I think I'm liking this option, if I'm understanding you here, @Guy Threepwood ...are you suggesting stop having legal marriages altogether, only private marriages, which have no legal standing?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
More Expansion Of Marriage
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
And of course, for same-sex incestuous relationships, it would be irrelevant.
As for polygamy, it rarely happens in situations where all the parties have equal standing and something resembling free choice.
Last edited:
Correct.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Yes, reverse the original violation of church and state- granting special privileges for those undergoing particular religious ceremonies, and we remove the legal discrimination do we not?, not just against gays but singles and everybody else.
Baladas
An Págánach
Perhaps, but should we then prohibit reproduction between people with genetic conditions that create similar risk?
I'm not convinced that this would be justified, and it seems like it would be a bit heavy-handed of the government to attempt to
control people's social lives.
While cases of incestuous relationships are far from well-documented, I think it's safe to say that they would be fairly rare. Legal or not.
Most of us have an aversion to mating with our close relatives. In the rare cases that this aversion does not develop and (in the perhaps even rarer case) a consensual romance happens to blossom, I see little cause for interference.
As for polygamy, I see no reason to prohibit it.
Baladas
An Págánach
There is definitely merit in this idea.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
I have no problem with polygamy, as I have said before, as long as good laws go into play protecting children from pedophiles, and spelling out each person's rights, and the rights of any children.
Incest - totally different - inbred European royalty - enough said! LOL!
*
Legal recognition of "Free Unions" is about as far as it is possible to go, as it goes beyond 'open marriage'. "A free union is a union between two persons that lacks any publicly recognised bond (either civil or religious marriage)."
Aye, incest is the trickiest because of the elevated risks it imposes upon children.I have no problem with polygamy, as I have said before, as long as good laws go into play protecting children from pedophiles, and spelling out each person's rights, and the rights of any children.
Incest - totally different - inbred European royalty - enough said! LOL!
*
It would benefit from regulation on reproduction, but criminy....would that be a regulatory nightmare!
Aye, there's a lot of that going around.
I heartily approve.
If there is a significant risk that the children of such a union would suffer from a debilitating congenital defect, I would say so, yes. Defining "significant risk" then becomes the difficult part. If a way can be found to sufficiently reduce the risk, then it would be okay.
It would be complicated that non-related spouses also pose significant genetic risks to their offspring. The justification to regulate all incestuous couplings would do the same for others. What a messy public policy fight it would be, eh?
Perhaps. But surely it is not quite that difficult to at least encourage DNA tests for people who want to marry? Something to ponder.
Used to be in the USofA (may still be somewhere, I don't know) you were required to have a blood test for STDs before your marriage license could be issued. The problem of requiring, or even recommending, tests for anything is that such information can be used to discriminate, prosecute, or deny rights--and in fact, the US, genetic and medical history are now protected information and decisions based on that by government or private organizations can be grounds for charges of discimination.
Shad
Veteran Member
DNA testing should only be done as medical advice for a couple attempting to have a child. Testing for marriage itself is out of the question. If its only for certain types of marriages then it is discrimination. If the right is based on testing for all forms of marriage then I would be restricted from marrying anyone with a family history of cancer and heart issues which are genetic since it is a risk to my offspring.
People against gay marriage even said that this would lead to a slippery slope and arrangements like polygamy and incestual relationships would be next to be approved. I feel like I'm living in the Twilight Zone.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
........ well ..... ok..... but how about civil partnerships?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
.... oh please!
Really?
After the Borgias, I'd a thought that Catholics would keep their heads down about anything to do with partnerships, marriage, or most anything else.
It will be decried as racist.
So of course, I'm in favor of it.
The Borgias have nothing to do with being Catholic. And, yes - I'm serious. That we're talking about legalizing incestuous marriage is disgusting..... oh please!
Really?
After the Borgias, I'd a thought that Catholics would keep their heads down about anything to do with partnerships, marriage, or most anything else.