Homosexuality and Incest

[bschneid]

What are your views or opinion of a brother to sister marriage or any inter family marriages(cousins, aunt-nephew/niece etc.)?

This question is directed more towards those who are for homosexual marriages, however general (name removed by moderator)ut would also be helpful.

 

[RosaryFan]

What are your views or opinion of a brother to sister marriage or any inter family marriages(cousins, aunt-nephew/niece etc.)?

This question is directed more towards those who are for homosexual marriages, however general (name removed by moderator)ut would also be helpful.

Ew!

 

[Touchstone]

What are your views or opinion of a brother to sister marriage or any inter family marriages(cousins, aunt-nephew/niece etc.)?

This question is directed more towards those who are for homosexual marriages, however general (name removed by moderator)ut would also be helpful.

I’m for equality under the law for homosexuals. To the extent there is a state/community interest in controlling health costs that would get stuck to the state due to the highly elevated rates of significant problems genetically and otherwise in genetically closely related parents, I think the state has some basis for sanction, and possibly prohibition.

But that extent doesn’t amount to much. Marriage in our culture is not a gate for reproduction – siblings can reproduce without a marriage license, and that carries the same costs for the state (whatever they may be).

So, if the people in question are consenting, of-age, free adults, I see no more interest in banning their marriage than in banning homosexual marriage.

And just pre-emptively, since this predictably comes up as a reflex:

1. Bestiality is not compatible with freedom, as it doesn’t provide for consent – an animal can’t be informed and consenting in such an arrangement.
2. Paedophilia isn’t compatible with human liberty either as the child is not capable of giving informed consent to such a relationship, and this needs the protection of a guardian, backed by the state, to prevent abuse and exploitation so long as the child is incompetent to make informed, adult choices about their sexual/relational arrangements.
3. Polygamy doesn’t afford the state or the liberty interest of the people any grounds for prohibiting marriage, so far as I’m aware. All parties need to be consenting, of-age individuals, but once that threshold is cleared, let freedom prevail.

-TS

 

[Paul1961]

“To the extent there is a state/community interest in controlling health costs that would get stuck to the state due to the highly elevated rates of significant problems genetically and otherwise in genetically closely related parents, I think the state has some basis for sanction, and possibly prohibition.”

Did you think this through before you wrote it?
So we should prohibit all marriages where one parent has a genetic defect. Diabetes, sickle -cell, etc. Let’s also stop the obese from marrying as well. Fat parents equals fat kids with lots of lifetime medical bills. Is that your plan?

 

[Touchstone]

“To the extent there is a state/community interest in controlling health costs that would get stuck to the state due to the highly elevated rates of significant problems genetically and otherwise in genetically closely related parents, I think the state has some basis for sanction, and possibly prohibition.”

Did you think this through before you wrote it?
So we should prohibit all marriages where one parent has a genetic defect. Diabetes, sickle -cell, etc. Let’s also stop the obese from marrying as well. Fat parents equals fat kids with lots of lifetime medical bills. Is that your plan?

Yeah, as I said, that “extent” doesn’t go far at all. It’s not even a marriage issue, and in order for the “old school” ban to to be consistent, we’d have to implement some kind of genetic test for all sorts of other risks. The history of the ban is rooted in religious convictions, and the genetic risks were a kind of “talking point” that obscured the social reality.

That said, however, if some form of reproductive behavior emerges that is a material financial burden on the state, costs that are reasonably avoidable, and which the state(and thus the people as taxpayers) get stuck with, the state has an interest in sanctions or prohibition. I don’t think incest even approaches that kind of problem, but a genetic combination that produces 90% occurrence rates of an exotic genetic disorder that produces living, viable children who require $1MM a quarter in health care costs to keep them living, that would provide the bases for state interests in intervention. The parents in such a case do not have a reasonable expectation of producing a child that they can avoid sticking enormous costs to the government in order to secure vital care.

So my preference would be, as I said, to let freedom prevail. Marriage doesn’t even attach here, this is about reproduction. And such reproduction risks aren’t a state interest until such time as they become onerous on the taxpayer, which manifestly they are not, and have not been.

-TS

 

[mark_a]

1. Bestiality is not compatible with freedom, as it doesn’t provide for consent – an animal can’t be informed and consenting in such an arrangement.

Maybe for the farmer, the boots, and the sheep this is true. But I’ve heard folks discussing videos of women and dogs and the dogs had no desire to flee.

1. Polygamy doesn’t afford the state or the liberty interest of the people any grounds for prohibiting marriage, so far as I’m aware. All parties need to be consenting, of-age individuals, but once that threshold is cleared, let freedom prevail.

Freedom will always prevail behind closed doors. But the state should not promote activities that are bad for society.

 

[Touchstone]

Maybe for the farmer, the boots, and the sheep this is true. But I’ve heard folks discussing videos of women and dogs and the dogs had no desire to flee.

Yikes, I hope THAT’s not your idea of informed consent!

Freedom will always prevail behind closed doors. But the state should not promote activities that are bad for society.

What is it promoting, here? And what’s the measure you are using for “bad for society”? If some couple is finding happiness and satisfaction, at no cost to those around them – what Jefferson observed “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg” – then it seems to me we have some benefit for society. The pursuit of happiness, and all that freedom jazz from the Founders.

-TS

 

[mark_a]

Yikes, I hope THAT’s not your idea of informed consent!

So we’ve got to choose sex partners from inside the species? Says who? Haven’t you heard the occasional story about folks wanting to marry their dog? No one is being hurt. It’s not like anyone’s going to get pregnant and need an abortion. They wouldn’t even need contraceptives.

The pursuit of happiness, and all that freedom jazz from the Founders.

You don’t seem very convinced.

Anyway, I’m sure you get my point by now.

 

[mellestad]

The whole thing would be easier if we just got rid of marriage as a government sponsored institution.

Make the state sponsored stuff purely akin to civil unions. A pure contract in which the state participates, and anyone who can legally consent can join into the contract.

Marriages should be granted by religious institutions, and they can do whatever they want since it is just a label.

Problem solved!​

Would Catholics be OK with that, or is there a vested interest in religious marriages being sponsored by the state?

 

[mellestad]

So we’ve got to choose sex partners from inside the species? Says who? Haven’t you heard the occasional story about folks wanting to marry their dog? No one is being hurt. It’s not like anyone’s going to get pregnant and need an abortion. They wouldn’t even need contraceptives.
You don’t seem very convinced.

Anyway, I’m sure you get my point by now.

I’m pretty sure consent in this context is the ability to understand the legally binding contract and agree to it. This is why children would be unable to complete it, or the mentally handicapped, or animals.

Dogs are smart, but they aren’t smart enough to grasp contract law.

This seems to be confusing sex and marriage. One is a physical act, the other is a state sponsored contract. At least in western societies, sex and marriage don’t actually have anything to do with each other…we can legally engage in sex without marriage, and abstain from sex from within marriage.

Edit: Although now that I think about it sometimes marriage can change an under-aged spouse who cannot give consent into someone who can within the confines of the contract…but that is dependent on a guardian releasing authority. It’s also sort of messed up, haha. Anyway. I don’t think it is really applicable anyway.

 

[mellestad]

And yes, if a dog was intelligent enough and had the language skills and legal autonomy to make the decision I wouldn’t have any problem with it.

 

[mark_a]

And yes, if a dog was intelligent enough and had the language skills and legal autonomy to make the decision.

Who would be the judge of that?

 

[mark_a]

Would Catholics be OK with that, or is there a vested interest in religious marriages being sponsored by the state?

Only the state could enforce the marriage (and especially divorce (property)) laws. It’s very mathmatical!

 

[vsedriver]

So my preference would be, as I said, to let freedom prevail. Marriage doesn’t even attach here, this is about reproduction. And such reproduction risks aren’t a state interest until such time as they become onerous on the taxpayer, which manifestly they are not, and have not been.

-TS

reproduction risks aren’t a state interest until such time as they become onerous on the taxpayer… You mean like single mothers on welfare?

 

[mellestad]

Who would be the judge of that?

I would imagine a dog able to communicate with humans and understand contract law would be…rather dramatic. So I’m not sure what you mean, as any competent observer would be able to see it.

 

[mellestad]

Only the state could enforce the marriage (and especially divorce (property)) laws. It’s very mathmatical!

I’m not sure what you mean. Is this yes the Church would be fine if marriage was a purely religious matter with no secular legal implications, or no, the Church wants marriage to be sponsored by the state with all the implications that entails?

 

[mark_a]

I’m not sure what you mean. Is this yes the Church would be fine if marriage was a purely religious matter with no secular legal implications, or no, the Church wants marriage to be sponsored by the state with all the implications that entails?

The latter. I guess.

 

[mellestad]

The latter. I guess.

Thanks.