Many states have gender specific laws on incestial marriage (uncles can't marry nieces). Allowing gay marriage inadvertently allowed uncles to marry nephews. Should we reword the law to squash the newly acquired rights of the uncles?
These laws may have been in place to prevent birth defects ; seeing that there will NOT be an offspring from an Uncle marrying his nephew, this is not the same.
Squash the rights of them, and all homosexual couples at the same time.
Don't care about what you do in the bedroom
I said squash rights but honestly I think gay marriage is retarded and uncle/niece marriage is NOT great but definitely not as retarded as "gay marriage." By and large Homos don't want to get married anyway. They only like the weddings. Trying to get them to conform to heterosexual norms is never gonna happen. Look at the promiscuity stats for homosexuals. It is seriously shocking for most heterosexuals
If an incest couple has children, those children will be bullied, not because they may get a disease, (though odds are they will,) but because their parents are FAMILY ON THE FIRST LEVEL
We should get rid of I chest laws in the first place, it's not my business if two hick cousins want to marry and end their bloodline
Not like they can get pregnant! Creeps me out but appears no standards is ok these days!
I don't believe in gay marriage
I don't believe in incestuous marriage
I don't believe in marriage between a man or a woman.
I don't believe in marriage, period. Civil unions , maybe.
It's just a piece of paper just telling you you're married. I feel it's stupid to need a a license to show you're with someone. There are those who just live together, or the "common law" thing. As long as they're happy together, what's the difference?
Same "oops" that women found when they had to pay alimony to ex-husbands.
I don't know a single woman who would have a problem with this under appropriate circumstances.
Sometimes equal treatment under the law sucks. Get used to it!
If someone wants to marry their creeper uncle, I say that just takes two creepers off the market so who cares.
Why stop there? What about marrying children, polygamy, and beastialitry (sp)? 🙄
By the way this is sarcasm. I don't support any of these things.
You're just a bigot. Eh
No just like to use common sense.
What a time to be alive. 2016, the year in which we call those against beastiality and child marriage a biot...
Bob, you've missed the whole point. Shouldn't we just make all incest legal now? I thought love won.
Sick. Just plain sick. Keep your moral relativism to yourself. The majority of us don't give a shit about these stupid issues.
Hmm, there are several topics that do not interest me. When I scroll past them, I don't vote, let alone comment, announcing how I'm not interested. Curious, why did you?
I don't owe you an explanation. You see what I thought above. Deal with it.
Permissiveness like the scenario in the question is what is DESTROYING the social fabric of our country. It is not, cannot be and will never be OK for an uncle to marry his nephew. That is just wrong.
This is true, you don't owe me shit. Looking at your polls, you seem to be really interested in politics, I can't imagine you're having a hard time finding polls about your preferred topic. What you did is like turning to ESPN and yelling at the tv "WHY DO YOU HAVE TO TALK ABOUT SPORTS!!" When you do, it makes me curious
I gotta say, I enjoy your input though
Incest laws are supposed to prevent inbreeding. Neither a gay nor a lesbian couple can breed so the law shouldn't apply.
Yep, look at effective outcome.
Yeah i hear all you out there bitching "double standard! Double standard" but here's the truth, it's not the same thing. Heterosexual couples can produce offspring. This is a problem when it comes to incest because if two who are closely related make a child, the chances of the offspring being mentally handicapped are exponentially greater. On the other hand, homosexual couples can't produce offspring, so they don't have to worry about this issue. "But incest relationships are gross. Uncle to nephew? Cousin to cousin?" Perhaps, but with two consenting adults, it's nobody's business but theirs and everybody else should get the fuck over it. Government stay out of marriages.
As a women gets older the chances for birth defects increases as well. Should it therefore be illegal for a women to marry in a heterosexual relationship after a certain age?
Since gays can marry it's only a matter of time before this is legalized
That was my original argument. If you let gays marry then you have to legalize incest & plural marriage as well.
Sure, it's an unintentional loophole. Close it.
Frankly I don't care!
But what about the two consenting adults?
Incest laws are in place to prevent birth defects. Not an issue in the gay community.
Uncle/niece or aunt/nephew if one or both parties is permanently sterile. Would this be acceptable?
Just looking for your opinion.
My opinion is that I could care less who is boning who. As long as you don't come to me with your hands out when the baby comes.
If it's not my kid it's not my problem.
The reasons we have rules against incest relationships do not disappear from my mind. Problem unequal power dynamics.
Abolish the discriminatory government institution of marriage. I am in favor of giving it back to religion and instating a clear boundary between church and state.
Scotus settles law with a dart board.
The word of the law vs the spirit of the law.
I 100% disagree with incest and family members being aloud to marry each other... Regardless, they still gave the right to if they wish! That's their decision, and nobody should make that decision for them.
Do what you want
I had to answer something just to come and say, yuck.
Why not. Gays can marry so why can't uncles and nephews? We can't be so incestoohobic bigoted hate mongers to ban true love. When will this country learn to love and not hate and being peaceful and not pure evil. ...see what I did there?
Yeah, real clever. Good luck with your bigotry.
Thanks. See my point.
No, and we should probably revisit the other prohibition as well, while we're at it. If there is a problem with incest at all, it is the potentially negative effect of passing on "bad" genes. There may be a valid reason to prohibit closely related individuals from making babies together, but it needn't adversely their relationships otherwise. It's a left over taboo without a modern justification.
Really? Come on guys, let them marry.
I vote freely marry because the government should not be involved in marriages.
Fair enough. This is the real answer.
What difference does it make! They can't have children's for their own.
They can't have children of their own.
The word you are looking for is incestuous. An "incestial" relationship is impossible.
You are right, I'm so embarrassed now
That does shed some light on why so many people are down voting the question
How odd. Are aunts also forbidden to marry nephews (and could now marry nieces)? Assuming so, it's very odd that they would have bothered phrasing it in such gender-specific terms, rather than using gender-neutral terms with examples. And if not, what on earth.
Yes, aunts were also forbidden to marry nephews. The way I've seen it worded was
If you're a man, you cannot marry your:
Son, father, uncle...
Then it was repeated for women. I've always assumed it was written this way to cover all bases and there was no need to be gender neutral because of the already in place same sex restrictions
That's really clunky wording. I love the unintended consequences. Maybe people will finally start recognizing how unnecessarily gendered so much of our everyday language is.
It could be worse, we could speak Spanish!
Ha! Or just about any other language. Apparently in Hebrew you're even supposed to use different words depending on YOUR gender. Man, I would fuck with people if I spoke Hebrew.
Any two adults. No sex act needs witnessing & no genitalia inspection, required. Just proof of age. The laws are not to regulate what type of sex you have, or who you have sex with. They just legalize the benefits & liabilities of a partnership.
^^ this is the only way I would support government instated marriage. Make it a normal legal contract between two people regardless of gender and relationship.
Almost. Someday it could happen. Equal rights are a goal, not a reality.
If they're adults and consenting it's nobody's business. Period.
Holy shit, I agree with you.
Everyone, Ive got it! We should all marry our parents or family members on paper before they die so we can assume spousal exemptions and skirt inheritance and estate tax laws. That way the government cant get any of the estate.
If you have enough money to seriously worry about estate tax, you have enough money to set up a workaround already ;)
Bethany what about retirement pensions. If I marry a family member getting payments, when they die the payments won't. Same with SS? The comment may be sarcastic but regulating who benefits in case of death or divorce is what the marriage laws do.
For a pension, I believe it would depend on the terms of the pension plan. If I die, my 401k doesn't disappear; it's part of my estate. I would think the same would apply for pensions but honestly I don't have much familiarity with pension schemes. They're pretty rare these days except in a handful of professions.
You're correct about SS; however, I was speaking to the note about estate tax. But if SS would make a significant difference for someone, sure, that could be a reason to get married. I think that's the case for vanishingly few people, though.
These type of benefits are why the Supreme Court heard the case.
It wouldn't be as fun though. AB credit shelter trust, dynasty, ILIT, charitable foundations, FLP's... Just not as fun. Lol
I'm not saying they don't matter or that they are insignificant. I'm saying people are unlikely to get married for that *sole* purpose, which rather tends to underscore why moral panic about same-sex unions is hyperbolic.
People will get married for that sole purpose. The woman whose case was heard wanted to marry her dying partner to receive her benefits. Leave the morals to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, which does not require a court license.
I said people are unlikely to get married for that *sole* purpose. It's not like she was trying to marry who good friend and it just so happened that neither of them had life partners.
I have no idea why you're bringing up "sacraments" in a discussion about government benefits.
You brought up the moral debate on same sex marriage. My point is that there are no morals, at all involved to debate.
I didn't bring up any moral arguments. Moral panic isn't morality.
There is no moral panic. Not in reality. People make up unwarranted issues for no reason. Calling it gay marriage for example. There is no such thing, just invalid ignorance, to great and widespread, to correct. I'm in agreement with you, only more so. Any two adults.
Right. We agree then. Just to clarify, "moral panic" really just means mass baseless fear.
That is why I said to take it to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony where it belongs, where no binding legal agreement is necessary. Marriage is a legal definition, Matrimony has degrees of right and wrong just not valid in our courts. People can't easily see the separation.
To the person talking about estate tax. What about farmers? It is ridiculously easy for them to hit millions in assets. However selling off their land or equipment puts them out of business. Farm land around here goes for $5000-10000 an acre. To make a mere $50k a year they have to own 500 acres worth close to 4 million dollars. Not to mention the equipment. A new combine costs close to half a million dollars. I personally have a 45 year old one sitting in my barn worth $25k. Everyone seems to hate corporate farms but then wonders why the smaller farms can't stay in business.
The idea of land that cheap boggles my mind. Where I live you're looking at over $1000 per *square foot*.
What's the difference. Those laws probably are designed to protect the gene pool.
But, thank god, the natural world won't let natural deviations from replicating.
So,..... Gay it all up Uncle bob and nephew sparky
Liberals disgust me to no end.
I'm pretty sure that's a rural redneck thing more than a liberal thing.
What is? What, on earth, are you babbling about?
Oh. I see. You misunderstood the question. If you're for homosexual marriage, you have to be for incestial marriage between gay family members. Disgusting Liberals did that, not rednecks. So the question, to put it simply for you is; Should there be laws, against homosexual family members, from being married. Or are you a homophobe?
What's with all the commas? Invoking your inner Shatner?
Should homosexual family members be allowed to marry?
I'm a democrat and I don't believe they should be able to. It's usually republicans who are all for incestuous relationships due to keeping the government out of their lives (which is a legitimate argument).
Well get ready to be called a hateful homophobe that hates homosexuals and is against love. Name one elected Republican that is for incest. Just one.
Depends on how you define incest. Rudy Giuliani married his second cousin.
You still didn't answer the question, Beth...
Of course there should be laws against that. Doesn't matter what the preference is.
Why do you hate love?
What question did you ask me?
Of course they should; nothing about being gay or having a family is reason to tell you you can't be married to someone - but I presume that what you're actually asking is whether family members of the same sex should be permitted to marry *each other*. In that case, my answer is that they should be permitted to do so to the same extent family members of the opposite sex are permitted to marry each other. No more, no less.
You want rules against love? How dare you!
You want to deny marriage for minorities? That's awful.
Are you talking to someone else?
Nope. Just you.
Well, you're saying things that make zero sense.
How about we try this: you quote me the part of my comment that leads you to ask your bizarre questions and we'll see if we can't clear up your confusion that way.
Of course it makes zero sense. They're knee-jerk Liberal responses...
Except that you're the only one making them. Does that mean you're a liberal now?
Lol. Now you know how ridiculous you people sound.
Except we don't. You're the only one speaking nonsense. You're claiming "liberals" say these things but you're the only one saying them. I certainly haven't said them. You tried and failed to set a trap for me. Are you just living in denial then?
Lol. So you've never heard any Liberal say that if someone is against gay marriage, that they're against love? Really?
What does that have to do with incest? Conservatives are the ones I usually see bringing invest into the discussion, which is kind of weird and creepy.
So you have heard that argument. Now you know how silly it sounds, right?
I have never heard a liberal make the argument that same-sex marriage has something to do with incest, no.
I *have* heard conservatives like you make it, and yes, it does sound quite silly, if I'm being generous.
And you discriminate against incest, you bigot.
You make that assessment based on what thing that I've said?
How does it feel denying someone their Constitutional rights based on your prejudices?
Haha you couldn't find anything so now you're trying to obfuscate.
You're going to sit there and deny someone who was born a certain way their Constitutional rights based on discrimination? For shame.
Bethany, don't worry, cowboy is just defending his mom and dad.
Alright! A brand new troll to play with! Welcome brin!
I guess I'm trolling the troll.
So you would discriminate against love too, huh? Shameful.
Just in the nick of time for you, cowboy. How fortuitous! May I expect you'll now pretend to be occupied with our new friend rather than continue trying to maintain the weak charade you've got going on?
Of course I'm not suggesting anyone's constitutional rights should be denied. Please quote something I've said that would give you that ridiculous impression.
"my answer is that they should be permitted to do so to the same extent family members of the opposite sex are permitted to marry each other." So what gives you the authority to say who can marry and who can't, huh?
Where in there do I say anything about denying anyone constitutional rights? I'm not supporting a specific position with respect to who should be allowed to marry whom; merely clarifying that, whatever the right is, it should be the same regardless of the genders of the people marrying.
Right. Your denying someone Constitutional rights based on prejudice and discrimination, you bigot.
What constitutional rights am I denying? To whom?
You're denying the right for Americans to marry who they love.
"my answer is that they should be permitted to do so to the same extent family members of the opposite sex are permitted to marry each other."
Ok. Let me type slowly. Whose. Rights. Would. Be. Infringed. Question mark.
So in other words, you're unable to articulate your own opinion. No stunners here.
I've been accused of many things but that one has to be a first. Lol. Don't be angry because I exposed your desire to discriminate against Americans.
I'm not angry. I'm just trying to figure out if you're intentionally dishonest or genuinely struggling with basic concepts like how to make a non-circular argument.
Lol. You're struggling with being exposed to your own discriminatory actions.
can you guys continue, i was enjoying this
Eh. I'm busy today and his delusions are getting boring.
Oh I'm sorry exposing your discriminating tendencies are boring, sweetheart. That's a you problem.
Sorry, I'm still chuckling @ "invoking your inner Shatner" LOLOLOL
The reason incest is illegal is because of genetic issues. Two dudes can't really procreate so it doesn't even matter. If gay marriage is legal this is a nonissue
Hey ...if you embrace same sex marriage, you might as well drop all the way into the moral abyss and allow polygamy and incest. I mean...aren't we all about being INCLUSIVE and TOLERANT?
Morals aren't real anyway lmao
If there is No God, all things are permissible.
Mankind has, at various points throughout history, had around 3,000+ separate concepts of a supernatural entity. Even if 1 of them was right, and that's a big if, it means that around 2,999+ are horrifically wrong. So who's to say that anyone's belief is accurate? Statistically speaking and all...but the interesting part is that adherents of various faiths will ALL quite vehemently insist theirs is the "one, true" belief out of literally thousands. And that's hilarious.
if I had only a 0.000333333333333 chance of being right, I wouldn't act like a self-righteous asshöle. Just saying.
I think you meant "morals are relative", shnibby. But we didn't expect more so...
Homosexual marriage, yes. Polygamous marriage, yes. Incestuous marriage, yes. What two or more consenting adults do for happiness is none of your fucking business, Glock.
me any time someone mentions their version of God
Marriage was never defined by anyone. (Real) sex is between a man and a woman. God or science, whatever you believe, invented that. Marriage, however, is a personal decision established by human culture not too long ago in the scheme of things. Nobody, especially not the US government, ever had the right to define what marriage is or isn't. It is a choice between yourself. In my personal opinion, marrying your blood relatives is crazy and wrong. But that's just me. Who am I to decide what other adults can do with their lives? Nephews marrying uncles isn't going to hurt society, so why bother making a big deal of it? Frankly, I'm fine with people marrying 30 people, as long as they are legal adults who have made that choice themselves. Human, legal adults should be able to marry whoever the hell they want.
Why stop at adults? Why can't men marry children? They do in Muslim countries. We just need to catch up to the times.
@kscott No I meant exactly what I said. Debate me.
Lol, ok. Prove morals aren't real.
You prove that they are
You can't be serious?! You made the claim that they aren't real so the onus is on you.
But since you asked:
Morals - considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior
There you go.
Kscott, you claim they're real. Burden of proof is on you. And yes morals are real, being cultural constructs that vary by geography and by time. It's absolute morality that is absolutely bullshit.
Prince is CORRECT. Morals are very elusive to most atheists. Look at homosexuals. Most are atheists and live a life of sexual perversion that is morally corrupt. Other famous atheists that lacked a moral compass-- Pablo Escobar, Ted Bundy, Joran Vandersloot, Karl Marx, Casey Anthony, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wayne Gacy, James Earl Ray, Scott Peterson, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, James Holmes, Adam Lanza, Whitey Bulger, Heinrich Himmler, Cho Seung-Hui, Richard Kuklinski....and the list goes on and on of atheists who lack any moral compass.
Wrong, ober. The burden of proof lies with the person making the initial claim. If someone said love isn't real, it's not my job to prove it is. Stupidity doesn't get a pass.
Except for age I don't care who marries who.
It's getting too confusing. People can marry, regardless of orientation. No problem. But let's not cross the familial line. I'd like to keep romance out of family reunions.
Why do your personal preferences get to deny happiness for other people who aren't hurting anyone else?
I stated my opinion. Is that wrong? Should I defer my opinions and vote to you?
Since when doesn't incest hurt anyone else? Do you think the rest of the family is ok with it even if you and your sister are sickos?
How exactly does that physically hurt them? Unless now we are making laws to prevent people from being offended.
By that logic, why do we care how transgenders feel about using the bathroom of their sex?
Why do we care about bakeries feelings about homosexuals? Why do we care about churches being able to refuse to perform a same sex wedding?
You don't have to care about their feelings. They have the 1A right to freedom of religion.
Why the fuck is it anyone's business who marries who? I know that incest can cause birth defects yeah yeah that's fine, but what you're talking about is throwing people in prison for who they love. How can you call this a free country if you imprison people for who they love?
Somebody got too many participation trophies
That's a fantastic argument. You really got me there. Jackass
Strong response. Resorting to name calling when somebody has a different opinion? Nice. You're good at whining and insulting, you aren't worth a damn at supporting a position or fostering a dialogue.
Here's a couple of points. You and I just disagree about where the line is. Should you be able to marry your sister? Clearly not. Do you have to know the person (have physically met them?) yes. I say no to an uncle marrying a nephew. I never said throw anybody in prison. Just don't perform the ceremony. See there, we can have a civil debate before you start calling me names.
What two consenting adults do is their business, I wouldn't care or try to dictate how other people live. It changes my life an absolute zero amount either way
I don't care. Those laws are to protect the gene pool. I don't think it applies here.
This user is currently being ignored
I'm glad you keep up on all the SOH posts. I bet you love trucks and Facebook too.
Two males or two females cannot produce a child naturally. Thus there is not a genetic match between close relations.