Are people asking for sibling marriage? That seems a diversion to me, and one that would carry high risks to any child. I imagine most, if not all, cultures would rule it out on those terms. The question of polygamy seems much closer related - it is accepted in some cultures (including old Israel) and it doesn’t carry specific genetic risks of inbreeding (interestingly you can marry a first cousin in UK law, a closer link than allowed in Canon law).
Still not following your “romance” argument. Do you find most people understand and agree with it?
I guess this is probably where most of the confusion comes in, isn’t it? There are so many emotional, social, and cultural ideas attatched to the word “marriage” that when people hear the word marriage they automatically think that all of those apply, or ought to apply… whereas I am looking at it from the point of this is simply and purely a legal contract enforced by the govt, all the social, cultural, and emotional ties to the word marriage either are, or at least should be, attatched to the deeply personal, romantic and permanant commitment between the two, rather than to the govt contract.
As for whether most people understand and agree with my “romance” argument, I am not yet sure, thats partly why I am posting here, to try and understand this all better. I guess what confuses me is that it seems as though the vast majority of americans, with their independant attitude and deep sensitivity as to the personal nature of romantic relationships, would, to be consistant, dislike the idea of giving the govt authority to legislate their relationship based solely on the personal and romantic aspect of it. It just seems to me that if most Americans wish to be consistent with their other opinions they would also be against this. But then they act, in this case, as if they have no problem with this very thing. Thats a large part of the reason why it is confusing to me, it seems logically inconsistent.
Also, as to the idea of sibling marriage being a diversion, it really isn’t. The point is that if it is discrimination (and of course I am talking about unjust discrimination) to bar homosexuals from marriage it would also be discrimination to bar siblings from marriage. It doesn’t matter how many siblings are currently protesting publicly this discrimination. Who says the siblings need to have children? Thats kind of the point isn’t it? If marriage is not being restricted to those who can have children then why would siblings be excluded? There is no need for them to have children after all, even if they are involved romantically, there are ways around that. The fact is that if the definition of legal marriage is expanded to include homosexuals there is absolutely
no reason to exclude siblings. If excluding homosexuals in unjustly discriminatory than so is excluding siblings.
There is no such legal contract in my state, so i can’t be a supporter of it. And I’m not against it, either.
But your list of three reasons is problematic as to your asserted rhetorically phrased question. The reasons you state are not mutually independent of one another in functioning. For example, healthy citizens should have healthy relationships. That merges the scope of 1 and 3. Also, marriage as a contract involves a big give away. Agreeing to divide all assets you acquire while in a marriage is an enormous give away if the time of divorce arrives. You should really trust a person and be in a healthy relationship with that person before taking on that kind of a risk. One party to the contract could enter into it for the purpose of dominating a more wealthy party psychologically, and thus gain control over assets he or she has not worked for at all. If these two were brother and sister, or parent and child, abuse of contractual obligations would be too possible to ignore and hence the good faith integrity of the contract would not be presumed reasonably possible. I think the legal term for it is ‘unconscionable’. It would also corrupt the parent child, brother sister relationship; which is important in and of itself. Such a contract would be suspect by its very nature, I think.
Thus, since the three reasons you provide all co-mingle in scope with each other, your assertion does not hold water, nor rest on a single premise abhorrent in and of itself.
Well, let me see if I can explain what I am saying a little more clearly, and then, if you still think it doesn’t make sense maybe you can explain why.
Lets see, I guess the main thing here is the claim that the govt is, or should be involved in the 3rd, the personal relationship between the two. I don’t see how the other two overlapping is a problem, it just means that in that situation the govt has more than one reason to be involved.
With respect to the 3rd, I guess I am making a distinction between laws that effect the personal relationship because of some other reasons, such as the welfare of future citizens, rather then just for the sake of being involved in the personal romantic relationship itself. The former are saying that the welfare of the govts future children etc are things that the govt should be concerned with, the latter is saying that a persons personal romantic relationship, as such, is something that the govt should be concerned with. And that is something that I think most Americans would have a huge problem with. Is that any clearer?
So that we can properly address the point you’re trying to make here, would you be so kind as to parse this word salad into English?
wants to understand where people who think differently are coming from and why they think the way they do without simultaneously trying to bash them over the head with Catholic Church teachings is rather off-putting. Seriously, understanding where other people are coming from and why they think the way they do is important. I don’t get why anyone would have a problem with that.