Homosexual Marriage

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: fushigi Very good point. However, sickle cell anemia doesn't cause mental retardation or extreme physical mutation. Tay-Sachs disease is not nearly as prevalent a problem as it was in the 19th century, and even then--as an autosomal recessive disease--it only affected 25% of children from parents who were BOTH carriers. With incest,So yes, incestuous breeding is a big problem.

This is not the issue we were speaking of. This family group began interbreeding in 1935, and now, several generations later, they have the genetic deficiencies you mention. But your link also says this:

Worldwide, mating among first cousins is somewhat common and sometimes encouraged. First-cousin mating doubles the chances that genetic abnormalities will be passed along. Roughly 3 to 4 percent of children from couples who aren't relatives are born with genetic defects. The rate of genetic birth defects for first cousins is 6 to 8 percent. . . . . It is possible that positive genetic traits could be passed along through human inbreeding. That apparently was John Ortell Kingston's intent, although most studies of first-cousin mating show their offspring test lower on IQ exams, Jorde says. . . . . "Incest as a policy or routine practice is rare," says Melvin Williams, a professor of anthropology at the University of Michigan and a leading expert in the study of kinship systems. Many cultures, he says, marry outside the family in order to attract the wealth of a neighboring family or to promote alliances among warring factions. While not discounting the prevalence of genetic anomalies, Williams says modern society's aversion to incest is, to a large extent, arbitrary and prudish. A brother's aversion to courting his sister has more to do with romance than social stigma.

So while the risks are greater, and increase proportional to the closeness of the blood tie, they are not automatic -- even the one-quarter to one-half is deceptive, as "mental and physical deficiencies" could include having really small thumbs. Which would be a bummer, but not really a reason to ban someone's marriage. At any rate, the chances of two people who have strong family histories of cancer, or mental illness, or all of the abnormalities that are mentioned afflicting the Kingstons, passing those genes on to their children are even higher; should we ban the marriage of two unrelated heterosexuals who have such genetic time bombs that they could pass on to their kids?

Quote by: fushigi As for your second point--that the purpose of marriage is not for breeding, so why even bring it up--I agree completely. People don't have to marry to have children, and not every couple that marries has children. However, like I said, marriage laws legitimize behavior, and legitimizing incest is a bad idea. We don't want to encourage fathers and older brothers to pressure their daughters and younger sisters into having sex with them. I'd much rather brothers continue to think of their sisters as "icky" and vice versa. Young girls deserve to have at least a few men in the world who won't try to have sex with them. fushigi

I don't believe that a brother would want to see his sister as a romantic interest because the government said he could marry her, nor would that pick up line work: "Hey sis! The government says we can get married, so what do you say we get it on?" Can't see it. As for pressuring and forcing younger girls, that's abuse no matter how you slice it, and if the girl is unwilling after 18, it's still rape. Did the rate of rape increase among non-related people after the government legitimized heterosexual marriage? Would the rates of homosexual rape increase were homosexual marriage legitimized? If not, why would the rates of incest increase?

The government's legitimization of unwilling incest (abuse and rape) is not necessary; incest already happens in those ways, is illegal, and would remain so. If the incest occurs between consenting adults, I still don't see it as anything other than icky.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe I said look at other countires. The family institution is going in the crapper.

I think that's a misrepresentation of what's actually happening.

It's easier for people all over the world to communicate with each other now. What they're finding, among other things, is that past customs and beliefs about family don't fit for many individuals. Instead of marching lockstep into unhappy family situations, folks are taking more time to explore and test their feelings about love and commitment.

Most decide on some type of family, even if nontraditional. Since children are sometimes involved, newer laws reflect the impact of nontraditional families and serve to protect child welfare by enforcing parental responsibilities until the child can legally act on its own.

This natural evolution of "family" is the bane of conservatives who, IMHO, are fearful of change. They'd do better to embrace change and find equitable solutions instead of railing against change.

[RickSp]

I do find it more than a little bizarre that as marriage rates in the US have been steadily declining, the traditionalists are claiming that gay marriage is a threat to the institution. It is a bit like the captain of the Titanic worrying that the dancers in the Main Salon will weaken the moral fiber of the crew while paying no attention to the iceberg on the horizon.

Divorce declining, but so is marriage

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: italiangm This natural evolution of "family" is the bane of conservatives who, IMHO, are fearful of change. They'd do better to embrace change and find equitable solutions instead of railing against change.

You call it natural. :) Conservatives don't like change, I'll agree there.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: RickSp I do find it more than a little bizarre that as marriage rates in the US have been steadily declining, the traditionalists are claiming that gay marriage is a threat to the institution. It is a bit like the captain of the Titanic worrying that the dancers in the Main Salon will weaken the moral fiber of the crew while paying no attention to the iceberg on the horizon. Divorce declining, but so is marriage

Yes, but gays are pretty much accepted today, so you could conclude this may be affecting other things in this area. Marriage rates have been declining which says what? It's due to a whole lot of crap. One thing, kids don't respect their parents, or care if they hurt them is the biggest one to me. Kids are super bratty today, and this is more and more so everyday. I can't go anywhere without hearing some kid squalling. The mother's are brats,and in some cases the mother's mothers are, too. The parenting skills are at an all time low. Parents are afraid of their kids.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: italiangm I think that's a misrepresentation of what's actually happening. It's easier for people all over the world to communicate with each other now. What they're finding, among other things, is that past customs and beliefs about family don't fit for many individuals. Instead of marching lockstep into unhappy family situations, folks are taking more time to explore and test their feelings about love and commitment. Most decide on some type of family, even if nontraditional. Since children are sometimes involved, newer laws reflect the impact of nontraditional families and serve to protect child welfare by enforcing parental responsibilities until the child can legally act on its own. This natural evolution of "family" is the bane of conservatives who, IMHO, are fearful of change. They'd do better to embrace change and find equitable solutions instead of railing against change.

I forgot to add that people usually like customs/traditions to a large degree, but it's also, and I said this a little higher up, because the kids are pretty much brats (spoiled rotten) today.

Love can be learned, and mostly it has to be, because what you think it is, and what it really is are two different things after you marry. Marriage is a committment, and this is why living together proves nothing. There's no real committment. When you get that marriage license it's a whole new ballgame.:)

[italiangm]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Love can be learned, and mostly it has to be, because what you think it is, and what it really is are two different things after you marry. Marriage is a committment, and this is why living together proves nothing. There's no real committment. When you get that marriage license it's a whole new ballgame.:)

That's not my experience, nor the experience of millions of straight and gay folk who stay together for many years without a marriage license. For the record, my partner and I are starting our 12th year togtether.

Again, the natural evolution of family structure into something different and new is what's changing the numbers. Citizens should protect the children and enforce contracts but otherwise get out of the way and let humankind progress to the next level instead of making us all drag along dead weight.

[Osborn F Enready]

Laws banning homosexual marriage have no place in objective law, then again, neither does religion.

Why is marriage being dealt with by law?

[italiangm]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Laws banning homosexual marriage have no place in objective law, then again, neither does religion. Why is marriage being dealt with by law?

I agree.

It's the product of hurmans creating whatever familiy structures they see fit (be they children, property, etc) that need a mechanism to assure a fair outcome if disagreement or abandonment of responsibility cannot be resolved between parties.

[Hmm]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe I said look at other countires. The family institution is going in the crapper.

Mind backing that up with proof?

People do experiment.

Yes, people do; but sexual preferences are a different issue. If you're heterosexual you aren't going to spontaneously want to have gay sex since homosexuality is accepted...

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: italiangm That's not my experience, nor the experience of millions of straight and gay folk who stay together for many years without a marriage license. For the record, my partner and I are starting our 12th year togtether. Again, the natural evolution of family structure into something different and new is what's changing the numbers. Citizens should protect the children and enforce contracts but otherwise get out of the way and let humankind progress to the next level instead of making us all drag along dead weight.

I'd have to see stats on that cause from the stats I've seen most kids who live together, then marry, get divorced.

[Marilyn Monroe]

[quote=Hmm;380198]

Mind backing that up with proof?

Look up Scandinavia and gay marriage.

Yes, people do; but sexual preferences are a different issue. If you're heterosexual you aren't going to spontaneously want to have gay sex since homosexuality is accepted...

That is of course not what I meant, but in a sense you might try it and like it. Anything is possible. I'd say more people will become confused.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Yes, but gays are pretty much accepted today, so you could conclude this may be affecting other things in this area. Marriage rates have been declining which says what? It's due to a whole lot of crap. One thing, kids don't respect their parents, or care if they hurt them is the biggest one to me. Kids are super bratty today, and this is more and more so everyday. I can't go anywhere without hearing some kid squalling. The mother's are brats,and in some cases the mother's mothers are, too. The parenting skills are at an all time low. Parents are afraid of their kids.

Gays accepted? A bit optimistic.

Everything else you mention has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Letting gays marry will have effectively no impact on the institution of marriage. I know my wife and I are still happily married even after the State of New Jersey has allowed civil unions.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Laws banning homosexual marriage have no place in objective law, then again, neither does religion. Why is marriage being dealt with by law?

I guess cause the government had a stake in it. People with families make more money, spend more money, so they pay more taxes then if they stayed single. Kids are extremely expensive even when you are poor.

[Jack]

Marriage does not necessarily equal "people with families". The rallying point for the opposition has been the children. Where in the standard marriage vows are children mentioned at all? Take children out of the equation and find a realistic reason to deny any adults the right to be married.
Children are born every day to unmarried people and raised in one-parent homes. Is that a valid argument against the institution of straight marriage?
Children and marriage are two separate topics.

[Hmm]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Look up Scandinavia and gay marriage.

I suggest you read this: Did gay marriage destroy marriage in Scandinavia? - By M.V. Lee Badgett - Slate Magazine

Quote by: Article But Kurtz's smoking gun is really just smoke and mirrors. Reports of the death of marriage in Scandinavia are greatly exaggerated; giving gay couples the right to wed did not lead to massive matrimonial flight by heterosexuals.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe That is of course not what I meant, but in a sense you might try it and like it. Anything is possible. I'd say more people will become confused.

What did you mean then?

[Osborn F Enready]

Marilyn said: I guess cause the government had a stake in it. People with families make more money, spend more money, so they pay more taxes then if they stayed single. Kids are extremely expensive even when you are poor.

My argument is, "marriage" is a religious instititution, that was only "recognized" by the government for legal purposes, mainly property. What right does the government have to recognize marriage in the United States, unless marriage is an equal rights issue for both men and women, regardless of if it is one of each, or two of the same getting married?

We are supposed to have a seperation of church and state.

I have no problem with the governments legal recognition of marriage, assuming marriage is an equal rights option, but a nation bound by objective law based on individual rights, has no place recognizing and legally sanctioning a religious act that affects property rights of individuals unless men and women are viewed as equals, meaning that sex can not be used to refuse marriage, if recognized by law.

[Marilyn Monroe]

[quote=Hmm;380327]I suggest you read this: Did gay marriage destroy marriage in Scandinavia? - By M.V. Lee Badgett - Slate Magazine

I've read both sides.

What did you mean then?

Wasn't I talking about the youth more so than mature, experienced adults.

We were all kids once. Trends are very appealing to youngsters. Not many have complete impulse control.

[Marilyn Monroe]

[quote=Osborn F Enready;380328]

My argument is, "marriage" is a religious instititution, that was only "recognized" by the government for legal purposes, mainly property. What right does the government have to recognize marriage in the United States, unless marriage is an equal rights issue for both men and women, regardless of if it is one of each, or two of the same getting married?

Probably started out because of the huge numbers of people doing it, (getting married), so the government wanted to get on the gravy train.

We are supposed to have a seperation of church and state

.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .

No establishment of religion or prohibition. Doesn't say we can't base our laws on some of the moral principles of religion.

unless men and women are viewed as equals, meaning that sex can not be used to refuse marriage, if recognized by law.

Why can't there be certain standards? There are various laws concerning it as it is. Where should the line be drawn?

[Osborn F Enready]

Along objective standard marilyn, as the framers, and the concept of individual rights demands.