It's completely beyond me how people even care about with whom other people fall in love with, with whom they have sex etc. They don't force you to do anything, they don't hurt you... I read this really interesting paper once, about decriminalisation of homosexuality in France (it was a done deal with the Code Civil in 1791). And that didn't happen because the French were that much more free-spirited and open-minded than the rest of Europe / Colonies. It happened because the main principle of French law is that there has to be a victim of a crime, otherwise it's not a crime. And those French bereaucrats back then must have realised: there is simply no victim if homosexual sex practises / homosexual relationships are among consensual adults. That's how it was decriminalised.
How can something be wrong if it doesn't hurt anybody?
What Medusa wrote . I just don't get why anybody cares what consenting adults do with each other, and I fail to see why I can get married as I please, while my gay friends can't have their relationships recognized officially.
Should heterosexuals indulge before marriage? Some people believe that is wrong. It's all a matter of consentual agreement which is wrong by the bible - not by the civil law.
Isn't it the case that incest laws were brought about because of the very real risk of medical problems arising from "in-breeding"? (Or is that a fallacy?)
If that was the reason then obviously that isn't even a consideration for homosexual couples who cannot have children without outside help.
Ant, in no way am I equating the two! However, all I'm trying to demonstrate is that when we say that we don't care who one marries, it's not really true. Instead, we evaluate each type of case on its own merits, including just how we as a society feel about it. As to in-breeding problems, it's questionable; the risk does increase, but it's by no means certain or, I believe, even probable (besides, most states actually prohibit adopted siblings to marry as well, though that's not the case in the UK); in fact, we'd let two people with, say, Tay-Sachs marry even though their chance of having a child who's guaranteed to die by the age of 4 is 25%. Another question of state-regulated marriages is polygamy; there, I actually see less of a difference with homosexuality - why not let a woman have two husbands (assuming they both consent) if we let her enter into a marriage other than 1 woman-1 man? Though to me, polygamy should actually be legal - but in a perfect world, meaning I have no problem with polygamy among consenting adults (though it would create a legal nightmare!) but the reality of polygamy is that too many young girls get forced into it, too many men are basically banished, etc, so I wouldn't want to legalize it in the society today.
Last edited by Ptichka; 06-16-2009 at 12:19 PM.
In the case of incest it's for sure that there are genetical problems arising from such practises among the offspring (but not every incest child is handicapped or suffering from diseases). The reason for those genetical problems is simple: there are loads and loads of diseases that are recessive. And mankind is very lucky that those are recessive, because it means that they occur very rarely. If you got a child with genetic material from father / daughter or brother / sister - every normally harmless recessive gene will suddenly mean a high probability that the offspring will suffer from said recessive disease (let's say the father has the recessive gene, he has two children - in each child the probability of them having the recessive gene is 50% - normally not a problem, because the probablity of them marrying someone with the same recessive gene is relatively small - but if those siblings have a child together, you suddenly have 25% probability).
But with our technical and scientific methods we could actually make sure that an incest couple will only have healthy children.
My biggest problem with incest is more on the psychological side: if a father wants to marry his daughter - how can society be sure that the relationship is actually consensual? For all we know that woman suffers from a life-long Stockholm Syndrom. There is basically no way to find out if this is a consensual relationship between adults. Similar stuff could go for brother / sister, brother / brother and sister / sister. How can you make sure that these relationships are actually consensual and not formed because she / he were raised to depend on brother / father / sister in every possible way from early childhood on? Make extensive psychological tests over a long period of time, question friends and family? I can't think of a humane and realistic solution.
EDIT: read Ptichka's post. I actually don't have a problem with polygamy. But there is not really injustice here, because nobody in our countries is allowed to marry more than one person at once. Same goes for the incest thing: the rules are the same for everyone. With gay marriage it's different: only women may marry men and only men may marry women. In this case - not all people have the same rights.
Last edited by Medusa; 06-16-2009 at 12:34 PM.
What about two adults with Tay-Sachs recessive gene? Should they be allowed to marry? Their chance of having a child with Tay-Sachs is likewise 25%? (Most modern Jews get tested before having children, but many, especially in the ultra-Orthodox community, do not)In the case of incest it's for sure that there are genetical problems arising from such practises among the offspring (but not every incest child is handicapped or suffering from diseases)
Yeah, I certainly dodged most of this issue by saying brother/sister as opposed to father/daughter! With siblings, I think the risk is no greater than with any other relationship - in truth any marriage may have been coerced.My biggest problem with incest is more on the psychological side:
I think this is a logical fallacy. Everyone can choose to marry who they want, but I am not allowed to, because I happen to share parents with my beloved. Or, vice versa - everyone is allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex, including a gay person; there is no discrimination here. Your logic regarding polygamy is probably right, though.Same goes for the incest thing: the rules are the same for everyone. With gay marriage it's different: only women may marry men and only men may marry women. In this case - not all people have the same rights.
If so, here is something for you to consider: In our country, we have freedom of religion, which means we have the right to practice our own religious beliefs and rituals and we must also allow others to practice theirs, even if our religion says their religion is wrong. Correct?
Would you try to pass a law making another religion illegal because that religion goes against the teachings of your religion? No? Then why would you try to make homosexual marriage illegal because your religion says it is wrong? What's the difference?
This is why nobody should be able to make a law imposing limits on people just because of some people's religious beliefs. And that's what I see going on here.
Perhaps we explore other traits of birth to be prevented from getting married? Brown haired people perhaps? Certainly they don't deserve the same rights as the blonde haired people.
Rhetorical question -- when will the human race collectively crawl out of the slime, and the people that comprise it become concerned about something more than just their own selfish desires?
(Rhetorical answer -- it won't )
Conservatives want to destroy the earth, liberals want to destroy society. I picked the wrong planet, remind me to pick another one next time.
<-- Electronic thumb to signal the UFO to pick me up