R
Rau
Guest
Plus a good chunk of the world - why? Just prejudice?
Can you list a few States where brother and sister can marry (and point to a reference (s))? I’d like to research how they came to that position.
- Status
Can you list a few States where brother and sister can marry (and point to a reference (s))? I’d like to research how they came to that position.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
But I do…
What is your opinion of the outcome? Tell me and I will tell you if I agree.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Our Government (Federal) never defined marriage until the DOMA (1996)
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. 1 U.S.C. 7. "
That section was ruled unconstitutional in U.S. vs Windsor. Therefore the Federal Government has no definition of marriage.
A
AyJSimon
Guest
I already know you don’t agree. My problem is that you came to this opinion having never read the ruling. You couldn’t possibly be less informed on the subject.But I do…
What is your opinion of the outcome? Tell me and I will tell you if I agree.
R
Rau
Guest
So…you can’t name a State that issues marriage licenses to (blood) brother and sister?
Ps. You guess wrong. Criminalization is another matter entirely.
R
Rau
Guest
A little more data:
I was unable to easily find information specific to the permissibility of marriage between brothers and sisters, but I did find some (dated) information regarding cousin marriage in the USA (at 2010):
- 30 States will not enable first cousin marriages;
- Cousins share 12.5% of DNA
- Brothers and Sisters share 50% DNA
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
In the United States the District of Columbia and every state and inhabited territory have some form of codified incest prohibition.
In most states, sexual activity between a lineal ancestor and a lineal descendant (parent, grandparent with child or grandchild), siblings (brother-sister) and aunt-nephew, uncle-niece is penalized as incest.
However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island has repealed its criminal incest statute and only criminalizes incestuous marriage. Ohio “targets only parental figures”, and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older.
In three states a brother & sister can possibly marry.
ndaa.org/pdf/criminal_incest%20chart%20_2010.pdf
In most states, sexual activity between a lineal ancestor and a lineal descendant (parent, grandparent with child or grandchild), siblings (brother-sister) and aunt-nephew, uncle-niece is penalized as incest.
However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island has repealed its criminal incest statute and only criminalizes incestuous marriage. Ohio “targets only parental figures”, and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older.
In three states a brother & sister can possibly marry.
ndaa.org/pdf/criminal_incest%20chart%20_2010.pdf
R
Rau
Guest
Well great, but that wasn’t the question, was it (see post #157 / #158)? Which States will issue a marriage licence to Brother and Sister? The answer is pretty close to none, isn’t it? And that’s because marriage is understood to be a sexual relationship. So let’s put that point to bed, eh?
R
Rohzek
Guest
Here is the crux of the problem right here. You keep invoking Natural Law Theory without your willingness to admit it. Nevermind the fact that homosexuals are inclined biologically to be homosexual, so if anything, natural law theory can be used to justify it. The biggest problem with natural law theory though is that it requires someone to accept universals (at least the way you are using it), a problem that has plagued philosophy for quite some time. Considering I myself reject induction as nothing more than a myth, then I am inclined to reject universals as nothing more than non-observationally-based hypotheses. We’re operating on two fundamentally different philosophies here. Universals are only useful for conjecture and the reality of dispositions. However, they cannot be useful for describing the essence or nature of man. At that point, we are talking about metaphysics without any hope of true falsification.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Why would this be true? I would think that there exists many marriages where sex is not sought, both for gays and straights.Well great, but that wasn’t the question, was it (see post #157 / #158)? Which States will issue a marriage licence to Brother and Sister? The answer is pretty close to none, isn’t it? And that’s because marriage is understood to be a sexual relationship. So let’s put that point to bed, eh?
J
JimG
Guest
Sex may not be a primary motivator in marriage. I think, for example of the parents of St. Therese of Lisieux, who originally intended never to consummate their marriage, until the parish priest convinced them that they were intended to have a family. And they did. That, however, is immaterial. Every marriage between a man and a woman has at least the capacity for being consummated. The husband and wife have the capacity for specifically marital intercourse. It is for this reason that the state takes an interest in marriage–the possibility of children.
The human race consists of man and woman. Man and woman are sexually complementary. Consequently, man and woman are capable of marriage. Same sex couples are not capable of marital intercourse or of marriage.
R
Rau
Guest
I am not unwilling to admit that my reasoning may be similar to natural law, but I have no particular need to give a name to the elements of my argument (nor do I see how not putting a name to an argument can be a “problem”).
I hold that the same sex inclination is objectively [ie. in reality, of fact, not of opinion] at odds with the very body of the person who suffers it. To be a man, yet desire another man sexually, reflects something amiss. That person deserves no condemnation whatsoever for that. But the sexual acts, the exchanging of semen with another man is objectively, everywhere and every time, a broken act, evidently misplaced. The romantic relationship and inclination of 2 men (or 2 women) to engage in sexual acts does not provide any basis for the State (or any person) to view their relationship as “just the same” as marriage. Their relationship does not arise from the nature of man, it does not give rise to a natural family unit, nor does it form the basis for the expansion of the community through children.
I agree there may well be a biological component to SSA, but it is nonsense to suggest that natural law therefore justifies same sex acts. The individual’s intellect makes evident that the acts are misplaced, [just as the individual’s intellect ought to be able to reason that a promiscuous man moving from woman to woman is not in keeping with the good of the community]. SSA does not create sexual complementarity - it simply encourages its absence to be ignored.
Such as…the ‘nature of man’,? the reality of there being 2 sexes? Are there no “universals” - only “relatives”?
That may be. I’m curious as to how you simultaneously hold to your philosophy, and to the Orthodox Church, which has spoken out with concern about the moves to legalise SSM.
L
lewevanhoop
Guest
I think that the 14th amendment requires same-sex civil marriages. Just because the constitution requires them does not however mean that the church must recognize or celebrate them.
A
AyJSimon
Guest
Are you sure? Because lots of Christians appear to think that the secular government expanding its definition of marriage means that churches have to do it too.
L
lewevanhoop
Guest
Any attempt to force a church to recognize a same sex civil marriage or to require a church or other religious group to perform such a ceremony, when that ceremony is in violation of the tenants of that faith, runs right into the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
A
AyJSimon
Guest
I agree. However, many Christians appears not to realize this - or conversely, think that the breadth of the Free Exercise clause extends much farther than it actually does.
R
Rau
Guest
You may be right. What are the examples of this you have in mind?
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
- Status