For "Gay Marriage" But Against Father Marrying Son?

[mighty_duck]

Good question WoO.

With parents and children, the answer is easier - there is too much potential for abuse. Parents are given legal power over their children, and some would use their power and influence during the child's tender years to create a sex slave for life. This is regardless of gender of either party.

A more interesting question might be between two brothers or two sisters. It is more complicated in this case. The potential for abuse still exists. but the bigger problem is the erosion of the family model. If members of your immediate family are possible mates, it creates sexual tensions in what should be one of a person's most important foundations for support.

 

[shagster01]

How hot is she?

Who? The mom or the cousin?

 

[WizardofOz]

Well...are there any men who want to marry their sons or women who want to marry their daughter?

Hypothetical - there is one such "couple", they sue and you're the judge who decides whether or not to grant them a marriage license.

What would your ruling be?

What argument in favor of same-sex marriage doesn't translate here?

 

[xAvarice]

Who? The mom or the cousin?

I'm not fussy, they're not my relations. =P

I was kidding anyway, it depends whether you know and if you're comfortable with it I'd probably have to take a scientific stance on it and set the limit where it's least harmful.

 

[xAvarice]

Hypothetical - there is one such "couple", they sue and you're the judge who decides whether or not to grant them a marriage license.

What would your ruling be?

What argument in favor of same-sex marriage doesn't translate here?

That's like saying heretosexual marriage translates onto father-daughter marriage...

 

[WizardofOz]

Hello WoO

WoOhoO...... ? TaboO topic right?

I think my short answer to this would be, for the same reason that opposite sex parents/children or for that matter siblings aren't allowed to marry. To me there is no difference when it comes to marriage between the opposite sexes or same. It's two people, for whatever reason, getting married.

This is observing law built on societal taboos that have developed or evolved over time though. That's there for a good reason and I believe that involves the consanguinity issue. Incest is legal in some countries though and I have read studies of late that mention relationships with cousins are not as risky as once believed. I actually have nothing against two cousins of either sex wanting to marry. I think however, there is a coercion or a "power over" type problem that occurs in parental relationships of that type and I don't think that should be allowed.

How about brothers?

 

[WizardofOz]

That's like saying heretosexual marriage translates onto father-daughter marriage...

I'll get to your first post in a bit but the objection here is first and foremost in preventing defective offspring.

 

[shagster01]

I'm not fussy, they're not my relations. =P

I was kidding anyway, it depends whether you know and if you're comfortable with it I'd probably have to take a scientific stance on it and set the limit where it's least harmful.

I'm happily married to a woman of a completely different race, so I know I'm fine.

But my rule of thumb is. . . If you can trace your family trees to where they meet, it's too close for me. That's just my rule though. I could care less about what anybody else wants to do with their cousins.

 

[WizardofOz]

Good question WoO.

With parents and children, the answer is easier - there is too much potential for abuse. Parents are given legal power over their children, and some would use their power and influence during the child's tender years to create a sex slave for life. This is regardless of gender of either party.

What if they never met prior to the offspring's adulthood?
Can I make the exception determine the rule?

A more interesting question might be between two brothers or two sisters. It is more complicated in this case. The potential for abuse still exists. but the bigger problem is the erosion of the family model.

What family model?

If members of your immediate family are possible mates, it creates sexual tensions in what should be one of a person's most important foundations for support.

If they're fighting to be legally wed, the tension must already exist

 

[mighty_duck]

Hypothetical - there is one such "couple", they sue and you're the judge who decides whether or not to grant them a marriage license.

What would your ruling be?

I would be wary of creating a precedence...
But assuming that wasn't an issue, It would depend on the particulars of the case.

For example, I have a friend who married their 1st cousin. Their aunt had moved half way across the world before they were born, and they had no contact until meeting at a family event when they were both adults. While I'm generally against this kind of thing, in this case it wasn't an issue. They now have 3 kids, and no genetic defects yet

 

[Quincy]

How about brothers?

Well, I still think it comes down to the consanquinity issue. I suppose the point you are working to good sir is that if consanguinity leading to the possibility of genetically abnormal offspring is the only reason to prohibit sibling marriage of opposite sex people, how can that argument be used on same sex siblings? It's a good point. I still believe regardless of the potential of offspring, siblings are just too closely related to be allowed to be mates legally.

Now, here is a point in which the topic gets interesting. Consider half-siblings. The consanguinity between them is somewhere along the lines of what it is between double cousins. Double cousins aren't always the result of incest. A pair of siblings can marry an unrelated pair of siblings and all their children will be double cousins. So, what of half-siblings? Or double cousins? Should they be allowed to be legally married? Pondering minds wonder :think: .

 

[Dena]

For example, I have a friend who married their 1st cousin. Their aunt had moved half way across the world before they were born, and they had no contact until meeting at a family event when they were both adults. While I'm generally against this kind of thing, in this case it wasn't an issue. They now have 3 kids, and no genetic defects yet

I find this absolutely repulsive....but I'm not going to say it should be legally forbidden.

 

[xAvarice]

I would be wary of creating a precedence...
But assuming that wasn't an issue, It would depend on the particulars of the case.

For example, I have a friend who married their 1st cousin. Their aunt had moved half way across the world before they were born, and they had no contact until meeting at a family event when they were both adults. While I'm generally against this kind of thing, in this case it wasn't an issue. They now have 3 kids, and no genetic defects yet

Give it time.

I find this absolutely repulsive....but I'm not going to say it should be legally forbidden.

Mhh.

 

[mighty_duck]

What if they never met prior to the offspring's adulthood?
Can I make the exception determine the rule?

That's similar to a point I just made regarding distant cousins.
And no, exceptions shouldn't determine the rule

What family model?

Parents, kids, dog , fights over toys, hair pulling, fights over bathroom usage, etc.

If they're fighting to be legally wed, the tension must already exist

In this particular case, yes. But to legalize it would make it socially acceptable. And that would effect all families.

The case isn't watertight (ie a very similar argument is used against homosexual marriage), but passes the common sense test. Introducing sexual tension inside nuclear families will reasonably cause them to erode. Allowing gays to marry will have no (or negligible) effect on straight marriages or families.

 

[WizardofOz]

"or they do not want to be accused of discrimination or
exclusion when it comes to other types of marriages"

I don't accept that as true, it's quite the opposite of fearing discrimination,
it's just that they want to play no part in deciding what adults want to do with each other
and who they love. (Or at least less but here)

Does extending this particular line of reasoning translate to the OP's premise?

"So, how about a father marrying his son? If you support same-sex marriage,
why shouldn't a father be able to legally marry his son? Or, if you support same-sex marriage,
why shouldn't a mother be able to marry her daughter?"

As we've assumed they're all over 18, the problem seems to be one of authority in which
you cannot decide whether it is truly what they want, I don't think many would doubt that
some people would be capable of having true feelings of attraction to their parents,
it's supposed to take up quite a lot of psychology too, a part of adolescence and growing up
(at least in the subconscious), whether you agree with the strangeness of that or not, it probably happens.

I'll offer the same hypothetical as I offered m_d. Say they've never met; dad never know his son and they meet only once the son was an adult.

I would like you to answer your own questions and I'll see if I can elaborate further.

I'm simply looking for rationalizations in support of same-sex marriage, and the redefining of marriage, that do not translate to the hypothetical offered.

 

[Quincy]

I'm from Tennessee, living in Kentucky, folks. This topic is everyday here .

 

[mighty_duck]

I find this absolutely repulsive....but I'm not going to say it should be legally forbidden.

BTW, they are Jewish, of Iranian descent. I bet they didn't tell you we allowed this kind of thing when you were converting...

Like I said, I find the idea icky as well.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I have to admit, you make me joyfully uncomfortable with your style of debate,
I struggle to interact with you because I can't be quite sure what you believe and
what you're playing the advocate for...

Yes xA, it's difficult to debate someone who won't openly put his moral beliefs out on the table for all to see.

 

[WizardofOz]

Yes xA, it's difficult to debate someone who won't openly put his moral beliefs out on the table for all to see.

Anyone can ask me anything, anytime and I won't cower from answering.

Another difference between the two of us.

 

[xAvarice]

Yes xA, it's difficult to debate someone who won't openly put his moral beliefs out on the table for all to see.

Darling, do you come here often?

[1] Does extending this particular line of reasoning translate to the OP's premise?

[2] I'll offer the same hypothetical as I offered m_d. Say they've never met; dad never know his son and they meet only once the son was an adult.

[3] I'm simply looking for rationalizations in support of same-sex marriage, and the redefining of marriage, that do not translate to the hypothetical offered.

1] - I'm not sure what you're asking, I only meant it as my solution to that piece specifically.

2] - Yes, why would I commit someone of a crime they are unaware they're committing? (Unless they're a danger to society)

3] - If they're unaware of their... what's that big word Quincy used now?... (consanguinity), I was not sanguine that he had outdone me in terms of over-complication, I assure you... then they're doing nothing wrong. I see why you ask because it removed the authority position, and with that you removed my obstruction to the liberty of it.

BTW, they are Jewish, of Iranian descent. I bet they didn't tell you we allowed this kind of thing when you were converting...

Like I said, I find the idea icky as well.

I'm quite sure Iranians would accept any offer of Jewish assimilation, beats being threatened by the US...




Edit: I wasn't trying to build a barrier to stop ACW's posts touching mine, I just thought I'd save space.