scatt
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 4,721
- Reaction score
- 509
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
That seems to be the case.
Only prior to the 26th of June.
That seems to be the case.
But it does. The argument made (by SCOTUS) was for any two people, not any two people who are not related.
It is always interesting to see people who claim to be for equality now saying related people cannot have that equality. Really shows you that there is no marriage quality difference in republicans and democrats.
If your argument had any real merit then incest was legalized long before SSM sex.
There was a constitutionally protected state interest in keeping marriage away from gays and incest couples prior to the 26th.
None has happened for incest.
People recognized the right to defecate long before the concept of rights was conceived. It exists to this day, and is certainly recognized despite never having been formally named. The right has long been heavily regulated, but no government has ever tried to do away with the right altogether, which is probably why we've never really had to declare it.No, the rights only existed, were only recognized to exist when we said they did. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had to say it. Doesn't matter what others believed/believe.
Obergefell happened.
This ruling didn't legalize incestuous marriage; it did set up a framework that makes it much easier to achieve. However, I don't see how you get there without first decriminalizing the act of incest. You can't do that without a bunch of people challenging the laws in high profile cases, publicly saying "I want to legally have sex with my brother/mother/uncle" etc.Only prior to the 26th of June.
Personally, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
From a value judgement perspective, it excludes some people from marriage. Wealthier men can horde wives at the cost to less prvileged men creating a societal imbalance. At least same-sex marriage was largely inclusive since gays and lesbians were not particularly likely to form lasting marriages with opposite sex individuals.
You start with handling the stupidest aspect of many of the incest laws, the non-blood legal relationship. Using the Brady Bunch as an example, because they are probably the best known blended family, what real reason would there be to prevent Greg and Marcia from marrying? Especially given the age they were when they became legal siblings?This ruling didn't legalize incestuous marriage; it did set up a framework that makes it much easier to achieve. However, I don't see how you get there without first decriminalizing the act of incest. You can't do that without a bunch of people challenging the laws in high profile cases, publicly saying "I want to legally have sex with my brother/mother/uncle" etc.
Personally, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
From a value judgement perspective, it excludes some people from marriage. Wealthier men can horde wives at the cost to less prvileged men creating a societal imbalance. At least same-sex marriage was largely inclusive since gays and lesbians were not particularly likely to form lasting marriages with opposite sex individuals.
I don't know of any states that prohibit Greg from marrying Marcia. Most "non blood incest" laws are of the step-parent/step-child variety, which boils down to someone having sex with their spouse's child. The best course of action there is not to challenge the law, but to get a divorce.You start with handling the stupidest aspect of many of the incest laws, the non-blood legal relationship. Using the Brady Bunch as an example, because they are probably the best known blended family, what real reason would there be to prevent Greg and Marcia from marrying? Especially given the age they were when they became legal siblings?
I don't know of any states that prohibit Greg from marrying Marcia. Most "non blood incest" laws are of the step-parent/step-child variety, which boils down to someone having sex with their spouse's child. The best course of action there is not to challenge the law, but to get a divorce.
CNN.com - Anderson Cooper 360° BlogYou may or may not agree with polygamist Warren Jeffs' lifestyle, and you may or may not think he is indeed the dangerous criminal the FBI says he is, but would you believe Jeffs and his followers are costing you money?
"Their religious belief is that they'll bleed the beast, meaning the government," said Mark Shurtleff, Utah's attorney general. "They hate the government, so they'll bleed it for everything they can through welfare, tax evasion and fraud."
It makes some sense. Polygamists have multiple wives and dozens of children, but the state only recognizes one marriage. That leaves the rest of the wives to claim themselves as single moms with armies of children to support. Doing that means they can apply for welfare, which they do. And it's all legal.
"More than 65 percent of the people are on welfare ... compared with 6 percent of the people of the general population," Shurtleff said.
That's a trillion dollars over 50 years.Really? Spending a trillion dollars on a fighter plane that barely works and we don't need, and you're worried that the .01% of the population that might choose to be polygamous will break the bank? Laughable.
You've highlighted brother and sister, but that wouldn't refer to stepbrother/stepsister, so the only non blood relationships I see have to do with adoptees. I don't know that it makes sense to highlight "nonlinear relationships" as if there is less of a relationship there than with a linear relation. Genetically speaking, the amount of DNA you share with a half-sibling, grandparent, grandchild, aunt/uncle or niece/nephew are all equivalent.That's 11 states whose incest laws cover non blood non linear relationships. I do find it interesting to note that some states only have incest laws against sex but not marriage, meaning that should they wish to push the issue a sibling pair could get a legal marriage in some states and never consummate it and it would not be illegal. Other states apply the incest law only to marriage and thus do not forbid the sexual relationship. I also have a feeling that many of these laws will have to change to accommodate same sex relations, either in marriage or sex as per the state, as they are not actually covered by law.
Of course it can be stopped, and it should be. As far all who think the state has no business in the marriage business, what a silly incomplete impractical notion. The state has a role in the marriage business because many marriages fail and each spouse has legal responsibilities to the other party (possibly) and definitely to any children. Since in these cases, given the anger involved in splitting up, or just the moral weakness of people, without laws that spell out in detail what responsibilities each spouse must fulfill, the responsibilities would not be fulfilled. Experience has shown that the state MUST be involved in dissolving marriages, so the state can and should define how they get set up so they can reasonably be dissolved.
Suppose a man married 10 wives, has kids with each, then decides to divorce all 10 and start over. The 10 wives no longer want to live together, they each want their own place. Can the man afford the alimony to support 10 households, plus his own new one? What is the law here?
Suppose a man has 10 wives, he's in his 50's and he dies unexpectedly. Can all 10 wives collect Social Security, although only the one man paid in? Would the man have to pay a much higher social security tax during the years of his employment to cover that possibility. Or would we all have to pay higher social security premiums to cover payments to all the surviving polygamist wives out there?
Of course we are already paying for the polygamist households through welfare:
CNN.com - Anderson Cooper 360° Blog
Regarding incest and possible marriage within the family, there are legitimate health concerns.
https://eccentricscientist.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/why-shouldnt-you-marry-your-sister/
The state may not need to be involved in setting marriages up, if we also don't expect it to be involved in the end of marriage. However, all marriages end, either from divorce or death. Nobody is going to vote that they don't want the state involved in ending marriage, therefore the state gets a say in how marriages begin.
You've highlighted brother and sister, but that wouldn't refer to stepbrother/stepsister, so the only non blood relationships I see have to do with adoptees. I don't know that it makes sense to highlight "nonlinear relationships" as if there is less of a relationship there than with a linear relation. Genetically speaking, the amount of DNA you share with a half-sibling, grandparent, grandchild, aunt/uncle or niece/nephew are all equivalent.
But yes, overall there are definitely some oddities!
You have great argument on whether and what benefits are given within a marriage, but not necessarily against polygamy. Your argument presupposes these benefits are carved in stone. Neither condition of the argument is. We can say there really shouldn't be all these benefits are not needed so we can have polygamy or we can't have polygamy so we can have all these .
maquiscat said:As for your health link, this does not address why we should not allow same sex incest pairs or couples where one or both are sterile. I have no problem saying that any risk of birth defects over X% needs to be banned but it needs to apply across the board not just to consanguineous couples. After all the law must apply equally. To target only consanguineous couple with a birth defect limitation is discrimination based upon a factor they cannot control, much like skin color and orientation.
That's a trillion dollars over 50 years.
How many hundreds of trillions will we spend in that amount of time on entitlements? What's the cost in fighter planes fir a very small uptick?
If it were legalized, there would be much more than .01% of the population taking part.
With the way things are going, I think there will be plenty of wealthy women happy to snatch up the cuter ones. Just look at who's graduating college and getting advanced degrees these days, and who in the younger generation is having a harder time finding a job.
And wealthier women could likewise horde men. And that is a lot more likely to happen in this day and age.
We have had the discussion over what benefits should be provided, and we decided long ago we would have social security and welfare. The funding for this has always been based on a married couple (2). The laws have always been figured on 2 people, inheritance law, divorce law, family law (child custody).
You are welcome to live with as many women as you can convince to move in with you, but they are not all entitled to benefits that I fund through the govt. If you want to marry them all, then you should pay higher social security taxes if you expect them to all get equal benefits.
You would have to pay higher "family coverage" health insurance at work, since you would have a bigger family. A whole lot would have to change in many social and legal systems, and then a man could not usually afford to have 10 wives.