Gay Marriage would Upend the Traditional Marriage

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

The point of prohibiting marriage between an 8-year-old girl and a 30-year-old man is not to deny them the right to procreate. The point of prohibiting that marriage is because the girl is unable to give informed consent.

You're wrong. That's not the point of prohibiting incest. That's the point of prohibiting statutory rape. The point of prohibiting incest between consenting grown-ups is to prevent them from procreating, and nothing else.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Of course there is. But you can't condition one's civil rights on one's ability to procreate.

Of course you can, if the civil right in question is the right to procreate.

You can condition one's right to procreate on one's ability to procreate? That makes no sense whatsoever. But regardless, you're not arguing that the state can regulate one's right to procreate, you're arguing that the state can regulate one's right to marry based on one's ability to produce healthy offspring. You need to provide a compelling state interest that links the two. That's what opponents of gay marriage have been trying to do, which is why I'm surprised you would be taking their side in this debate.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I didn't say that was the point of prohibiting incest. I am saying that the question of informed consent is muddled in many incestuous situations, and informed consent is very much part of the problem with an 8-year-old and 30-year-old marrying. (If it's important to add that the 8-year-old girl in this example says she wants to marry the 30-year-old man, I'll add that now.)

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

sozobe wrote:
The point of prohibiting marriage between an 8-year-old girl and a 30-year-old man is not to deny them the right to procreate. The point of prohibiting that marriage is because the girl is unable to give informed consent.

You're wrong.

No, she's actually right.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

You can condition one's right to procreate on one's ability to procreate? That makes no sense whatsoever.

If the rationale for denying the right depends on that ability, how does it not make sense?

joefromchicago wrote:

But regardless, you're not arguing that the state can regulate one's right to procreate, you're arguing that the state can regulate one's right to marry based on one's ability to produce healthy offspring.

That's not what I'm saying: The basis for the regulation isn't the ability to produce healthy offspring. Incestuous couples have this ability; their offspring is usually healthy. The basis for the regulation, rather, is their increased risk of producing sick offspring that the public then has to support. That risk is zero for same-sex couples, low for regular heterosexual couples, and higher for heterosexual incestual couples.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

I didn't say that was the point of prohibiting incest. I am saying that the question of informed consent is muddled in many incestuous situations, and informed consent is very much part of the problem with an 8-year-old and 30-year-old marrying. (If it's important to add that the 8-year-old girl in this example says she wants to marry the 30-year-old man, I'll add that now.)

You're not listening to what I'm saying. Marriages between 8-year-old girls and 30-year-old men are already prohibited by laws governing the age of consent. Sex between 8-year-old girls and 30-year-old men is already prohibited by statutory-rape laws. Your example, then, is a red herring: it would still be illegal after incest got legalized.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

And that's not what I'm getting at at all.

What I'm addressing is your idea that preventing procreation is the only reason to prohibit marriages. This is another reason to prevent a marriage -- a lack of informed consent.

And the lack of informed consent question has some bearing on incestuous marriages, too. (Moreso with parent/child than siblings.)

1 Reply

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

At this point, I think a major societal element is that consent is muddied when one person has significant power over another. (Such as a father and a daughter, even if the daughter has reached the age of consent.)

This is precisely why i was disgusted by the Woody Allen affair.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

What I'm addressing is your idea that preventing procreation is the only reason to prohibit marriages.

That wasn't my idea. My idea was that preventing procreation is the reason to prohibit incestuous marriages---not marriages in general.

sozobe wrote:

This is another reason to prevent a marriage -- a lack of informed consent.

Fair enough. Do you agree this reason is independently taken care of by other prohibitions?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

sozobe wrote:
At this point, I think a major societal element is that consent is muddied when one person has significant power over another. (Such as a father and a daughter, even if the daughter has reached the age of consent.)

This is precisely why i was disgusted by the Woody Allen affair.

As it happens, this affair that was perfectly legal, and so is their marriage. If Sozobe is correct in hypothesizing that power imbalances are the reason for prohibiting incest, why don't those prohibitions protect adopted chidren? The balance of power is the same as with natural-born children.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

So what if it was legal? I said nothing about legality, i was simply stating, reasonably, that i was disgusted (and still am) by Woody Allen.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

So what if it was legal? I said nothing about legality, i was simply stating, reasonably, that i was disgusted (and still am) by Woody Allen.

It's a free country. You can be disgusted by whatever you want. I was merely picking up the case of Woody and Soon-Yi Allen to test Sozobe's theory about why we prohibit incest.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Believe it or not, Thomas, not everything is about you. My post was written in response to Soz's post, and had no reference to what you have been posting. I feel that she has made a signal point in underlining the exploitation of the relationship of authority of a much older adult to a child or former child, whether or not they were adopted. I haven't much interest in the issue of why we prohibit incest. As i've already pointed out, we can test for hereditary diseases in utero. Therefore, i really don't see any plausible objection to incest, even institutionalized by marriage--with the exception of the objection i make and was referring to in resonse to Soz's post.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Believe it or not, Thomas, not everything is about you.

And not everything is about you, either. The only reason I picked up the Allen case from you was that it tests Sozobe's theory. I didn't pick it up because I'm interested in arguing with your disgust, which I'm not.

1 Reply

i think we can all agree that everything is about me

carry on

1 Reply

@djjd62,

Thanks for your permission!

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Nor am i interested in arguing your bankrupt argument about a compelling state interest in prohibiting incest, given the ability we have to test for hereditary diseases in utero.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Nor am i interested in arguing your bankrupt argument about a compelling state interest in prohibiting incest, given the ability we have to test for hereditary diseases in utero.

That's good, because I don't think the increased risk of hereditary diseases rises to the level of a compelling state interest. All I was saying is that if this is the rationale, it doesn't apply to incestuous same-sex couples.

1 Reply

of course there's always a possibility that someday Gay Marriage could End up the Traditional Marriage Razz

1 Reply

@djjd62,

Nevah happon. Mr. Green

0 Replies

Gay Marriage would Upend the Traditional Marriage

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know