QUESTION: Same-Sex compared to Same-blood marriage

Very curious....

Do people who support the legalization of same-sex marriage also support removing all marriage restrictions concerning consanguinity?

Like father/daughter, father/son, mother/daughter, mother/son, siblings, grandparent/grandchild...etc...

If you are a supporter of same-sex marriage, but do not support consanguineous marriages, can you please explain your reasoning?

 

Civil marriage creates legal kinship between unrelated persons. I am not persuaded that closely related persons are similarly situated to unrelated persons for this reason. Thus I do not see any obligation for government to provide consanguinous couples with marriage recognition.

That said, I'm not opposed to consanguinous couples having the civil benefits of marriage and see little reason otherwise to deny them recognition. Whatever concerns may exist surrounding the possibility of such couples procreating and producing children with birth defects due to their close relation would have to be dealt with separately, as preventing consanguinous couples from marrying does nothing to prevent them from procreating.

 

No.. they don't support ather/daughter, father/son, mother/daughter, mother/son, siblings, grandparent/grandchild...etc..

Procreation is impossible in same sex marriage.. There is no possibility of having inbred offspring with multiple birth defects.

 

My position on this is that the two classes are unrelated ('scuse the pun) as a point of law. As far as the effect it has on others: if my brother marries either a boy or girl from outside our family that does not change his relationship to me. If he marries my other brother or sister it does, he becomes more closely related to them than he is to me.

Is this enough of a difference to warrant a declassification of "similar situation"? I'm not sure but I think it's enough of a distinction to require its own litigation to explore. In other words one cannot rely on the existence of same sex marriage to help or hinder the case.

The only instance where same sex marriage is remotely connected is if the intended sibling marriage is a same sex pairing. Beyond that it's easy to argue (if it's a heterosexual pairing) that if any couple can marry, it forms at least the basis of a claim that siblings should also be able to marry. The presence or lack of same sex marriage does nothing to help or hinder the claim.

That said, I think it's all a big red herring posited in a bid to find some desperate reason not to allow same sex couples to marry. If it does come up, it'll need to be assessed on its particular merits.

 

Just noting that you can only answer on your own behalf. Don't presume that everyone supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples has a monolithic opinion on the issue of consanguinous marriages.

 

Agreed - very well said.

 

Do you support the sorts of incestuous marriages listed by felicity?

Same sex marriage is basically a civil rights issue.

 

I don't support it personally (in fact I have no interest, I just don't care) but a lot of people who are anti-SSM try to conflate the two purely as a means to denegrate SSM, they're not interested in the reality of inter-family marriage (in fact I suspect some people would rather see a brother marry his sister than a SS couple get wed). Just offering an empassioned response plays into their hands. I like to point out that the law can easily define that they are not the same thing.

Whether that difference is enough to warrant them being excluded from access to the contract is for them to explore in law if they really want it. But my central point is, if they're not same sex pairings, then the existence of same sex marriage is irrelevant to their position.

The reason a lot of people can't see this distinction is that they think their personal morality is a proxy for legal process. It isn't.

 

Kinship is also 'relationship by nature or character' which means gays are also 'kin.' Moreover, those believing homosexuality is inherited, should consider the consanguineous nature of receiving the same genome from the same ancestor.

 

So marriage is strictly a "legal kinship" issue? Is that what you're saying?

I ask for several reasons, but let's just start with one:

1. So what? So what if they are already legally "kin"? Marriage has a unique "kinship" that the father/daughter relationship cannot claim. What rationale do you have for denying the marital relationship to fathers and daughters that wouldn't undermine your support for same-sex unions?

Just highlighting the above so that it's clear. You support legal recognition of fathers marrying their daughters.

okay.

 

Yes. He does.



Do you agree or disagree and why?

 

No--that's how you want to frame it because it demonstrates a lack of logical consistency in your views. So, you dismiss it as some form of denigration rather than logic because you cannot face the objective rational analysis of what you support.

They could be--father, son pairings--what say you? should that be illegal and otherwise same sex marriage not? Or--do you support consanguinity in same sex marriage?

Please, be explicit in the distinction as to why some consenting adults MUST be allowed legal marriage, whereas other consenting adults cannot. Passing the buck with "they can explore it in law if they want to" is a cop-out from being responsible to the political position you profess concerning the rights of same sex couples to marry.

 

Why do any of these groups even need same sex marriage as a starting point (especially if they are heterosexual pairings)?

They can levy a claim right now completely independently to same sex couples.

Why do you conflate them as in some way connected to unrelated couples? The only thing they have in common with gays is that their pairings are both unrecognized in law (except in certain jurisdictions for SSC where they are).

I'm not sure but I think incest is actually illegal in some (most) places so they need to cross that hurdle first. Homosexuality isn't illegal which is why even Justice Scalia says he's going to be torn over SSM if it ever gets to SCOTUS despite his obvious personal and religious disapproval.

 

I would add that a father doesn't have to marry his daughter in order to marry someone of an appropriate sexual orientation. He can marry any eligible female.

However a gay father cannot only not marry his son, he also cannot marry anyone else of an appropriate sexual orientation if their pairing is ineligible in the jurisdiction.

Another example of blatant and unconstitutional sex discrimination rather than family based discrimination and of why the two things aren't the same.

How's that for logical consistency?

 

If you want to know my position, then read my first post in the thread.

 

Nice bit of mental masturbation. Unfortunately it is utterly ridiculous. I see what you guys do now. Create a straw man then sit around thinking of ways to prop him up.

 

If two consenting adults wish to be married, I don't care if they are related or not. Marry if you want to.

I would, however, oppose any children being brought into the relationship.

 

Do you understand the concept of "similar situation" beyond the level of: "these two things are the same because I don't like either of them"?

Do you know what a strawman is other than: "something that has me flabbergasted"?

 

It would be for the same reasons any gay couple would want to have a legal marriage.

Not in the way a married couple could. And besides--their relationship is disrespected if they are not allowed to seek the sort of relationship they choose to have--after all--Loving v Virginia demonstrated that marriage is a fundamental right.

Because the reasoning to disallow is EXACTLY the same.

It was. People moved to get such relationships legalized--and now they are seeking marriage. So people in incestuous relationships are having their constitutional right to love whomever trampled on when states make their love illegal, and further limit their fundamental right to marriage when they are not allowed to have a legal marriage and get the benefits and social status that other married couples get.

Face it--any argument that can be made as to why same sex couples should be allowed to marry can be made as legitimately and as equally to support incestuous marriages.

Perriquine admits it--and knows he HAS TO support incest to maintain logical consistency--that's why he doesn't want to get any further into explaining his position as Margot asked.

In his dissent of Lawrence v Texas (which you are referring to here) he is lamenting the "dismantal[ing] [of] the structure of constitutional law."

Yup. DESTABILIZING of the society HARMS the society.

 

That is not what is being said here. That you keep saying that it is, is the straw man. It's not about liking or not liking--it's about the logical reasoning behind both situations being EXACTLY the same.

If you support one, you NECESSARILY must support the other to maintain the integrity of your argument.

Do you?

 

Why? Isn't that infringing upon people's freedom?

You know--Children born of incest a can be normal--and if you want to open that Pandora's box related to reproductive freedom...go ahead, but I'm afraid that's not going to help your argument.

 

I don't even concede your original claim that if you support one you must necessarily support the other so your attempts to bait me into becoming an actor in your own little morality play aren't going to meet with much success I regret to relate.

Beyond that I do think that both situations, although different, should have an equal crack at the law and should not be circumscribed by the personal feelings of those averse to their requests.

 

It would be good of you, then, to correct the error of my reasoning so I can be more open minded about "gay marriage".

 

My point is you could just say "couple" there's no need to insert the word "gay".

Are you sure this is what you wanted to say? It doesn't seem to make any sense.

Stop being coy, tell us what it is.

 

They're not similarly situated as groups to those who are eligible to enter the contract. The restriction isn't based on the same dynamic.

A homosexual denied marriage is denied from a whole gender as a class a heterosexual isn't regardless of the object of their personal desire.

The father/daughter, father/son post earlier on kind of spells that out. I can't see why you need me to keep reiterating the same talking points, it won't lead me to adopting your moral code, sorry.