More Expansion Of Marriage

[Revoltingest]

Gay marriage is fine with me.
I heartily approve of the USSC decision.
I also see no compelling reason to ban polygamy or incestuous marriage.
Any thoughts?


Oh, no discussion of marrying dogs or horses.
They aren't people, so it ain't happen'n.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

It hasn't been very long ago that gay marriage was unheard of, much less legal. I'd say we only need to give it a little time to see some additional marriage options develop. My bet would be that polygamy gets the next green light.

 

[LuisDantas]

I also see no compelling reason to ban polygamy or incestuous marriage.
Any thoughts?

Assuming that the polygamy is approved by all the people involved (meaning those who are actually married or intending to marry) every time, I guess it is ok.

Incestuous marriage... I don't have much of an opinion about it, truth be told. I wonder how often it is even wanted, but of course that is hardly a reason to oppose it. I also wish some sort of care was taken to deal with the drawbacks (say, DNA testing to predict likely genetic risks - assuming, of course, that such a marriage means to produce children biologically or is at least fertile). Some psychological supervision, at least for a time before the marriage could happen, would probably be a good idea as well.

If the couple is psychologically sound and takes steps to avoid the expression of nocive recessive genes (say, by choosing to adopt), then sure, I see not a single reason to refuse them that right. I could be convinced in some other situations as well.

 

[BSM1]

Gay marriage is fine with me.
I heartily approve of the USSC decision.
I also see no compelling reason to ban polygamy or incestuous marriage.
Any thoughts?


Oh, no discussion of marrying dogs or horses.
They aren't people, so it ain't happen'n.

I appreciate your caveat but wouldn't marrying animals you truly love constitute the "pursuit of happiness"?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I appreciate your caveat but wouldn't marrying animals you truly love constitute the "pursuit of happiness"?

Hmmm. A few months ago, some woman married the Eiffel Tower. I've heard of several cases of people marrying trees, buildings, animals of various sorts--not in the US, as far as I know. Different cultures and nations have different rules and definitions, and some things may be strictly publicity stunts. But so far, under US law, animals are not considered capable of informed consent, and therefore could not even in theory be approved for marriage.

Such a marriage might make @Revoltingest happy, but it's unlikely that anyone capable of informed consent would agree to such an arrangement.

 

[Revoltingest]

I appreciate your caveat but wouldn't marrying animals you truly love constitute the "pursuit of happiness"?

Marriage is a contract, so non-humans wouldn't have standing.
Thus, it's clearly constitutional to ban human-animal marriage.
We don't have the right to pursue every possible happiness.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Gay marriage is fine with me.
I heartily approve of the USSC decision.
I also see no compelling reason to ban polygamy or incestuous marriage.
Any thoughts?


Oh, no discussion of marrying dogs or horses.
They aren't people, so it ain't happen'n.

Hey revoltingest

it depends entirely on the same thing gay marriage did, govt special interests, gays would not have been excluded from anything tangible if the govt had not singled out couples who had gone through a particular religious ceremony for special treatment. Better to simply correct that original violation of separation of church and state, that's exactly why it was put there wasn't it?

 

[Baladas]

I appreciate your caveat but wouldn't marrying animals you truly love constitute the "pursuit of happiness"?

No, and this is a tired argument. Animals cannot provide consent. Period.

 

[BSM1]

Marriage is a contract, so non-humans wouldn't have standing.
Thus, it's clearly constitutional to ban human-animal marriage.
We don't have the right to pursue every possible happiness.

This is all well and good until the animal rights groups get a stronger lobby in Washington.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hey revoltingest

it depends entirely on the same thing gay marriage did, govt special interests, gays would not have been excluded from anything tangible if the govt had not singled out couples who had gone through a particular religious ceremony for special treatment. Better to simply correct that original violation of separation of church and state, that's exactly why it was put there wasn't it?

I don't follow this.

 

[columbus]

Oh, no discussion of marrying dogs or horses.
They aren't people, so it ain't happen'n.

What about corpses?
Do they count as people?
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

This is all well and good until the animal rights groups get a stronger lobby in Washington.

I'll concern myself with that situation when it happens.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe we can go back to discussion of incestuous and poly marriages?

 

[Revoltingest]

What about corpses?
Do they count as people?
Tom

They are "post-people" or (at best) the "living impaired".
So, no....not people.

 

[columbus]

Maybe we can go back to discussion of incestuous and poly marriages?

It figures a Brazilian atheist would suggest this.

Tom

 

[jeager106]

I recall a woman who married the Berlin Wall then had a wake when it
was torn down.
Which of course has nothing to do with anything.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't follow this.

The core protest was that govt gave tax breaks , + other legal favors to couples who made explicit oaths in ceremonies which excluded gays yes?. I agree that's unfair to many and not just gays- so fix that; extend the same favors to everybody. Let marriage stand by it's own merits, not money and rights!

As is we still discriminate against those who prefer to live alone, single, cohabitate without marriage as a couple or group or with a goat. So all of these people have the same complaint. That's the problem with any special interest, by definition you discriminate against all others, gays were just one group.

 

[Revoltingest]

The core protest was that govt gave tax breaks , + other legal favors to couples who made explicit oaths in ceremonies which excluded gays yes?. I agree that's unfair to many and not just gays- so fix that; extend the same favors to everybody. Let marriage stand by it's own merits, not money and rights!

As is we still discriminate against those who prefer to live alone, single, cohabitate without marriage as a couple or group or with a goat. So all of these people have the same complaint. That's the problem with any special interest, by definition you discriminate against all others, gays were just one group.

Actually, a married couple wherein both work will pay more income tax than if they were single.
Gay folk are more likely to be dual income, so this decision is a win for the IRS.
Btw, I don't think that influenced the justices.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Actually, a married couple wherein both work will pay more income tax than if they were single.
Gay folk are more likely to be dual income, so this decision is a win for the IRS.
Btw, I don't think that influenced the justices.

the legal discrepancies were core to the discriminatory argument, without which it's just a label, no legal traction.

 

[Parsimony]

I'm almost surprised that polygamy isn't more accepted than it is. Plenty of cultures throughout history have practiced it. It even exists in the Bible. As long as there is consent among all involved parties, I don't see why there should be legal problems with it. Incest is trickier because of the potential risk to any offspring of such a union. Of course, that itself varies depending on the circumstances (i.e. how closely-related the two are and whether they represent a high-risk group such as a coming from a population with little genetic diversity). Any heterosexual incestuous relationship should be genetically screened for risk factors if there is a chance that there will be children (as said earlier by LuisDantas).