Separation of religious and civil marriage

[PRmerger]

From: Wikianswers Legal

Is incest legal in any country?

Consensual incest between brother and sister is frowned on, but not prohibited in France. It has been legal there since the time of Napoleon, but still you can’t marry your sister. It is similar in Japan, legal between consenting adults but not legal for incestuous marriages. Sweden is the only country in Europe which allows marriage between siblings who share one parent. They have recently been silently dropping anti-incest laws in other countries too. It is still technically illegal in lots of countries, but police in most countries will now turn a blind eye to it unless someone makes a complaint. Most police will leave happy couples alone these days.

Again, let’s not talk about legality.

I want to know how someone can argue for gay “marriage” while arguing against incestuous “marriage”.

There is no logical reason that one would be for gay “marriage” without also permitting incestuous “marriage”.

When you promote gay “marriage” you MUST, by reasonable application of your definition, advocate incestuous “marriage”.

 

[PRmerger]

Again, let’s not talk about legality.

I want to know how someone can argue for gay “marriage” while arguing against incestuous “marriage”.

There is no logical reason that one would be for gay “marriage” without also permitting incestuous “marriage”.

When you promote gay “marriage” you MUST, by reasonable application of your definition, advocate incestuous “marriage”.

Also, frobert, I’d like to know why you believe marriage should only be for 2 people.

Why can’t it be for 4 people?

(Legal issues are irrelevant, because we can simply change the laws, just like you have done with 2 men wanting to marry.)

 

[DrTaffy]

What evidence is there to show that 2 brothers marrying is harmful?

If you wish to champion gay incestuous marriage, feel free to do so.

You might want to start by identifying these gay brothers that you claim should be allowed to marry. If there are no cases of gay brothers wishing to marry, it is a non-issue.

There are plenty of cases of same sex couples wanting to marry, same sex couples who are very valuable members of society, who deserve the same legal protections as other couples, and extensive evidence that such recognition benefits both them and society. And the majority of the population support such recognition.

You are in the minority here, so if you want to make ground you need to stop sneering and start reasoning.

But rape necessarily includes sex, no?

One cannot rape someone without having sex.

My point exactly. And the definition of sex does not exclude rape. Likewise same-sex marriage necessarily involves marrying someone of the same sex.

I can defend the thesis that rape is wrong without dogmatically asserting that the definition of sex excludes rape. Only one who was unable to explain why he felt rape was wrong would resort to trying to define rape out of existence.

Also, frobert, I’d like to know why you believe marriage should only be for 2 people.

Again, there is empirical evidence that polygamy is harmful to society. I won’t claim that the debate is closed, but again - if you wish to champion polygamy, present the group you claim to represent and we will talk.

 

[PRmerger]

If you wish to champion gay incestuous marriage, feel free to do so.

Ah. So you don’t have any sources as I requested.

sigh.

 

[PRmerger]

You might want to start by identifying these gay brothers that you claim should be allowed to marry. If there are no cases of gay brothers wishing to marry, it is a non-issue.

This sounds suspiciously like an argument that was given 100 years ago. Imagine someone saying, “You might want to start by identifying these homosexual men that you claim should be allowed to marry. If there are no cases of homosexual men wishing to marry, it is a non-issue.”

And yet, if you had been there 100 years ago, you would have said…“It’s irrelevant whether they exist or not. They should be given the right to marry because that’s what’s fair.”

Right?

Or are you saying that it was immoral for 2 men to marry each other 100 years ago but is moral today?

 

[PRmerger]

You are in the minority here,

What a peculiar position. That simply begs this response: so what?

so if you want to make ground you need to stop sneering and start reasoning.

Oh, I never sneer.

You must be confusing me with someone else.

 

[PRmerger]

My point exactly. And the definition of sex does not exclude rape.

Excellent. I am glad we are agreed.

Likewise same-sex marriage necessarily involves marrying someone of the same sex.

There is no such entity as same sex “marriage”. It is an attempt at marriage, but is no more marriage than someone attempting to call this a circle makes it a circle:

 

[PRmerger]

Again, there is empirical evidence that polygamy is harmful to society.

LOL!!!

Those are the same arguments that were used to assert that homosexual unions are harmful to society!!

 

[frobert]

Again, let’s not talk about legality.

I want to know how someone can argue for gay “marriage” while arguing against incestuous “marriage”.

There is no logical reason that one would be for gay “marriage” without also permitting incestuous “marriage”.

When you promote gay “marriage” you MUST, by reasonable application of your definition, advocate incestuous “marriage”.

I just put that up as general knowledge for anyone who might be interested.

You seem to think I am defending gay marriage but there is nothing to defend, it is already a reality in civil marriage. I know that civil marriage does not fit your definition of marriage but that it not my problem.

I told you several times I am not interested in discussing a hypothetical, if that offends your definition of marriage or sense of logic that is your problem not mine.

That you find fault with someone that with who believes the NY state definition of civil marriage which does not include an illegal an activity, is a correct separation of state and religion, that is your problem not mine.

By your logic,there is no logical reason for civil marriage that is inclusive of same sex not to permit illegal incestuous relationships.

PRmerger:

There is no logical reason that one would be for gay “marriage” without also permitting incestuous “marriage”.

That civil marriage does not include an illegal activity seems right, doesn’t it?

The topic is “Separation of religious and civil marriage” which to my knowledge does not include any illegal relationships.

 

[PRmerger]

I just put that up as general knowledge for anyone who might be interested.

Okey dokey then.

You seem to think I am defending gay marriage but there is nothing to defend, it is already a reality in civil marriage. I know that civil marriage does not fit your definition of marriage but that it not my problem.

You have a problem when people start telling you, “Well, since you believe in gay ‘marriage’, why can’t I get married to my sister?”

And you will have NO LOGICAL RESPONSE except to say, “It’s illegal”.

And they will say, “Well, so was homosexual ‘marriage’ but that didn’t stop you from advocating it.”

You see how you will not be able to stop incestuous “marriages”, as well as polygamous and polyandrous relationships?

That’s a big problem for you, for me, and for civilized society in general.

 

[PRmerger]

The topic is “Separation of religious and civil marriage” which to my knowledge does not include any illegal relationships.

There is already clamor for legal recognition of polyamorous and polyandrous relationships.

They, too, want the state to recognize their relationships as marriages.

What do you say to them?

Surely you know this is not merely a hypothetical but an actual movement.

18 to 35 million Americans live in this type of arrangement.
polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2006/12/how-prevalent-is-polyamory.html

 

[Rau]

Perhaps you have a similar reason why you do on occasion fail to make connections. Please read (1) in the above definition. It pertains to the legal ability to marry. As far as I know incest relationships between sisters and between father and son do not have the legal ability to marry in any US states. If you believe that incest relations should be included I am not the right person to consult.

Your is an example of where you had an excellent opportunity to answer my question, but perhaps you need more time to think about it.

What possible relevance would incest have to same sex “marriage”?

Now Marriage (that is, man+woman) of course is a sexual Union, so I understand, but why on earth retain these restrictions for 2 men, or 2 women?

 

[PRmerger]

You might want to start by identifying these gay brothers that you claim should be allowed to marry. If there are no cases of gay brothers wishing to marry, it is a non-issue.

The topic is “Separation of religious and civil marriage” which to my knowledge does not include any illegal relationships.

I am amused, bemused and confused by the arguments that are being promoted here, (ostensibly with a straight face?) against incestuous “marriages”.

You must see the cognitive dissonance that is resonating with me here, yes?

“There is no such thing as gay brothers who want to marry so that’s why incestuous marriages are immoral!”

“It’s illegal to have incestuous marriages so end of discussion!”

Surely you see the parallel between the above and the arguments that were offered 100 years ago against gay “marriage”.

If I said 100 years ago: “There is no such thing as homosexuals wanting to be recognized as husband and husband, so that’s why we shouldn’t make it legal!”

and, “It’s illegal for 2 men to marry each other, so that’s the end of discussion!”

both of you guys would have responded, validly I might add, like this:

 

[frobert]

Okey dokey then.

You have a problem when people start telling you, “Well, since you believe in gay ‘marriage’, why can’t I get married to my sister?”

And you will have NO LOGICAL RESPONSE except to say, “It’s illegal”.

And they will say, “Well, so was homosexual ‘marriage’ but that didn’t stop you from advocating it.”

You see how you will not be able to stop incestuous “marriages”, as well as polygamous and polyandrous relationships?

That’s a big problem for you, for me, and for civilized society in general.

WOW!!!

You appear to have me confused with a state that has the authority to say who is able to say who can be legally married.

Again you are talking hypothetically. Is there any reasonable supportive evidence that these things you speak of will come to pass in the US or are your suppositions merely opinions that because gay marriage happened incest and polygamy marriage will also happen?

 

[frobert]

What possible relevance would incest have to same sex “marriage”?

Ask PRmerger. I don’t believe there is any.

Now Marriage (that is, man+woman) of course is a sexual Union, so I understand, but why on earth retain these restrictions for 2 men, or 2 women?

I don’t understand your question. What restrictions are you referring to? 2 men and 2 woman can legally marry in most US states. If it is the sexual union part, I don’t have any problem with your faith belief.

 

[davidv]

Ask PRmerger. I don’t believe there is any.

I don’t understand your question. What restrictions are you referring to? 2 men and 2 woman can legally marry in most US states. If it is the sexual union part, I don’t have any problem with your faith belief.

I think that the point being missed is that the definition of marriage that you provided cannot be used to deny any of the arrangements that you declared unacceptable. Why? Because those other arrangements can meet the definition provided.

 

[Rau]

Ask PRmerger. I don’t believe there is any.

I don’t understand your question. What restrictions are you referring to? 2 men and 2 woman can legally marry in most US states. If it is the sexual union part, I don’t have any problem with your faith belief.

Why on earth should a law enabling 2 men to marry restrict them to be unrelated? Why should the incest restriction be maintained in the case of 2 men?

After all, why do we have incest restrictions?

 

[PRmerger]

Ask PRmerger. I don’t believe there is any

If you are for gay “marriage” you have no reason--no reason whatsoever–to be against incestuous “marriage”.

If there’s 2 brothers who love each other and want their relationship recognized by the state, then according to your definition of marriage, it should be made legal.

They love each other, after all!
And they’re adults.
And they aren’t married to anyone else.

So you ought to be able to tell them, just like you tell gay folks, “Go for it! If that’s what you want to do!”

 

[PRmerger]

I think that the point being missed is that the definition of marriage that you provided cannot be used to deny any of the arrangements that you declared unacceptable. Why? Because those other arrangements can meet the definition provided.

Egg-zactly.

The ONLY reason that frobert can provide why it should be illegal for incestuous relationships to be recognized is…“because it’s illegal”.

That, of course, is a tautology.

And it also doesn’t address how gay “marriage” became legal. If everyone used frobert’s paradigm, gay “marriage” wouldn’t be legal either.

 

[frobert]

There is already clamor for legal recognition of polyamorous and polyandrous relationships.

They, too, want the state to recognize their relationships as marriages.

What do you say to them?

Surely you know this is not merely a hypothetical but an actual movement.

18 to 35 million Americans live in this type of arrangement.
polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2006/12/how-prevalent-is-polyamory.html

Let them stand on their own merits. Because someone wants something doesn’t mean it will happen. The marriage paradigm shifted when friends and families of gays realized their loved ones were being deprived of civil rights. Gays are a small minority and the paradigm would not have shifted without a groundswell of support. Do you see or predict a groundswell of support happening for incest and polygamy movements? Do you see APA and other professional mental health associations putting their stamp of approval on incest and saying it does not cause damage in its victims?