• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

the right to marry whoever

which are Constitutional rights?


  • Total voters
    51
Finally, incest laws do not limit themselves to blood relations. To use my usual Brady Bunch example, there would have been no issues with Greg and Marcia marrying or having sex. Yet many states have laws that would prevent such a pairing, even if they were already adults when their parents married.

It varies by state. A lot of states actually set the standard based on combinations where the risk of birth defects gets too high, or at least they set it at whatever scientists thought was the line for birth defects at the time.
 
Polyamorous relationships, at least in modern times, are no less likely to be consensual. Maybe even the opposite- people who are in them tend to go to great lengths to seek them out. I don't see any problem with the law recognizing polyamorous relationships. Who does it hurt? If consenting adults make a choice about their personal lives that doesn't hurt anybody else, I don't really see what business anybody has outlawing it.
right now the only problem with making polygamy legal is all the laws are written with the two person marriage in mind and as such do not address issues when the marriage contains more than two. Divorce, property and children issues are suddenly vastly more complicated and not covered under law. Thus such legal changes must be made prior to polygamy becoming legal.
 
It varies by state. A lot of states actually set the standard based on combinations where the risk of birth defects gets too high, or at least they set it at whatever scientists thought was the line for birth defects at the time.

Please show me a state where the deciding factor of whether a couple can have sex/get married or not is based upon a risk factor. There is not one state in the union that places risk factor as the criteria, unless there has been a new law in he past year or so. To use such a risk factor would mean that a non-consanguineous couple could be denied marriage/sex based upon that risk factor.
 
You must have a very strange definition of "intimate union", for it not to apply to same sex couples. Please do enlighten the rest of us as to your unique take on this phrase.

Sexually compatible. Teleology. Puzzle pieces.
 
Government should not be in the marriage business.
 
right now the only problem with making polygamy legal is all the laws are written with the two person marriage in mind and as such do not address issues when the marriage contains more than two. Divorce, property and children issues are suddenly vastly more complicated and not covered under law. Thus such legal changes must be made prior to polygamy becoming legal.

Yeah, that's true. Agreed.

Please show me a state where the deciding factor of whether a couple can have sex/get married or not is based upon a risk factor. There is not one state in the union that places risk factor as the criteria, unless there has been a new law in he past year or so. To use such a risk factor would mean that a non-consanguineous couple could be denied marriage/sex based upon that risk factor.

Sure, for example, Kentucky's law is:

"530.020 Incest.
(1) A person is guilty of incest when he or she has sexual intercourse or deviate
sexual intercourse, as defined in KRS 510.010, with a person whom he or she
knows to be an ancestor, descendant, uncle, aunt, brother, or sister. The
relationships referred to herein include blood relationships of either the whole
or half blood without regard to legitimacy, relationship of parent and child by
adoption, relationship of stepparent and stepchild, and relationship of
stepgrandparent and stepgrandchild"

Louisiana:

"§78. Incest

A. Incest is the marriage to, or sexual intercourse with, any ascendant or descendant, brother or sister, uncle or niece, aunt or nephew, with knowledge of their relationship.

B. The relationship must be by consanguinity, but it is immaterial whether the parties to the act are related to one another by the whole or half blood."

Those are pretty good descriptions of the line where the risk of birth defect is noteworthy. Technically, they should add on first cousin twice over- meaning that they are a cousin on two sides- e.g., they are your father's niece and your mother's niece, that apparently carries a risk too, but isn't included in those statutes. Presumably the statutes came before that was identified.
 
Sexually compatible. Teleology. Puzzle pieces.

Same sex couple are sexually compatible with each other. Well some are, and some aren't just as some opposite sex couples are not sexually compatible. Your "puzzle pieces" idea a a red herring at best. Procreation is nothing when it comes to sex or marriage. Outside of procreation the male/female thing is meaningless, save in light of one's personal religious calling. Intimacy occurs regardless of the genders involved. Additionally, intimacy can refer to the physical or emotional aspects, or even both. I've been physically intimate with women and not emotionally, while I am emotionally intimate with my husband but not physically.
 
Government should not be in the marriage business.

Actually they have quite a vested interested in the tracking of non blood relationships, but marriage and adoption. The entire basis of many marriage rights, such as hospital visitation and not testifying against your spouse, are based not on the social/religious marriage but upon the legal one. What government should not be in the business of is applying laws only to certain groups.
 
Actually they have quite a vested interested in the tracking of non blood relationships, but marriage and adoption. The entire basis of many marriage rights, such as hospital visitation and not testifying against your spouse, are based not on the social/religious marriage but upon the legal one. What government should not be in the business of is applying laws only to certain groups.
All that said government should not be in the business of marriage it should be a legal contract between consenting adults no matter how many there are. I do not want the government involved in my love relationships period. The personal legal contract would take care of all you mentioned. No need for government IMO.
 
Sure, for example, Kentucky's law is:

"530.020 Incest.
(1) A person is guilty of incest when he or she has sexual intercourse or deviate
sexual intercourse, as defined in KRS 510.010, with a person whom he or she
knows to be an ancestor, descendant, uncle, aunt, brother, or sister. The
relationships referred to herein include blood relationships of either the whole
or half blood without regard to legitimacy, relationship of parent and child by
adoption, relationship of stepparent and stepchild, and relationship of
stepgrandparent and stepgrandchild"

Louisiana:

"§78. Incest

A. Incest is the marriage to, or sexual intercourse with, any ascendant or descendant, brother or sister, uncle or niece, aunt or nephew, with knowledge of their relationship.

B. The relationship must be by consanguinity, but it is immaterial whether the parties to the act are related to one another by the whole or half blood."

Those are pretty good descriptions of the line where the risk of birth defect is noteworthy. Technically, they should add on first cousin twice over- meaning that they are a cousin on two sides- e.g., they are your father's niece and your mother's niece, that apparently carries a risk too, but isn't included in those statutes. Presumably the statutes came before that was identified.

Neither of these laws carries any real consideration for risk factor. As noted before if two sisters get it on, they are in violation of the laws above, but there is no blood risk factors in play. Additionally, the Kentucky laws clearly states that non blood related relatives, step and adopted, are also prohibited. Again no real concern about risk factors.

A blood related couple could well end up with no risk factors. The issue with consanguineous reproduction is the higher probability that both participants acquired a given genetic trait from the parents that will result in a birth defect. But that also means that there is a probability of one or both not having that trait. If it is a trait that needs only one gene, i .e. a dominant gene, then that person is a risk whether they engage in consanguineous reproduction or not.

Any law that is concerned about a given level of risk, would have that law apply to both consanguineous and non-consanguineous couples.
 
All that said government should not be in the business of marriage it should be a legal contract between consenting adults no matter how many there are. I do not want the government involved in my love relationships period. The personal legal contract would take care of all you mentioned. No need for government IMO.

I agree but marriage status is recognized by government and creates certain tax advantages. Now I oppose all and every estate or inheritance or death tax but a spouse takes stuff free of the death tax that a friend does not. so I suggest that the state recognition is necessary
 
I agree but marriage status is recognized by government and creates certain tax advantages. Now I oppose all and every estate or inheritance or death tax but a spouse takes stuff free of the death tax that a friend does not. so I suggest that the state recognition is necessary

We could just repeal the inheritance tax. It doesn't bring in much revenue and it doesn't stop wealth growth of those so called rich people. It's just a feel goody tax for liberals to drool over.
 
Neither of these laws carries any real consideration for risk factor. As noted before if two sisters get it on, they are in violation of the laws above, but there is no blood risk factors in play. . . . A blood related couple could well end up with no risk factors. The issue with consanguineous reproduction is the higher probability that both participants acquired a given genetic trait from the parents that will result in a birth defect. But that also means that there is a probability of one or both not having that trait. If it is a trait that needs only one gene, i .e. a dominant gene, then that person is a risk whether they engage in consanguineous reproduction or not.

Any law that is concerned about a given level of risk, would have that law apply to both consanguineous and non-consanguineous couples.

I mean, you can certainly dream up scenarios where things fall within the law that aren't risky or outside of the law that are risky, but you get the idea, right? They're designed to align pretty well with the genetic risk rather than the moral taboo.

Additionally, the Kentucky laws clearly states that non blood related relatives, step and adopted, are also prohibited. Again no real concern about risk factors.

No, you're reading it backwards. It says it includes blood relationships only- without regard to non-blood relationships.
 
Same sex couple are sexually compatible with each other. Well some are, and some aren't just as some opposite sex couples are not sexually compatible. Your "puzzle pieces" idea a a red herring at best. Procreation is nothing when it comes to sex or marriage. Outside of procreation the male/female thing is meaningless, save in light of one's personal religious calling. Intimacy occurs regardless of the genders involved. Additionally, intimacy can refer to the physical or emotional aspects, or even both. I've been physically intimate with women and not emotionally, while I am emotionally intimate with my husband but not physically.

Well, without procreation there isn't continuation of the species, and without same sex relations there isn't ummmm... ummm..well, I got nothing. Entire functions of the human body and organs were made with heterosexual sex in mind and not a damn one was put in place for homosexual sex. That should probably tell you something.
 
I agree but marriage status is recognized by government and creates certain tax advantages. Now I oppose all and every estate or inheritance or death tax but a spouse takes stuff free of the death tax that a friend does not. so I suggest that the state recognition is necessary

I agree the laws about marriage and the benefits to a spouse validate what you say. So what you are saying is true. But there should be no special favors issued to a spouse. A relationship between people in love should be their business. The government should not be involved at any level. A personal contract should be all that is required. But what you say is true granted but should IMO not be the case.
 
Dang, girlie. Where the hell have you been?

Welcome back! :)

Thank you for the lovely welcome. I have had my hands full with a lot of things. I will be trying to get back more frequently. Happy to see you still keeping up the good fight.
 
Thank you for the lovely welcome. I have had my hands full with a lot of things. I will be trying to get back more frequently. Happy to see you still keeping up the good fight.

Glad to see you here. :)
 
This ruling finally grants equality for the last minority that has been legally discriminated against into the 21st century. Along with the overturning of DOMA, this ruling finally gives homosexuals equal rights to openly serve in the military, to marry and receive all the legal and financial benefits therein, to have their relationships treated with dignity. My only disappointment is that Roberts voted with the SCOTUS bigots, that I'd long since written off as ever voting to grant full equality under the law to homosexuals.

As for the rest of this poll, I vote "yes", consenting adults should have the right to marry each other regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or familial relationships (although genetic problems and the "ick" factor make this a fairly rare potential). Polygamy? If they are consenting adults and not brain-washed teenagers, of course. Who the hell are any of us to proclaim edicts about who somebody else has the right to love, and how they choose to create their family?
 
I mean, you can certainly dream up scenarios where things fall within the law that aren't risky or outside of the law that are risky, but you get the idea, right? They're designed to align pretty well with the genetic risk rather than the moral taboo.

That's my point is that many of the laws do not limit themselves to blood and thus are not about the genetic risk. Nor are there any laws which address potential birth defect chances by non-consanguineous procreation that are equal to or higher in probability of a first generation consanguineous procreation, which would be the lowest possible probability for incest. If they were only worried about the genetic factor then why not limit it to a procreation law vice marriage, and why expand it to non-consanguineous couples?


No, you're reading it backwards. It says it includes blood relationships only- without regard to non-blood relationships.
Oh really? Let's look at it again
Sure, for example, Kentucky's law is:

"530.020 Incest.
(1) A person is guilty of incest when he or she has sexual intercourse or deviate
sexual intercourse, as defined in KRS 510.010, with a person whom he or she
knows to be an ancestor, descendant, uncle, aunt, brother, or sister. The
relationships referred to herein include
blood relationships of either the whole
or half blood without regard to legitimacy, relationship of parent and child by
adoption, relationship of stepparent and stepchild, and relationship of
stepgrandparent and stepgrandchild
"

In Kentucky's case, they are limiting the non-consanguineous relation up and down generational lines, and not including siblings. Louisiana specifically limited their laws to blood relations only, thus allowing those whose ties are only legal to still engage in sex or marriage. I had noted many states, not all.
 
Well, without procreation there isn't continuation of the species, and without same sex relations there isn't ummmm... ummm..well, I got nothing. Entire functions of the human body and organs were made with heterosexual sex in mind and not a damn one was put in place for homosexual sex. That should probably tell you something.

Procreation and marriage are fully independent of each other. One can engage in either without engaging in the other. Granted they often occur together, but far from always. And while procreation is, mostly, dependent upon sex, specifically male/female penis/vagina intercourse, this combination is not the limit of what sex is. Sex is more often a form of recreation between two, and sometimes more, individuals, and more times than not does not involve procreation. Sex is about the pleasure. Any given human being can provide that pleasure to another. Individual tastes and preferences influence how much pleasure is derived, but in the end, if blindfolded, you would never know whether that was a man or a woman sucking your **** or eating your *****. Procreation is the only aspect that has any limits to its participants. Sex does not. Try not to confuse the two
 
Procreation and marriage are fully independent of each other. One can engage in either without engaging in the other. Granted they often occur together, but far from always. And while procreation is, mostly, dependent upon sex, specifically male/female penis/vagina intercourse, this combination is not the limit of what sex is. Sex is more often a form of recreation between two, and sometimes more, individuals, and more times than not does not involve procreation. Sex is about the pleasure. Any given human being can provide that pleasure to another. Individual tastes and preferences influence how much pleasure is derived, but in the end, if blindfolded, you would never know whether that was a man or a woman sucking your **** or eating your *****. Procreation is the only aspect that has any limits to its participants. Sex does not. Try not to confuse the two

Marriage by itself means nothing and does nothing for anyone. Sex exists for procreation, but is many times done for pleasure. The pleasure exists so people actually involve themselves in the activity. If it didn't have any aspect about that was pleasurable then more than likely there wouldn't be enough children to maintain the species.
 
Last edited:
That's my point is that many of the laws do not limit themselves to blood and thus are not about the genetic risk. Nor are there any laws which address potential birth defect chances by non-consanguineous procreation that are equal to or higher in probability of a first generation consanguineous procreation, which would be the lowest possible probability for incest. If they were only worried about the genetic factor then why not limit it to a procreation law vice marriage, and why expand it to non-consanguineous couples?

Laws are constrained by practical and political realities. Barring incest is something easy to do politically, barring couple with genetic diseases, for example, from having kids would not be easy politically. Instituting some sort of system of testing for genetic factors that cause birth defects would not be easy practically, but knowing who is related how is easy practically. So, that's where the law landed.

Oh really? Let's look at it again

I'm reading it as follows:

The relationships referred to herein include blood relationships of either: (i) the whole or (ii) half blood without regard to: (i) legitimacy, (ii) relationship of parent and child by adoption, (iii) relationship of stepparent and stepchild, and (iv) relationship of stepgrandparent and stepgrandchild

I do acknowledge that is ambiguously written though. One could potentially read it either way.

But, you initially said that there is "not one state" that is based on risk of defect rather than the moral taboo. That I disagree with. Now you're saying many states' incest laws are based on the moral taboo instead. I'd definitely agree with that. Most states are even. But a few are trying to base it on the risk of birth defect.
 
Incest has deleterious impact on potential offspring. Two gays marrying does not. hence the difference
So do two unrelated people with recessive genes. Should DNA tests be required for proper marrying?
 
Back
Top Bottom