Incest Marriage?

[buttercup]

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is Reversed.
It is so ordered.”[/QUOTE]


This is a most beautiful and eloquent statement of the right to equality. It's right up there with "We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

How could any thinking person, who has any vestige of sensitivity and respect for others, whether the same as ourselves or different, disagree with these sentiments?

But we can't fail to notice that the same sentiments apply to other categories besides homosexuals.

For instance, why not brother and sister?

I'm sure there are many brother/sister couples who wish their unions could be treated with respect and dignity, and who feel condemned to live in loneliness.

There are a lot more similarities than differences, e.g: "It's not that far in the past that homosexuality was a major crime -- just like incest is today." "How would it harm the rest of us, to recognize and legalize brother-sister unions?"

Or two brothers, if it comes to that. Or . . .?

I'm not arguing against gay marriage, and I'm not arguing for bro/sis marriage. I'm just pointing out that most-eloquent arguments for legalization of gay marriage would also require legalization of incest marriage.

 

[oil&gas]

....two people become something greater than once they were .....

Could it be said that three people (or more)
become something greater than once they were? How
sweet it would be if a woman who wore the pants in the
family could make her boy toy husband #2.

 

[Aardvark154]

"The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Justice Scalia's Dissent

 

[geeky]

Its an interesting point. However, i think the reasoning falls apart with the "How would it harm the rest of us" part of the argument. A brother and sister, unlike two gay men or two gay women, can biologically produce an offspring. That offspring is at serious risk for a wide range of mental and physical disabilities caused by in-breeding. At that point, its hard to argue that a third party has not been harmed by the social acceptance of incest.

Also: Eww.

 

[nobody123]

Let's not forget all the biblical precedent for incest that was sanctioned by the Big Boss hisself. While this kind of bullshit false equivocation is often trotted out as a straw counter argument to gay marriage, I'm actually kind of surprised that some of the more, errrr, stridently Christian mouthpieces haven't made a serious argument for incest marriages, all things considered.

 

[rhuarc29]

Its an interesting point. However, i think the reasoning falls apart with the "How would it harm the rest of us" part of the argument. A brother and sister, unlike two gay men or two gay women, can biologically produce an offspring. That offspring is at serious risk for a wide range of mental and physical disabilities caused by in-breeding. At that point, its hard to argue that a third party has not been harmed by the social acceptance of incest.

This. While gay marriage may help our society as those involved are more likely to adopt children in need of parents, relations between brother and sister has a high probability of introducing children with a wide range of disabilities, in need of care. I don't think our society will ever accept incest marriage as an legitimate union because of this.

 

[Frosty]

Why stop there then? Why don't we legalize marriage between humans and animals? Geez, there are limits we should impose.

 

[nobody123]

Why stop there then? Why don't we legalize marriage between humans and animals? Geez, there are limits we should impose.

There are limits. If it results in more harm than good (i.e., incest, or plural marriages) then it ain't on. But by all means, if you have a problem with gay marriage, please tell us what harm it results in.

 

[oldjones]

Its an interesting point. However, i think the reasoning falls apart with the "How would it harm the rest of us" part of the argument. A brother and sister, unlike two gay men or two gay women, can biologically produce an offspring. That offspring is at serious risk for a wide range of mental and physical disabilities caused by in-breeding. At that point, its hard to argue that a third party has not been harmed by the social acceptance of incest.

Also: Eww.

Are you saying there's some law or official policy that requires only healthy, perfect offspring and restricts marriage only to those deemed capable of spawning such?

The inbreeding argument held water when we our knowledge of genetics was on the level of amateur dog-breeders. But when we can track the chromosome that causes even a minor irritation like chronic rhinitis, and yet huge numbers of possible carriers of recessive genes for dangerous and deadly conditions can and do procreate without even a test, never mind a marriage license it's pathetic.

The Supremes decision has, and had nothing to do with procreation. Nor does marriage in spite of the fairy-tales and old wives tales. Any sperm and any egg will do. And any adult may be a brilliant parent or a disaster. No matter which their spouse or other bio-parent turns out to be.

What the marriage decision is about is the same thing marraiages have always been about: The recognition, legal, social, community and other, that society accords the relationship two (or more) people have entered into. It's about all the pensions, inheritance, caregiver decision-making, tax-splitting, property rights that we have always lazily and offhandedly assigned to couples because 'we all know married people work that way, and it works for us'.

Well it didn't work for gay people; and the law finally caught up with how indefensible it was top deny their relationships were as real as anyone else's. So why shouldn't a brother and sister who are as sharing and supportive and responsible for eath other as any married couple — gay or straight — be arbitrarily forbidden the same equal right of marriage?

Where does it say that marriage is about fucking and reproducing?

 

[jcpro]

Let's not forget all the biblical precedent for incest that was sanctioned by the Big Boss hisself. While this kind of bullshit false equivocation is often trotted out as a straw counter argument to gay marriage, I'm actually kind of surprised that some of the more, errrr, stridently Christian mouthpieces haven't made a serious argument for incest marriages, all things considered.

There's no precedent for incest in the Bible. It's forbidden. If you substitute incest with polygamy, you have a point.

 

[buttercup]

Are you saying there's some law or official policy that requires only healthy, perfect offspring and restricts marriage only to those deemed capable of spawning such?

The inbreeding argument held water when we our knowledge of genetics was on the level of amateur dog-breeders. But when we can track the chromosome that causes even a minor irritation like chronic rhinitis, and yet huge numbers of possible carriers of recessive genes for dangerous and deadly conditions can and do procreate without even a test, never mind a marriage license it's pathetic.

The Supremes decision has, and had nothing to do with procreation. Nor does marriage in spite of the fairy-tales and old wives tales. Any sperm and any egg will do. And any adult may be a brilliant parent or a disaster. No matter which their spouse or other bio-parent turns out to be.

What the marriage decision is about is the same thing marraiages have always been about: The recognition, legal, social, community and other, that society accords the relationship two (or more) people have entered into. It's about all the pensions, inheritance, caregiver decision-making, tax-splitting, property rights that we have always lazily and offhandedly assigned to couples because 'we all know married people work that way, and it works for us'.

Well it didn't work for gay people; and the law finally caught up with how indefensible it was top deny their relationships were as real as anyone else's. So why shouldn't a brother and sister who are as sharing and supportive and responsible for eath other as any married couple — gay or straight — be arbitrarily forbidden the same equal right of marriage?

Where does it say that marriage is about fucking and reproducing?

Amen, brother jones.

 

[mandrill]

"The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Justice Scalia's Dissent

With the greatest of respect to Justice Scalia, he should realize that "bad facts make bad law" - or in this case, fuzzy-cuddly feelgood law. Every other western legal system now accepts gay marriage and this concept has to be accommodated, even if there is no framework of constitutional analysis which cleanly encompasses it. Hence, vague, grandiose statements and a lot of fuzzy-cuddly, "we all know this is right, don't we?" rhetoric.

Fact is, same-sex has arrived; everybody else does it; and it's dumb for the USA not to do it too. So write a judgment that protects it and move on to the next damn case. And if Scalia wants to grandstand about how juridically superior his own legal reasoning is, we'll keep our eye-rolling to ourselves.

 

[nobody123]

There's no precedent for incest in the Bible. It's forbidden. If you substitute incest with polygamy, you have a point.

Setting aside the whole problematic Adam+Eve = we's all the children of incest thang for a moment (who was Cain's wife, his mom or his sister? Enquiring biblical scholars want to know), here are a few incestuous relationships with Ye Old God's Seal of Approval...

• Lot knocking up his own daughters
  • FUN FACT: this scumbag, who also offered up the same daughters to be gang raped by an angry mob, is the only person "worthy" of saving from the entirety of Sodom and Gomorrah. Love that old Testament!
  • bonus FUN FACT: nowhere in the bible does it explicitly forbid sex between a man and his daughter. No, really! Blech!
• Abraham marrying his half-sister Sarah
• Countless cousins fucking cousins. Too many to mention, in fact.

So, um, yeah. Plenty o' precedent.

 

[MissCroft]

A brother and sister, unlike two gay men or two gay women, can biologically produce an offspring. That offspring is at serious risk for a wide range of mental and physical disabilities caused by in-breeding.

This.

However, two women can produce a child. Two eggs can create a baby. Sperm is not needed, although the offspring can only be female.


http://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/report-planet-of-the-women-1700432

 

[jcpro]

Setting aside the whole problematic Adam+Eve = we's all the children of incest thang for a moment (who was Cain's wife his mom or his sister? Enquiring biblical scholars want to know), here are a few incestuous relationships with Ye Old God's Seal of Approval...

• Lot knocking up his own daughters
  • FUN FACT: this scumbag, who also offered up the same daughters to be gang raped by an angry mob, is the only person "worthy" of saving from the entirety of Sodom and Gomorrah. Love that old Testament!
  • bonus FUN FACT: nowhere in the bible does it explicitly forbid sex between a man and his daughter. No, really! Blech!
• Abraham marrying his half-sister Sarah
• Countless cousins fucking cousins. Too many to mention, in fact.

So, um, yeah. Plenty o' precedent.

Total bull shit. The Christian and Jewish laws frame work is build on the Mosaic Law. 500 years AFTER the times of Lot(raped while drunk by his daughters, btw) and Abraham-whose wife may had been his half sister. That's not even the point. Both, Christianity and especially Judaism, strongly reject incest. As for the FUN FACT. While it is true there's no prohibition for father doing his daughter, there's one about father doing his granddaughter. If sex with granddaughter is prohibited, is it reasonable to assume that father/daughter relations are permitted? If there's going to be a push for an incestuous relations, it will come from the secular side and in the teeth of the religious opposition.

 

[Aardvark154]

Fact is, same-sex has arrived; everybody else does it; and it's dumb for the USA not to do it too. So write a judgment that protects it and move on to the next damn case. And if Scalia wants to grandstand about how juridically superior his own legal reasoning is, we'll keep our eye-rolling to ourselves.

Yes, I will agree it has arrived certainly for our lifetimes and presumably for many lifetimes beyond that.

However, it is an interesting fact about the current United States Supreme Court that all but two Justices are from either the City of New York or the State of California, they are all either Roman Catholic or Jewish (there is not a single Protestant, despite Protestants of one variety or another being a majority of U.S. Christians), and they are all graduates of either the Harvard or the Yale Law Schools.

To the best of my knowledge the Supreme Court of Canada is not nearly as narrow.

 

[MissCroft]

I was thinking wtf is that sweet girl smoking tonight?...

Who? Me?

 

[nobody123]

Total bull shit. The Christian and Jewish laws frame work is build on the Mosaic Law. 500 years AFTER the times of Lot(raped while drunk by his daughters, btw) and Abraham-whose wife may had been his half sister. That's not even the point. Both, Christianity and especially Judaism, strongly reject incest. As for the FUN FACT. While it is true there's no prohibition for father doing his daughter, there's one about father doing his granddaughter. If sex with granddaughter is prohibited, is it reasonable to assume that father/daughter relations are permitted?

We're talking about a code that doesn't want me to cut my forelocks and won't let me eat delicious shellfish, but tells me it's OK to purchase slaves from among temporary foreign workers and their children (Leviticus, somethingoranother, comma, summin summin). Reasonable does NOT enter into the picture.

 

[jcpro]

We're talking about a code that doesn't want me to cut my forelocks and won't let me eat delicious shellfish, but tells me it's OK to purchase slaves from among temporary foreign workers and their children (Leviticus, somethingoranother, comma, summin summin). Reasonable does NOT enter into the picture.

Really, it is a OK to own slaves in Israel? It must be, since it's in the Bible. There's reasonable accommodation and, contrary to popular yet uninformed view, progression of application of theological thought within religious communities. Best and easiest example is the concept of an eye for an eye.

 

[nobody123]

Really, it is a OK to own slaves in Israel? It must be, since it's in the Bible. There's reasonable accommodation and, contrary to popular yet uninformed view, progression of application of theological thought within religious communities. Best and easiest example is the concept of an eye for an eye.

You weren't asking for reasonable accommodation, you were asking for biblical precedent. Which I provided. But now you have suddenly decided that nope, we're no longer interested in biblical precedent but contemporary laws and interpretations. So suddenly we're no longer playing cricket, you've just brought out a tennis racket and have won the game. Well congratulations.