Exactly. The bottom line here is that marriage is more than about who gets insurance benefits, which is an entirely separate issue. Under a single-payer system (which I hope and pray we eventually get), that would all be moot anyway.

I'll be dead.

I have no kids or a wife. If my family wants to act a fool and fight over whatever money I get, so be it.

Always a slippery slope with you Krem. I know what you're suggesting. But the government does decide some things, and sets precedence for others. One option, yes, is for it not to get involved what-so-ever. But you and I both know we sit on different ends of the spectrum here.

For me, I'm simply saying, that if it does get involved (and it has chosen to) than it needs to treat everyone on individual basis (no priviledges to couples) or it has to expand what counts as a serious partner. This is different than what Jeff/Jujubee were suggesting, which is that everyone needs to fit the mold of the previously existing understanding of what a life-partner is (get married, even if they are brother/sister, common law, or good friends that live together).

And, I don't want to open this up too much, but I disagree that brothers and sisters should get married. I already stated my reasons in the other thread, but I don't think drawing parallels between today and ancient kingship really holds any water. Concepts of the body, rights, sexuality, violence, the self....pretty much everything, was so different then, that saying kings and aristocrats married their children is a precendence for doing it now is bordering on silly. If someone believes it should be an option today, use modern arguements. Otherwise, I could say mass-slavery existed in history, why not have it now, or selling women, or numerous amounts of other things we would now think twice about...hopefully.

I'm all for partner benefits (same-sex or not) I just don't understand the whole rest of where you are coming from. I mean you've explained it but I just don't understand that as being ... any reason. I mean if two people want to live together and not go with the whole "socialized" rites of passage in marriage and all that then yes I'm with you, but the way you sort of open it up just seems to broad to me. I dunno.



I think it is gross for brothers and sisters to marry, but I cannot mount a solid philosophical defense to it, and I'd challenge you to do that.

Why is it that people can't talk about gay marriage without someone bringing stupid unrelated things into it, like incest?

Or did that kind of dumb argument happen every time marriage changed over history?

"If you allow people to get married based on who they love instead of who their family chooses for them, then logically you have to allow incest next!"

"Changing marriage to allow women to own property and not be property?!! By God, if we allow marriage to be redefined that way, we'll have to logically also allow bestiality!"

"What? Blacks and whites getting married? If you allow that crazy redefinition of marriage, then we'll have to let people marry their cheese graters, too!"

Ridiculous arguments that should be ignored.

I have no problem with incestuous relationships, actually.

Unlike polygamy or beastiality, which are slippery slope arguments, I think incest is relevant in that it is two consenting adults barred from marrying each other based almost entirely on taboo. I think the logical arguments defending interracial marriage and gay marriage would have to apply to incest as well. The differences between the types of relationships do not justify exceptions in the logic. Is there a logical argument that precludes marriage between cousins that does not preclude gay marriage?

Again though, what can be said about polygamy between consenting adults? It is also a slippery slope argument based on taboo.

If one defines marriage as between two consenting adults, then that precludes polygamy. I personally don't have a problem with polygamy, but it's a slippery slope argument because you have to change how we're defining marriage. Incest isn't because the same definitions and logical arguments apply to it that apply to gay marriage.

More good news for the country. A clear majority now government regulation of gay marriage.

But these poll findings "suggest caution" to conservative activists who think this will mobilize voters, he says. "People were warned, with lots of overheated rhetoric, about the consequences of gay marriage in Massachusetts. They didn't see it affect their own lives. Now, most people have let loose a collective yawn about the issue."
[...]
The strongest support for government regulation of same-sex marriage came from people who say they:

• Attend religious services weekly (56%).

• Are Republicans (56%).

• Are politically conservative (54%).

The support for government regulation comes from the usual places - supposedly anti-regulation Republican convservatives - albeit in far less numbers than in the past.

This is just one more sign of the shift of America away from core conservative Republican ideas.

to you, gay marriage is not stupid, but incest is
to others both are
to some, both are okay.

you're doing nothing more than calling something stupid due to your own personal bias on what is acceptable to you and what is not.

It is very simple. the number one argument against gay marriage is that it violates tradition and would require a dramatic change to the instituion. So the general response it is usually brought up that marriage is not a universal constant and has had many different practices and definitions including that of incest, Polygamy or concubines, underage, matchmaking, and so forth. People eitehr dont want to hear it or they drag the conversation out to this point.

Now to answer the question of Incestual relations. There is a significant risk of fatal harm from incestual relations because of duplication of so called fatal genes. Marriage and procreation do not go hand in hand however the problems that come from incestual procreation can be very bad and far more common.
Do I think incestual relations should be legal? I do believe that you are opening a whole nother can of worms there with genetics and certainly a real small minority and is not related to Homosexual marriage just like Interracial marriage is not related to incestual.

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gRdfX7ut8gw&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gRdfX7ut8gw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

It is very simple. the number one argument against gay marriage is that it violates tradition and would require a dramatic change to the instituion. So the general response it is usually brought up that marriage is not a universal constant and has had many different practices and definitions including that of incest, Polygamy or concubines, underage, matchmaking, and so forth. People eitehr dont want to hear it or they drag the conversation out to this point.

Now to answer the question of Incestual relations. There is a significant risk of fatal harm from incestual relations because of duplication of so called fatal genes. Marriage and procreation do not go hand in hand however the problems that come from incestual procreation can be very bad and far more common.
Do I think incestual relations should be legal? I do believe that you are opening a whole nother can of worms there with genetics and certainly a real small minority and is not related to Homosexual marriage just like Interracial marriage is not related to incestual.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw

I think Korrgan brought it up in the thread a couple months ago, it's something like 4.5% chance of mutation for incesteous couples and 2% for regular ones. It's an increase, but it's not as ridiculous and significant as it seems. For the record I do think it should be legal... but really, we shouldn't go there, that's been done.

No, I said bringing in incest as a separate issue was stupid.

We can debate one at a time. Just because you legalize gay marriage doesn't automatically mean you have to legalize everything else.

Talking about incest and other issues is a distraction and irrelevant. That was my point.

Some Historians have said the fall of Rome was also caused by to much inbreeding and incest.

Marriage certificates for gay couples were issued officially starting today. It looks like the Republican ballot initiative to ban it in the California Constitution is going to go ahead. Unlike previous efforts, this would have the effect of rendering already issued licenses invalid, annulling thousands of legitimate and legal marriages in the name of protecting marriage.

According to Republicans, couples like this are going to destroy society and must be stopped by any means, including altering the Constitution.

GET 'EM! We don't have much time!

Well, Republicans are only being true to their motto of getting government off our backs.

Well, except for allowing other people to get married.

Or have abortions.

Or making decisions involving medical marijuana.

Or concerning the "right to die".

Or choosing their own religion instead of having prayers using public money.

Or being free from having religious training in public schools.

Hmmm. Never mind. Apparently Republicans have no principles.

So these will likely be annulled by December, eh?

Amazingly enough, the amendment is not expected to pass. A typical initiative needs a solid majority support at this point in time since support tends to wain as the election approaches and people get more hesitant about changing the law.

Currently, Californians already oppose the amendment by 51%, that's an increase from 40% just about a month ago. As they see more and more gay couples married on the news in the coming weeks and months, and as they are asked by Republicans to flush those marriages down the toilet, opposition to the amendment is likely to increase.

I really, really, really hope that's the case. I guess with the amount of times the movement has been defeated in the past I'm a bit nihilistic about the whole thing.

I can't blame you for that, but times do change and the old bigots do eventually die or become marginalized. How long was interracial marriage opposed and outlawed? Legalization came first (imposed, btw, by the courts) and acceptance followed. I think we're going to look back on this issue 20 years from now and wonder what all the fuss was about.

Well, obviously as I have personal stake in the matter (though I live in GA where we passed an amendment something like 80-20% to prevent it).

I grew up in GA and both my parents and my wife's parents all still live there. So I feel for you. The best you could hope for is to either move or wait for federal law to change. If I were you, I'd move.