jbernier

Yeah, you know, all those "Inbreeder Rights" activists get on my nerve too.

Let us look at your argument: Public acceptance of non-incestous, homosexual relationships will lead to public acceptance of incestous, heterosexual relationships. It seems to me that the move to accepting non-incestous homosexual relationships as legally identical to non-incestous heterosexual relationships has nothing to do with incest as both forms of relationships have nothing to do with incest! The question of incest is thus irrelevant.

In fact, let us look at the four types of relationships you can come up with these different variables:

Non-incestous heterosexual
Non-incestous homosexual
Incestous heterosexual
Incestous homosexual

Now, non-incestous heterosexual is the norm in that it is the most culturally accepted. However, historically incestous heterosexual relationships have probably been more openly accepted than either non-incestous or incestous homosexual relationships. For instance, look at dynastic marriages in Europe: How many close cousins were married in order to maintain the proper bloodlines? One could argue that European politics was a politics of incest for several centuries; indeed, they would have been almost impossible to manage without incest. So perhaps you're right: Perhaps western culture contains within itself the possible acceptance of incestous relationship; after all, good Christian monarchs and nobles were doing it for centuries.

inquisitive01

First, change the word "will" (in red above) to the word "could" (as it is written in my last post).


A few more links which, to my knowledge, are not considered as being done by "hate groups" either (just as the other links from the STD journal and the other journals were not done by "hate groups") are listed below.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/j...20030903.shtml


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=39409


http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0028908.cfm


http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/i...6&sec_id=37687

Vorkosigan

Why should lines be drawn?

inquisitive01

Just the usual (normal, natural) reasons of morality. If no lines are drawn, the entire concept of morality, which was something, becomes nothing. If anything obviously immoral and/or against the laws of nature can have the potential to become "legal" or "accepted" as norm, then what is the limit of what will ultimately become "legal" or "accepted" as norm? Selling illegal drugs to children? Spousal abuse? Prostitution? Fraud? Murder?

I suppose you don't draw any lines for your children, if you have any? Anyone else here draw lines for their children? Let's have a show of hands! :jump: If so, why do you bother based on this question: "Why should lines be drawn?"

Will people ultimately argue that they are genically-inclined to molest children or kill people and perhaps demand the same rights as the general public?

Why does this forum have moderators if no lines are to be drawn? :bulb:

Yep, that's what I thought.

WCH

Okay, I pose this question for you, Inq: what's wrong with incest? If there is something objectively wrong with it (beyond the "yuck" factor), then that's a reason for it to be disallowed. If there's nothing wrong with it, then it should be allowed. Either way, bringing it up in a debate about homosexuality is irrelevant.

The only tie in is that we're saying the "yuck" factor does not hold any legal weight. Just because we think homosexuality is icky doesn't mean we should ban it, since there are no other reasons to. but then shouldn't everything be taken individually? We're not saying to allow everything; we're just saying not to disallow anything arbitrarily, rather disallowing things because we can think of reasons why they're harmful and therefore should be disallowed for the protection of society.

Btw, about moderators, there is a big difference between morality and order. Ever played Dungeons and Dragons? I'll bet you haven't, but you should, because it teaches a very important aspect of morality: that it isn't a simple spectrum. In D&D, there is a Good-Evil spectrum as well as a Lawful-Chaotic spectrum (Robin Hood is Chaotic Good, the valient King from any fairy tale is Lawful Good, psychotics are Chaotic Evil and tyrants are Lawful Evil). Moderators are here to enfoce Law over Chaos, but will not step in to enforce Good over Evil, even though they'll certainly argue for the values of good.

Likewise, the law is in place to prevent Chaotic action, not to prevent Evil action. Murder, theft, etc are all both Chaotic and Evil -- but is parking in a no-parking zone evil? Not really. Is worshipping Satan and posting racist material on the internet Chaotic? Only if it violates the laws established to protect the individuals you're prejudiced against, otherwise it's perfectly Lawful, even if it is Evil. If the law concerns itself with Good versus Evil, things become far too convoluted, as then stealing from the rich to give to the poor would have to be sanctioned, wouldn't it?

Arctish

There are two procedures called marriage here in the USA. One is a religious ceremony or sacrament and the other is a secular legal transaction. I believe in leaving the religious ceremonies to the religions institutions. I am only addressing the secular institution of marriage here.

Marriage in the USA grants certain rights and priveledges to married individuals. It also entails certain legal obligations. Since it involves rights, the State should only interfere with the exercise of those rights if it can demonstrate some compelling reason why those rights should be restricted.

Inquisitive01, you raise the possibility of incest, polygamy, beastiality, and pedophilia becoming accepted in society as reasons to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry spouses of the same gender. These are different issues. If a ban on any one of them cannot stand on it's own merits then the ban should rightly fall.

It is extremely easy to demonstrate why children should not be married. They are incapable of exercising power-of-attorney or fulfilling the responsibilities of next-of-kin in case of medical emergency, managing the estate of an incapacitated or deceased spouse, etc. This is in addition to the possible psychological harm such a marriage might do and the inability of a child to give legally binding consent.

It is even easier to demonstrate why humans and animals should not be allowed to marry. The animals are even less able to fulfill the legal obligations of a spouse.

It is easy to demonstrate why the State has a compelling interest in limiting the number of spouses each person may have at one time. Inheritance can be messy enough without multiple spouses fighting for a share of an estate in court. And in the case of medical emergency there needs to be one (and only one) person authorised to make life and death decisions for an incapacitated spouse. If some Mormon sects preform multiple marriages for one man, that's their business. The secular government can demonstrate why restricting each person to one legally recognised spouse is in the interest of the orderly disposition of property and exercise of marital duties.

The issue of incest between consenting adults is much, much trickier. I recall a case of incest in Great Britain about 15 years ago. A man and woman who had been married for a couple of years found out that they were actually brother and sister. They had been separated as very young children and adopted by different families. When they learned they were siblings they had to decide to either remain in an incestuous but happy marriage or to be unhappily divorced. I cannot find the story now and I don't remember if the couple had children, but I do recall they wanted to remain married. They did not consider themselves to be siblings; they each considered their adoptive families to be their "real" families. Of course, there were others in Great Britain who felt the marriage bonds should have been dissolved immediately. The matter was headed to the British courts the last I heard of it.

In any event, a ban or restriction on a type of marriage must be able to stand on it's own merits. It must be demonstrably true that society is best served by restricting or preventing such marriages from being legally recognised. Can the government demonstrate why restricting marriage rights for gay couples is in the interest of society at large, without resorting to a religious stance or referring to a religious text? If the only arguments against gay marriage are that it is wrong according to some interpretations of a god's commands, then the ban does not stand on it's own merits. In fact with regards to secular marriage the ban has no merit at all.

Calzaer

There you go again ignoring me.

You're also ignoring the fact that in many, many cultures even today your cousins are your preferred marriage partners. Cross cousins and/or parallel cousins, depending on the specific tradition. So even "incest" isn't as abnormal as you're trying to pretend it is to suit your hate agenda.

Stop using the word "normal" when you mean "Christian".

Vorkosigan

Ah, you mean if we didn't draw lines, we wouldn't have lines. Put positively, your argument amounts to saying we should have morality because...we should have morality.

What is "obviously immoral" about gay marriage? Also, what "laws of nature" does it violate? Gravity? Conservation of energy? Dollo's Law?

Specious logic chopping. There's no slippery slope from gay marriage to murder or selling drugs to children.

We are now three paragraphs in and you still haven't answered the question of why we should draw lines in this case.

Inq01, in case you haven't noticed, all murderers and child molesters have the same rights as the general public -- you know, representation in court, trial before an impartial judge and jury, free speech, etc. Until convicted, they ARE the general public.

Still no sign of an explanation of why we need to draw lines. Perhaps you don't know.....?

Vorkosigan

Nice Squirrel

Inquisitive, all those were opinion articles. When we speak of journal articles we are talking about peer-reviewed scientific journals such as Nature, JAMA, etc. In these journals, scientific paper (often the reports on the studies/experiments done) submitters have to have their papers reviewed by other researchers who comment on the quality and methods of the researcher and will recommend publication, rejection or changes to be made. You can usually tell a scientific paper by it's format. Title, abstract, intorduction, methodology, results, conclusion and literature citiations.

Opinion is okay, but I can get my grandmother's opinion on anything. This doesn't mean she's thought about it much. So far, your links don't provide any support for your position, either get some original source data for your claims such as incest occurance, STD rates, etc. or stop bringing these studies up. It's not us but the actual articles in the scientific literature that you quote that is proving your position baseless.

_________________________

On the subject of law and order. I keep hearing this appeal that homosexuality is somehow unnatural. How is this so? Since it seems to be an instictive attraction.

Viti

What point are you trying to make with each of these links? They are all biased even if they aren't "God Hates Fags"

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/j...20030903.shtml

-This is an opinion piece in a conservative e-mag. What argument is it making for you?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=39409

-Worldnet daily isn't considered a credible source of anything. Akin to the Enquirer in most people's opionions. Anyway, this piece is talking about a gay couple getting ivorced....as if divorce never happens in heterosexual marriages. As if fundamentalists don't have the HIGHEST divorce rates in the country. Again, what's your argument that you are backing up with this article?


http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0028908.cfm

-I consider Focus on the Family a hate group. Anyway, we know your position is religious, what you haven't shown is why the Government should base laws on religious tenets.


http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/i...6&sec_id=37687

-Again, the Catholics are against gay marriage...no news here. What does that have to do with providing the same legal rights for homosexual, tax paying, law abiding, citizens?