Same Sex Marriage Before the SCOTUS

Exactly.

So with that fully understood...

I might ask that you possibly scan back over my posts with the understanding that I feel strongly that if you have to sugarcoat the truth to be able to take it... You are not actually accepting reality.

I would think, with this common understanding in mind, one might find my posts a lot less "trollish"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o25I2fzFGoY

So as a logical dude who doesn't really give a E36 M3 what you do as long as it doesn't infringe upon anyone else's rights to life, liberty, and property, I am pretty solidly in the "Who the berkeley cares?" camp on gay marriage.

BUT

If we're discussing this logically - and I swear I DO NOT mean for this to sound snarky or silly. I am being totally serious. Should it be illegal, "not recognized," or whatever, for an adult man to marry his adult son? If so, why?

poopshovel wrote: So as a logical dude who doesn't really give a E36 M3 what you do as long as it doesn't infringe upon anyone else's rights to life, liberty, and property, I am pretty solidly in the "Who the berkeley cares?" camp on gay marriage. BUT If we're discussing this logically - and I swear I DO NOT mean for this to sound snarky or silly. I am being totally serious. Should it be illegal, "not recognized," or whatever, for an adult man to marry his adult son? If so, why?

What? Incest is already against the law.

All it is a cheap way to try to make gay people seem immoral.

(PS, I know what article you read. )

Jeremy Irons doesn't think so. Christ, I couldn't imagine marrying him.

poopshovel wrote: ...If we're discussing this logically - and I swear I DO NOT mean for this to sound snarky or silly. I am being totally serious. Should it be illegal, "not recognized," or whatever, for an adult man to marry his adult son? If so, why?

It's a reasonable question because it seems to come up a lot.

It's the same reason why the voting age is not 2 or the drinking age 4. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy for a reason, it's just not a valid arguement.

aircooled wrote: It's a reasonable question because it seems to come up a lot. It's the same reason why the voting age is not 2 or the drinking age 4. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy for a reason, it's just not a valid arguement.

Sorry, and what reason is that?

We have two consenting adults doing something. This thread has for the most part been supporting of that idea.

So WHY wouldn't that be allowed? It's a psychology thing? Pretty sure being LBGT is also a psychology thing (in the sense that it affects the brain, not saying this in a negative or positive sense, that it is or is not genetic, etc etc).

Well, I can think of a logical reasoning to want to avoid producing offspring from incest. That does not hold if they are same-sex. However, that would be weird wording to put all the qualifiers in; like: "But not if they are opposite sex blood relations [closer than a certain amount] where the female is under the age of 55."

Do we currently allow people to marry their adopted children if they are over the age of 18? I don't know the law.

I am happy to side step the question on the grounds that, it does not have to be answered until there is someone making the request seriously.

z31maniac wrote:

poopshovel wrote: So as a logical dude who doesn't really give a E36 M3 what you do as long as it doesn't infringe upon anyone else's rights to life, liberty, and property, I am pretty solidly in the "Who the berkeley cares?" camp on gay marriage. BUT If we're discussing this logically - and I swear I DO NOT mean for this to sound snarky or silly. I am being totally serious. Should it be illegal, "not recognized," or whatever, for an adult man to marry his adult son? If so, why?

What? Incest is already against the law. All it is a cheap way to try to make gay people seem immoral. (PS, I know what article you read. )

It should be painfully obvious from everything else I've said on the subject that I have zero desire to make gay people seem immoral.

"Because it's illegal" is a silly answer. Try again.

I didn't read whatever article you're talking about, but would love to if you'd post a link. I heard the question posed on the radio, and thought it was a good one, as I'm still a little stumped.

Oh, my.... This game gets better all the time..

Ok... Albert Einstein... Do any of you know what his wife's maiden name was????

Elsa EINSTEIN!!!!

And did you know that their children would have been statistically less likely to have defects if they were half brother and and sister? Yet marrying first cousins remains legal... Well... in some states...

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/state-laws-regarding-marriages-between-first-cousi.aspx

So let me get this straight... The party approved correct opinion on gay marriage is something close to this:

Health, both psychological and physical, and cultural degradation are non issues in regards to gay marriage because the love they have for each other as a couple is sufficient to demand a state honor their right to be married...

Close enough?

Yet somehow with "incest" a behavior practiced between two consenting adults.. .... 'Love' or 'right' somehow isn't sufficient to petition a marriage between two or more people who would quite likely be far more likely to be able to "love" each other than any of the other groups of people in question..

but you see this argument is "logical fallacy"..... WHY?????

Oh I know... BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IT ON YOUR TV YET!!!

Incest isn't a threat to you... In the same way what happens in a gay bedroom doesn't effect your rights or cheapen your marriage... Then neither does a a brother and sister going to town....

Here... "science" . Offspring from the inbreeding group showed a 14.3% decrease in allergies and a 23.9% decrease in nephritis, a rare genetic disorder that causes inflammation of the kidneys

And there is plenty more which shows that often inbreeding CAN be a problem... But generally only after many multiples of generations.... And any objective study will mention that the effects of inbreeding in humans are all to often OVERSTATED!..

He found that increased risks do exist, but not nearly to the extent that we might imagine. While there's about a 2% risk of birth defects in the general population, first-cousin children have about a 4% chance. Of course, you can phrase that in any number of ways, depending on how you want to spin it. On the one hand, that means that there's double the risk of birth defects in the children of first cousins. On the other hand, 96% of such children are born completely healthy, which is still the vast majority.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/faheem-younus/why-ban-cousin-marriages_b_2567162.html

So your objections and declarations of "logical fallacy" when asking a question about an incestuous relationship is based on a cultural bias (or should I say dogma, as there are literally MILLIONS of people in the world practicing behavior most here wouldn't condone) against that type of behavior as compared to homosexual behavior... Correct?

Are you objecting to incest question in this context on moral grounds? and do you think you have that right?

Beer Baron wrote: "But not if they are opposite sex blood relations [closer than a certain amount] where the female is under the age of 55."

First cousin marriage is allowed in these states under the following circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

*

In reply to ronholm:

"there are literally MILLIONS of people in the world practicing behavior most here wouldn't condone"

Are you saying there are millions of people practicing incest? I highly doubt that. If you are saying that, where did you get that statistic. I am aware there are cultures that have practiced incest (e.g. Egyptian ancient royal families). But sibling sibling and parent child incest is more or less universally discouraged in most cultures. There may be a few exceptions, but to say MILLIONS is a bit generous. The animal kingdom also has a natural aversion to incest, for whatever reason.

http://vimeo.com/25921512

huffinton post article said: The fact that 20 percent of global marriages take place between first cousins and most societies, including Europe and Canada, consider cousin marriages to be legal should give us a pause.

I wonder where the 20% statistic came from. Also in Europe not all countries allow it and in the ones that do there are some restrictions on the marriages.

fritzsch wrote: In reply to ronholm: "there are literally MILLIONS of people in the world practicing behavior most here wouldn't condone" Are you saying there are millions of people practicing incest? I highly doubt that. If you are saying that, where did you get that statistic. I am aware there are cultures that have practiced incest (e.g. Egyptian ancient royal families). But sibling sibling and parent child incest is more or less universally discouraged in most cultures. There may be a few exceptions, but to say MILLIONS is a bit generous. The animal kingdom also has a natural aversion to incest, for whatever reason.

Yes... excuse me... I wasn't clear...

We all more or less are going to agree sibling/sibling and Parent child is WRONG on MORAL grounds... Of course...

Talking about the cousin thing... Everyone has heard and told the jokes..

YET most of the world remains very open to first cousin marriage... CHINA and the USA are the exceptions...

And the animal kingdom DOESN'T"T have an aversion to incest... Countless examples exist... Wolves....

The net is right at your fingertips..

http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347%2812%2900289-3?switch=standard

Inbreeding depression is often assumed to cause selection for inbreeding avoidance. ► Animals sometimes tolerate inbreeding, or even prefer to mate with relatives. ► Existing theory and data do not adequately predict or quantify inbreeding strategy. ► We specify that multiple theoretical and empirical advances are now required.Animal ecologists commonly assume that the reduced fitness that often afflicts inbred offspring will inevitably cause selection for inbreeding avoidance. Although early empirical studies often reported inbreeding avoidance, recent studies suggest that animals sometimes show no avoidance or even prefer to mate with relatives. However, current theory is insufficient to predict whether animals should avoid, tolerate, or prefer inbreeding and hence to understand overall inbreeding strategy. Furthermore, quantifying inbreeding strategy is challenging, requiring relatedness among unbiased sets of actual and potential mates to be accurately estimated. Here, we highlight key limitations of current theory and empirical tests, and summarise the advances required to predict, quantify, and understand animal inbreeding strategies

And other studies say that animals try to avoid sexual behavior with close relatives. At least wikipedia points to non-human primates and rats.

ronholm wrote: We all more or less are going to agree sibling/sibling and Parent child is WRONG on MORAL grounds... Of course...

This brings up the question of can we outlaw this sort of incest on moral grounds? But morality is not universal. I presume the main reason gay marriage is illegal is based on moral grounds. But currently there is a push to legalize it because one person's moral compass shouldn't infringe on someone else's rights. Public opinion on gay marriage is shifting in a way that the opinion on incest is not, but where else lies the difference?

fritzsch wrote: And other studies say that animals try to avoid sexual behavior with close relatives. At least wikipedia points to non-human primates and rats.

True... But it isn't as universal as your morals (or mine ) would hope for...

Brothers and sisters hook up all the time in the wild...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15792236

Maybe it can be said that some (all?) laws are based on a shared morality within a culture and that they change based on the continuously evolving nature of the culture and the shared morality. And incest is illegal because we as a whole feel that it is immoral and the push to legalize gay marriage is based on shifting views on the morality of gay marriage.

So your objections and declarations of "logical fallacy" when asking a question about an incestuous relationship is based on a cultural bias (or should I say dogma, as there are literally MILLIONS of people in the world practicing behavior most here wouldn't condone) against that type of behavior as compared to homosexual behavior... Correct? Are you objecting to incest question in this context on moral grounds? and do you think you have that right?

Is that aimed at me? If so, you're making some pretty bold ASSumptions. I asked the question of whether or not it should be legal for a man to marry his son. It was NOT a rhetorical question. I haven't made up my mind one way or the other...which is WHY I find it interesting. As you pointed out, the argument "for" is the same as the argument for gay marriage. Therein lies the krux. If we as a society (I didn't mention anything about a 'party') accept the idea of a man marrying another man, then why shouldn't that man be his son? Brother?

poopshovel wrote:

So your objections and declarations of "logical fallacy" when asking a question about an incestuous relationship is based on a cultural bias (or should I say dogma, as there are literally MILLIONS of people in the world practicing behavior most here wouldn't condone) against that type of behavior as compared to homosexual behavior... Correct? Are you objecting to incest question in this context on moral grounds? and do you think you have that right?

Is that aimed at me? If so, you're making some pretty bold ASSumptions. I asked the question of whether or not it should be legal for a man to marry his son. It was NOT a rhetorical question. I haven't made up my mind one way or the other...which is WHY I find it interesting. As you pointed out, the argument "for" is the same as the argument for gay marriage. Therein lies the krux. If we as a society (I didn't mention anything about a 'party') accept the idea of a man marrying another man, then why shouldn't that man be his son? Brother?

I suspect there is no reason to prevent to consenting adults from doing as they wish so long as it doesn't infringe on others rights to life, liberty, and property.

However, I feel like all this question does is muddy the waters and make people think "Uh, weird" vs just dealing with the current issue, gay marriage. I mean how many people are walking around saying "If I can marry a woman, why can't I marry my mom? Or my sister? Or My grandmother?"

ronholm wrote: ... but you see this argument is "logical fallacy"..... WHY????? Oh I know... BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IT ON YOUR TV YET!!!........

Lighten up Francis..

I called the argument a logical fallacy because because... wait for it... IT IS ONE.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

There are ways to argue the point, but saying it is a slippery slope is not a logical one. Argue the argument for what it is, not some extreme variation you can come up with.

Example: If was do not allow gay marriage, it is primary a religious based reason (my opinion). If we allow a religious based reason, that will eventually lead to laws requiring women to not being allowed to question men, or be required to wear burkas etc.

z31maniac wrote:

poopshovel wrote:

So your objections and declarations of "logical fallacy" when asking a question about an incestuous relationship is based on a cultural bias (or should I say dogma, as there are literally MILLIONS of people in the world practicing behavior most here wouldn't condone) against that type of behavior as compared to homosexual behavior... Correct? Are you objecting to incest question in this context on moral grounds? and do you think you have that right?

Is that aimed at me? If so, you're making some pretty bold ASSumptions. I asked the question of whether or not it should be legal for a man to marry his son. It was NOT a rhetorical question. I haven't made up my mind one way or the other...which is WHY I find it interesting. As you pointed out, the argument "for" is the same as the argument for gay marriage. Therein lies the krux. If we as a society (I didn't mention anything about a 'party') accept the idea of a man marrying another man, then why shouldn't that man be his son? Brother?

I suspect there is no reason to prevent to consenting adults from doing as they wish so long as it doesn't infringe on others rights to life, liberty, and property. However, I feel like all this question does is muddy the waters and make people think "Uh, weird" vs just dealing with the current issue, gay marriage. I mean how many people are walking around saying "If I can marry a woman, why can't I marry my mom? Or my sister? Or My grandmother?"

I have no idea how many people want to marry someone in their family, but once the precedent is set, it WILL happen, and I'd wager sooner than later, which is why it is totally a relevant question.

I'm not saying that necessarily changes my opinion on gay marriage. I am saying we owe it to ourselves to slow down and ask this kind of question.

I don't know how old you guys are, but 20 years ago the idea of gay marriage was laughable. Here we are.