists can't get married? If a christian/muslim/hindu ceremony is legitimate then what about a wiccan ceremony? or, only slight less ridiculous, a jedi ceremony? or (god help us) a klingon ceremony? I got married last year in a non-religious ceremony. Are you telling me I don't have a wife?

We need to stop pandering to the religious lobby and front up to the fact that our concept of marriage has greatly changed. Marriage is primarily a social ceremony. It is the joining of two people in the eyes of their community. Calling the joining of 2 people regardless of their sex a "civil union" is just being pedantic. If you stand in front of your community (even if that community is only represented by a celebrant and some witnesses) and declare your love, you're married. The state should recognise marriage (in practical terms for next-of-kin, tax and so on) but it shouldn't make any decisions as to who can get married (provided all parties are of legal age, and are entering into the agreement of their own free will*).

That said, I don't really have a problem with the various religions refusing to marry same sex couples. If you don't like the rules, don't join the club.

As to the OP, while I'll admit the concept of an incestuous marriage makes me deeply uncomfortable, as long as it involves 2 consenting adults, I can't honestly see any moral justification for me to stop it.

For polygamy, as long as no-one is being coerced, honestly I couldn't care less. If a man is mad enough to want two women to boss him around, then good luck to him. [grin]

*Now there's an interesting question: should someone who is mentally handicapped be allowed to marry? I'm inclined to say it would be cruel to deny them, but equally it's easy to see how that could be open to abuse.

Why the jousting at windmills? any permutation of social congress is all inclusive. Why not open a different thread to bash whatever variety of religions you want to bash, or at least not append my post and act as if you made any statement of signifigance.

Other than your religion bashing you seem to restate my position that "you don't agree with at all"

The French PaCS is, literally, a Civil Pact of Solidarity. It is a weaker bond than marriage (less benefits, less responsibilities) and is increasingly used by heterosexual couples (in addition to homosexual ones).

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I don't think genetic risk alone is why most people don't agree with a brother and sister getting married. That taboo was established long before people had an inkling of genetics. But if you want to entertain genetic factors, the disposition against incest might well involve evolutionary forces in that offspring produced via incest are less likely to survive and reproduce. This angle might seem to sidestep your question, but if the assumption behind the question lacks foundation then so does the question. Consider also, modern methods of contraception mean that an incestual relationship between a brother and sister need not carry any genetic risk at all, yet that would not make a marriage between them legit.

At any rate, there is a psychological pathology to incest that provides sufficient reason to ban such marriages, gay or straight. And if two brothers or two sisters got married simply for tax purposes, that would be fraud, the same as with a gay or straight couple who did so for tax purposes or immigration status or similar.

Not true. (Washington Post: In Afghanistan, New Misgivings About an Old but Risky Practice, 17 April, 2005)

If there was a psychological pathology which causes the idea of incest to be revolting to us, then it would be universal to humanity. Yet, in Afghanistan, its common practice for families to marry cousins (~10%-25%). Therefore, I will argue that incest is revolting to us because it is a cultural value ingrained into us through socialization processes. Where and when that began, I'd guess to be some time in the medieval period.

The "the government needs to get out of the marriage business" argument favors the homophobes. You only ever hear it as an alternative to legalization of gay marriage. I'm sure there's folks who genuinely believe this argument, but who's fighting for it? It isn't on anyone's list of priorities. It's disingenuous to try to replace the current, people-deserve-their-rights-today proposal (legalize gay marriage), with a cousin proposal (get the government out of marriage) which you and all the rest of its proponents are apathetic about, and act like the cousin proposal will in practice render the primary proposal moot.

I'd be more likely to believe that these people are concerned about the current, real-world denial of the right of homosexuals to marry if they simply owned up to reality and said something like "My ideal preference is that government completely divorce itself from marriage, but since this is less practical than legalizing gay marriage under the current system, and nobody, much less me, is even waging a fight for my proposal, I throw my support behind efforts to legalize gay marriage." Otherwise, it's simply a change of subject that doesn't really look like a change of subject, and as such, it provides cover for the extremists.

[Edited by - BerwynIrish on April 8, 2009 12:29:59 PM]

I think it's all about branding two different products. People don't want to allow generic acetaminophen on the market because they're all used to Tylenol.

A legal bond is one that grants privlidges within a country during a person's life.

A spiritual bond is one that grants privlidges within a religeous orginization during life and after life.

What exactly is in question here? Bonds of love, law, fear, abuse, spirituality? I think that governments are right to pass laws that prevent fear and abuse. It is after all, one of the primary reasons we put people into power. And it seems that it's in a government's interest to support the forming of partnerships whether for love, business, or political reasons and to create laws granting various privlidges for each. In my opinion, bonds of a spiritual or faith based nature should not be a requirement for any bond recognised by law. I don't think it's unreasonable for a specific brand of spiritual union to be denied based on predefined protocols but the government should encourage religeous orginizations to rebrand or create new forms of bonds in the interests of preventing fear and abuse.

Again, the point should be more about preventing fear and abuse. It is in the attempt to do so that laws get passed with the intent to provide the widest amount of protection and coverage. It is not unreasonable to assume that as times change, and additional knowledge and studies are available the laws will be refined as appropriate.

I'm curious, if the legal concept of marriage is purely a legal contract, in what way is it fraud to enter the contract to gain the benefits of that contract (e.g. tax benefits, citizenship) so long as they fulfill the responsibilities of that contract (I don't know, what does the law require of a married couple?)?

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
The "the government needs to get out of the marriage business" argument favors the homophobes. You only ever hear it as an alternative to legalization of gay marriage. I'm sure there's folks who genuinely believe this argument, but who's fighting for it?

Do you lump in "Let's rename the legal concept of 'marriage' to 'civil unions' and let any two consenting adults be joined in this union," with, "The government should stay out of the marriage business"? I'm a supporter of the former since the sacramental/social practice of marriage is so pervasive that it seems useful to have a legal recognition of it but also minimizes the implication that the government is saying anything about the particulars of the sacramental/social practice. Basically, it keeps the government out of the marriage business while providing the protections society expects, but I acknowledge the hair splitting the the first part of that statement.

As to the original question, I knew an older brother and sister that were living together for many years and, as far as I know, there was no "funny business" to it. I don't see any reason they shouldn't have enjoyed the benefits of a legal marriage. I think my gut reaction against the idea is that the we are then using the term "marriage" for a legal concept that is out of sync with the sacramental/social concept of "marriage". That's pretty much what I have against calling the legal concept "marriage". Intellectually, I know it to be a separate concept, but there's still the gut reaction against it. Something similar to the changing of "A.D." to "C.E."; it doesn't change anything, but it makes people feel better about it.

I don't understand why family would want to date each other. That's a little pathetic isn't it? It seems like a total cop out to me...it's not that hard to find somebody else. If you really want to, then do what makes you happy. Just seems like an excuse to me.

As for marriage, again, do what makes you happy. My personal view of marriage has always been based around the idea that you do it have a family...and the only way a homosexual couple can have children is through adoption, it has seemed like a bit of an image thing. That said, if homosexuals want to get married (to whatever purpose it serves them) then they should be free to do so. Plus I think it's funny as hell p**sing off religious people, so I always thoroughly enjoy that aspect of this whole argument.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
I think you pretty much nailed it here. Marriage should be a religious or spiritual cermemony and should not pertain to the state in any way. This means any permutation of social congress should be allowed. So long as both parties enter into it willingly and can cancel at anytime.

I don't agree with this at all. If marriage is a religious ceremony, then whose religion? Are you saying that two atheists can't get married? ...

Why the jousting at windmills? any permutation of social congress is all inclusive. Why not open a different thread to bash whatever variety of religions you want to bash, or at least not append my post and act as if you made any statement of signifigance.

Other than your religion bashing you seem to restate my position that "you don't agree with at all"

He apparently objects to your implication that marriage should necessarily be "religious or spiritual". Perhaps just a bad choice of wording on your part?

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
The "the government needs to get out of the marriage business" argument favors the homophobes. You only ever hear it as an alternative to legalization of gay marriage.

That's only because (a) the only people who come up with the idea or support it already are in favour of equal rights for homosexuals, so it's "alternative" in that sense; (b) the only time the opinion is ever solicited is in the context of the discussion of legalization of gay marriage.

Quote: I'm sure there's folks who genuinely believe this argument,

And I'm sure everyone who proposes it in this thread, myself included, is one of them. :)

Quote: but who's fighting for it? It isn't on anyone's list of priorities.

Pray tell, how would we fight for it?

Quote: It's disingenuous to try to replace the current, people-deserve-their-rights-today proposal (legalize gay marriage), with a cousin proposal (get the government out of marriage) which you and all the rest of its proponents are apathetic about, and act like the cousin proposal will in practice render the primary proposal moot.

It's disingenuous to be an idealist?

I would assuredly "hold my nose" and vote in favour of gay marriage if it were put to me, anywhere in the world, knowing that the proper solution is utterly infeasible in the existing political climate. Unless I magically happened to find myself somewhere where the "cousin proposal" actually were feasible. :)

Quote: I'd be more likely to believe that these people are concerned about the current, real-world denial of the right of homosexuals to marry if they simply owned up to reality and said something like "My ideal preference is that government completely divorce itself from marriage, but since this is less practical than legalizing gay marriage under the current system, and nobody, much less me, is even waging a fight for my proposal, I throw my support behind efforts to legalize gay marriage."

Because people can't be trusted to be in favour of equality a priori. Or because you must be an activist for a cause in order to have a plausible claim to support it. Sure thing.

BTW, I like that "that government completely divorce itself from marriage" turn of phrase. :)

Quote: Otherwise, it's simply a change of subject that doesn't really look like a change of subject, and as such, it provides cover for the extremists.

Maybe in your political climate. In mine, it's simply stating the portion of my opinion that doesn't actually go without saying.

Quote: Original post by Way Walker
I'm curious, if the legal concept of marriage is purely a legal contract, in what way is it fraud to enter the contract to gain the benefits of that contract (e.g. tax benefits, citizenship) so long as they fulfill the responsibilities of that contract (I don't know, what does the law require of a married couple?)?

Thanks. That's a point I wanted to make. If the government finds it obscene that any random set of people can "marry" and claim benefits, the government should rethink what those benefits are. If, for example, we allow the concept of "spouse" to be non-singular, but not the concepts of "next of kin" or "power of attorney", then spouses no longer assume those roles implicitly. Oh Well.

Quote: Do you lump in "Let's rename the legal concept of 'marriage' to 'civil unions' and let any two consenting adults be joined in this union," with, "The government should stay out of the marriage business"?

Stating it that way comes dangerously close to the views of those who don't understand (or claim not to) what the big deal is about the terminology. "Separate but I-ignorantly-assume-equal". That said, if everyone is genuinely treated equally, then the terminology should, actually, no longer matter. That could well take a few generations of cultural and social change even beyond all the legal restructuring, though.

It also makes it sound like it would be easy to do, when in fact there are a zillion explicit references to "marriage" in existing law. (I recognize that I'm being an idealist, and I'd like to think that others with similar views have similar recognition.) Oh, and you tip your hand here WRT your stance on polygamy. ;)

Quote: I'm a supporter of the former since the sacramental/social practice of marriage is so pervasive that it seems useful to have a legal recognition of it but also minimizes the implication that the government is saying anything about the particulars of the sacramental/social practice.

Unfortunately, we can't really wave a magic wand and have it be so. If we do a search-and-replace on all the laws and then make the necessary revisions to say "ok, now everyone can has civil union, and it does what marriage used to do", I'm confident there would still be weird legal issues.

Quote: I don't see any reason they shouldn't have enjoyed the benefits of a legal marriage. I think my gut reaction against the idea is that the we are then using the term "marriage" for a legal concept that is out of sync with the sacramental/social concept of "marriage". That's pretty much what I have against calling the legal concept "marriage".

Fair enough. But what do you think those benefits should be? I think they've gotten far out of sync with what makes sense. It seems to me that the original intent was to provide financial incentive for raising children in a nurturing environment. I think marriage benefits with that aim should be taken out of marriage and given explicitly for those who actually do a good job of raising children, regardless of the number of adults involved.

Quote: Original post by Bersicker
I don't understand why family would want to date each other. That's a little pathetic isn't it? It seems like a total cop out to me...it's not that hard to find somebody else. If you really want to, then do what makes you happy. Just seems like an excuse to me.

What you're ignoring is the possibility that two family members could find themselves more attracted to each other than to anyone else they've met. (Just because it's inconceivable for you personally doesn't mean it doesn't happen.)

EDIT: C-c-c-combo... refactorer?

[Edited by - Zahlman on April 8, 2009 4:16:26 PM]