US Politics

[SixTwoSixFour]

Gay people getting married don't create retard babies. There's a good way to draw the line. I mean, states have incest laws extending to cousins, don't they?

 

So it's about genetics? Because to me, it's not. My objection to a brother and sister marrying is not "but your kids will turn out weird." It's that I feel that you shouldn't get romantically involved with someone who raised you, or you were raised alongside. My issue is a relationship one, which is far less scientific.

 

I'm quite aware of the reproductive ramifications, but there are people with bad genes who will have retarded children too, and I'm not about to stop them from getting married. I'm worried about morals, not evolution.

Edited February 7, 2012 by SixTwoSixFour

[Johnny]

@Six: I used to feel the same, until I realized that I had no reasoning to back that opinion up. Then I changed my mind about it.

 

@FDS: I've heard that said a lot, though never by people I'd trust in such matters. I've also had people quote research at me saying that the chances of incest pregnancies actually creating retarded children being negligibly low.

I honestly can't say I know either way what is true about that one. If anyone knows better, though, feel free to educate.

Though as Six points out, risk of genetic defects isn't enough to make marriage illegal in other cases. I don't think why there should be a difference.

 

Edit

 

@Six: That seems honestly worryingly close to the reasoning people give for why gays shouldn't be in a relationship. I personally find the idea of incest to be gross, just like I find the idea of gay sex gross, but I still think that two people should be able to be together if they want to, unless you can give a very good reason for why it's harmful to the rest of society in a way that outweighs their freedoms.

[SixTwoSixFour]

@Six: That seems honestly worryingly close to the reasoning people give for why gays shouldn't be in a relationship. I personally find the idea of incest to be gross, just like I find the idea of gay sex gross, but I still think that two people should be able to be together if they want to, unless you can give a very good reason for why it's harmful to the rest of society in a way that outweighs their freedoms.

 

Hence my distress, naturally. I realize the closeness, and it displeases me, but I don't know what else to think.

 

To me... I mean, it's like pedophilia. It feels like pedophilia. You knew this person as a small child, you knew them intimately, you don't get to have a romantic relationship with them. In the case of, say, long lost siblings? I've got no problem with that. If you never knew your sister, and she shows up when you're 18, and you like each other, I'm fine with that. But it strikes at the core of the moral fiber that you shouldn't be sleeping with a person who raised you, or was raised alongside you.

Edited February 7, 2012 by SixTwoSixFour

[Johnny]

Though pedophilia has an actual tangible reason why it's illegal - it causes direct, often grave, psychological harm to the child being taken advantage of.

 

I think, just becuase you're personally unnerved by the concept, that doesn't mean it's wrong. Hell, up until a few years ago, being around gay people was still heavily uncomfortable to me, but I always viewed that as my own failing and not a reason to deem homosexuality as wrong.

[TheMightyEthan]

The line should be drawn at consenting adults, just like EVERY OTHER TYPE OF CONTRACT.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

1. I live in a Christian state. I could go n marry Thursday if I wanted(well, civil partnership, same difference).

 

Not the same at all I'm afraid. Marriage equality is exactly that. The fact that it is a civil union and not a marriage speaks volumes about pandering to the homophobic quarter and making unjust concessions and it derogates a gay couples commitment as different to a straight couples commitment. It's exactly the same problem as in the USA: "we don't want gay marriage devaluing proper marriage" except we've now got this insulting compromise here that means we're more unlikely to get marriage equality than we were before. Tory backbenchers are threatening to revolt over Cameron's plans to bring about parity and I'm sure he'll decide he has bigger fish to fry.

 

If it was black people who could only have a civil union rather than marriage, you wouldn't think it was the same difference, you would think it was massively racist.

[TheMightyEthan]

If it was black people who could only have a civil union rather than marriage, you wouldn't think it was the same difference, you would think it was massively racist.

 

This. 1000x this.

[Luftwaffles]

If it was black people who could only have a civil union rather than marriage, you wouldn't think it was the same difference, you would think it was massively racist.

 

That's it, show's over.

[deanb]

I've mentioned it before but http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-14960357

The gov't is moving to have full gay marriage in the UK by next election (aka 2015)

 

It's my understanding that civil partnerships are legally exactly the same as regular marriage, thus giving the same rights, just without the religious part on top. i.e the "marriage" bit. Which considering the Quakers are the only denomination to accept gay unions didn't really restrict much. And AFAIK the bible isn't' against blacks.

 

edit: Swapping blacks and bibles around for grammar.

[SixTwoSixFour]

I've mentioned it before but http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-14960357

The gov't is moving to have full gay marriage in the UK by next election (aka 2015)

 

It's my understanding that civil partnerships are legally exactly the same as regular marriage, thus giving the same rights, just without the religious part on top. i.e the "marriage" bit. Which considering the Quakers are the only denomination to accept gay unions didn't really restrict much. And AFAIK blacks aren't against the bible.

 

I seem to remember a certain political fight over "separate but equal."

[TheMightyEthan]

I can understand opposing abortion because if you believe babies are being murdered then yeah, you should probably try to stop that. I don't share that belief but given that you have it your opposition seems justified.

 

With gay marriage though I am firmly of the opinion that if you don't like it then don't get one and shut the fuck up. Trying to prohibit gay marriage is nothing other than trying to enforce your beliefs on others and that goes against everything this country is supposed to stand for.

 

Also, apparently this ruling is narrower than it first appeared. What the court actually said was that since California has civil unions, which have all the same legal rights as marriage, barring them from actually being "married" was served no purpose other than to discriminate against them, and the court said you can't do that. It didn't address the question of whether the state would be required to give gay couples all the same rights as straight couples, it just said given that the state is doing that it can't deny them the term "marriage."

[deanb]

I've mentioned it before but http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-14960357

The gov't is moving to have full gay marriage in the UK by next election (aka 2015)

 

It's my understanding that civil partnerships are legally exactly the same as regular marriage, thus giving the same rights, just without the religious part on top. i.e the "marriage" bit. Which considering the Quakers are the only denomination to accept gay unions didn't really restrict much. And AFAIK blacks aren't against the bible.

I seem to remember a certain political fight over "separate but equal."

 

Except there isn't same-sex segregation. No separate schools, buses, water, etc. I may not religions biggest fan but I can respect if their doctrine says no to same-sex couples then I respect that. Civil partnership provides the exact same legal rights to same-sex couples as a marriage, minus the sticky area of religions not allowing it. Next of kin, adoption, taxes, etc.

 

It is equal in all but name and doing it in a church. I don't even know many opposite sex couples marrying churches of late anyway.

[Yantelope V2]

@dukeofpwn how many religious bigots have you personally been insulted or threatened by?

[TheFlyingGerbil]

I did actually mention that the current Government is thinking about allowing gay marriage, and anyway in this country at least marriage isn't a religious institution. If a straight couple get married in a registry office they are specifically prohibited from having any religious elements to the ceremony and yet they are still married. A civil partnership while legally conferring the same rights also legally prohibits them from using the term married. It is entirely designed to differentiate "gay marriage" from marriage.

 

It's why it's helpful to call for marriage equality, not for gay marriage. We want equal rights not special treatment.

[TheMightyEthan]

I don't know about elsewhere but in the US marriage is a civil institution in addition to a religious one, and legalizing gay marriage wouldn't require churches to perform them, it would have no effect on the religious practice.

[Thorgi Duke of Frisbee]

@dukeofpwn how many religious bigots have you personally been insulted or threatened by?

Insulted? A giant section of my high school, for one. Half of them were talking about how they were praying for Obama to be shot because "a Muslim president will bring about the end of the world." I've been vocal about my support of Obama in college, and several people have told me that I will be in hell for it.

 

And I haven't even told anyone at college, except for a fellow gay friend, that I'm gay. Now I'm almost afraid to.

[Johnny]

Shit, Yant, I'm not even gay and I've had people get hateful with religious reasoning against me simply because some people thought I might be gay. Many times.

[Thursday Next]

Dean's right about the Civil Partnership thing, legally there is no difference. In fact, one large area of dispute about Civil Partnerships is that they are only available to same sex couples. I have no intention of ever getting "married" standing in a church, lying to a priest, who knows I'm lying and have only been attending his church for the last 6 months so that I can hold my sham of a ceremony there, forcing all my relatives (most of whom either have no faith, or are lip-service Christians / Muslims) to sit there and chant along and all that rubbish. Further I don't particularly want any ties to marriage / religion whatsoever. I'd much rather declare my commitment and snag a bunch of lovely tax breaks by having a Civil Partnership with a girl.

 

With regard to incest and polygamy, well, I couldn't give less of a crap how many people you want to marry/partner with. Incest carries a certain degree of personal... discomfort. It's something that is pretty ingrained in our society (outside of Norfolk) that incest is far from best. However, if two people want to consent to it, I don't see why it should be an issue legally. Playing the genetics card is bullshit imho. It would only affect heterosexual incestuous couples. There will be no deformed babies as a result of a couple of brothers going at it, if we're going to use genetic deformities as a reason to ban couples from having sex then that is a hop, skip and a jump from Eugenics which makes me waaaaaay more uncomfortable.

 

The parent / child thing is more tricky as it's not necessarily just about two consenting adults. One of those adults has spent a considerable amount of time in a position of trust and authority over the other. To me that issue is more like Doctors getting involved with the patients they are treating.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

Dean's right about the Civil Partnership thing, legally there is no difference. In fact, one large area of dispute about Civil Partnerships is that they are only available to same sex couples. I have no intention of ever getting "married" standing in a church, lying to a priest, who knows I'm lying and have only been attending his church for the last 6 months so that I can hold my sham of a ceremony there, forcing all my relatives (most of whom either have no faith, or are lip-service Christians / Muslims) to sit there and chant along and all that rubbish. Further I don't particularly want any ties to marriage / religion whatsoever. I'd much rather declare my commitment and snag a bunch of lovely tax breaks by having a Civil Partnership with a girl.

 

With regard to incest and polygamy, well, I couldn't give less of a crap how many people you want to marry/partner with. Incest carries a certain degree of personal... discomfort. It's something that is pretty ingrained in our society (outside of Norfolk) that incest is far from best. However, if two people want to consent to it, I don't see why it should be an issue legally. Playing the genetics card is bullshit imho. It would only affect heterosexual incestuous couples. There will be no deformed babies as a result of a couple of brothers going at it, if we're going to use genetic deformities as a reason to ban couples from having sex then that is a hop, skip and a jump from Eugenics which makes me waaaaaay more uncomfortable.

 

The parent / child thing is more tricky as it's not necessarily just about two consenting adults. One of those adults has spent a considerable amount of time in a position of trust and authority over the other. To me that issue is more like Doctors getting involved with the patients they are treating.

 

Then a civil marriage is for you, which forbids the mention of religion, so you already have an option for what you want. If you're attaching any religious connotations to marriage in general, then it is entirely your own doing. And your point about people saying it is wrong that straight people can't have a civil partnership is exactly my point the whole reason there are civil partnerships is to make it different from a civil marriage between straight people - it is not what gay people want. We want marriage equality not so-called "gay marriage".

 

With regards to incest, I agree about the parent child issues but I would imagine siblings that embark on an incestuous relationship are probably psychologically damaged. Maybe they had abusive parents that pushed them closer together, so while they may be consenting, it's probably a n unhealthy relationship.

[Thursday Next]

Dean's right about the Civil Partnership thing, legally there is no difference. In fact, one large area of dispute about Civil Partnerships is that they are only available to same sex couples. I have no intention of ever getting "married" standing in a church, lying to a priest, who knows I'm lying and have only been attending his church for the last 6 months so that I can hold my sham of a ceremony there, forcing all my relatives (most of whom either have no faith, or are lip-service Christians / Muslims) to sit there and chant along and all that rubbish. Further I don't particularly want any ties to marriage / religion whatsoever. I'd much rather declare my commitment and snag a bunch of lovely tax breaks by having a Civil Partnership with a girl.

 

With regard to incest and polygamy, well, I couldn't give less of a crap how many people you want to marry/partner with. Incest carries a certain degree of personal... discomfort. It's something that is pretty ingrained in our society (outside of Norfolk) that incest is far from best. However, if two people want to consent to it, I don't see why it should be an issue legally. Playing the genetics card is bullshit imho. It would only affect heterosexual incestuous couples. There will be no deformed babies as a result of a couple of brothers going at it, if we're going to use genetic deformities as a reason to ban couples from having sex then that is a hop, skip and a jump from Eugenics which makes me waaaaaay more uncomfortable.

 

The parent / child thing is more tricky as it's not necessarily just about two consenting adults. One of those adults has spent a considerable amount of time in a position of trust and authority over the other. To me that issue is more like Doctors getting involved with the patients they are treating.

 

Then a civil marriage is for you, which forbids the mention of religion, so you already have an option for what you want. If you're attaching any religious connotations to marriage in general, then it is entirely your own doing. And your point about people saying it is wrong that straight people can't have a civil partnership is exactly my point the whole reason there are civil partnerships is to make it different from a civil marriage between straight people - it is not what gay people want. We want marriage equality not so-called "gay marriage".

 

With regards to incest, I agree about the parent child issues but I would imagine siblings that embark on an incestuous relationship are probably psychologically damaged. Maybe they had abusive parents that pushed them closer together, so while they may be consenting, it's probably a n unhealthy relationship.

 

I just don't like the term "marriage" and prefer "partnership" for a number of reasons.

 

1. "Marriage" has religious connotations for me.

2. "Partnership" better expresses the type of relationship I would want to commit to.

3. To your point above. If we're going to say that marriage and civil partnerships are the same, then I should be allowed to have whatever joining ceremony I like.

 

As for sibling relationships being born out of strife. I'm sure this isn't always the case. There are numerous stories of separated at birth siblings who have led perfectly healthy lives and got into relationships with each other unknowingly. Besides which, if we're going to legislate relationships based on the emotional state of the people involved then that's going to be a pretty sweeping law. Provided they are both medically of good mental capacity, then the law should butt out.

 

For example, we don't legislate against girls marrying boyfriends who beat them up. We don't impose a statutory cooling off period after receiving your Decree Absolute before you can marry again. People do lots of things that are potentially unhealthy. Drinking, smoking, eating at McDonalds, having unprotected sex with strangers, body modification (sometimes all within the space of a single evening)... we don't legislate on any of it it so long as the people involved are adults (McDonalds excluded) and have the capacity to consent to what they are doing, and I don't think that we should.

[Johnny]

[stuff about marriage vs. civil union]

 

How about we let both gay people and straight people choose whether they want to marry and enter a civil union?

I bet there's people on all sides of the fence wishing they had access to the other option.

 

 

With regards to incest, I agree about the parent child issues but I would imagine siblings that embark on an incestuous relationship are probably psychologically damaged. Maybe they had abusive parents that pushed them closer together, so while they may be consenting, it's probably a n unhealthy relationship.

 

That's an overly assumptive generalization.

While it is possible that this is true in some cases, I've also read about people who have been in such relationships with their siblings while living in what you'd consider a normal household. I do not presume to know the various reasons one may get into a relationship with their sibling, and I think it's bad form to pretend you do.

[Kovach_]

This all made me wonder... are religious marriages legally binding in the US?

[Thursday Next]

[stuff about marriage vs. civil union]

 

How about we let both gay people and straight people choose whether they want to marry and enter a civil union?

I bet there's people on all sides of the fence wishing they had access to the other option.

 

 

 

Couldn't agree more.

[TheMightyEthan]

This all made me wonder... are religious marriages legally binding in the US?

 

Yes and no. If you just do a religious ceremony that doesn't mean anything legally speaking. The typical procedure is you go to the county courthouse and get a marriage license which is good after a 3-day waiting period, then you take that marriage license to the church and after the ceremony the married couple, the "officiant", and two witnesses sign the marriage license, at which point you are legally married. Then you have to file the marriage license back at the court house. You can also have a judge perform the marriage, but the procedure is the same except you do it in a courthouse (typically, though you could do it wherever you wanted) instead of a church and there's usually less ceremony associated with it.

[deanb]

Question: (I guess at Thursday): How does it work in the UK then?

 

What Ethan describes sounds similar to what happens, at l.east from my view as someone who comes to weddings, not someone who does all the signing n legalities around it. However in the US version the religious bit is theoretically pointless and not legally anything(which would make me question the objection to "gay marriage" in the US if the religious element means jack shit. I'm pretty sure if a gay man can be tried in court they can be married in one), unlike a civil partnership versus marriage would seem to imply over here. Though I know we don't do it in courts, but tend to be at like the town hall, which I guess could be similar.