Libs Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Such questions demonstrates a unwillingness to understand the issue of same sex marriage.For starters, how about you explain why, presently in the US a brother (biological or otherwise) can not marry his sister (biological or otherwise), and you can't just say "it is illegal", surely you can proffer legally acceptable reasoning for why family members are prohibited from marrying. (I am aware that at least one US state allows non-reproductive first cousins to marry)I don't think it is against the law, in all cases, to marry a step or adopted child. Woody Allen married his adopted daughter.
treehugger Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 In some parts of the world it is perfectly acceptable for first cousins to marry. But the question is as we push the envelope farther down the table: should it be a human right for brother and sister to marry?In terms of marriage why is it presently illegal for a sister to marry her brother, a mother her son, a father his daughter? Can you provide reasoning why these types of marriages are currently prohibited?
california boy Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) Such questions demonstrates a unwillingness to understand the issue of same sex marriage.For starters, how about you explain why, presently in the US a brother (biological or otherwise) can not marry his sister (biological or otherwise), and you can't just say "it is illegal", surely you can proffer legally acceptable reasoning for why family members are prohibited from marrying. (I am aware that at least one US state allows non-reproductive first cousins to marry)States that allow cousins to marry. Utah being one of them.Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Main, Maryland, Masachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, WisconsonYet there doesn't seem to be any interest for brothers and sisters to marry. Humm wonder why? Maybe this is not such a good slippery slope argument after all. Edited July 26, 2012 by california boy 1
why me Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 In terms of marriage why is it presently illegal for a sister to marry her brother, a mother her son, a father his daughter? Can you provide reasoning why these types of marriages are currently prohibited?If we push a human right envelope further down the table, I see none. It becomes a matter of choice. They can make a promise not to have sexual relations and sign a paper. My point was simple: when is it permissible to deny a human right?Should I have the legal right to have two wives? Is it my human right to have 25 wives? Should I be denied this right? Now I am not speaking about a religious reason at all. Just a human right.
why me Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) States that allow cousins to marry. Utah being one of them. Alabama Arkansas Alaska Delaware Arizona *E1 Idaho California Iowa Colorado Kansas Connecticut Kentucky¹ Florida Louisiana Georgia Michigan Hawaii Minnesota ² Illinois *E1 Mississippi Indiana *E1 ¹ Missouri Maine *E3 Montana Maryland Nebraska Massachusetts Nevada ¹ New Jersey New Hampshire New Mexico North Dakota New York Ohio ¹ North Carolina *E2 Oklahoma Rhode Island Oregon South Carolina Pennsylvania Tennessee South Dakota Utah *E1 Texas Vermont Washington ¹ Virginia West Virginia Wisconsin *E1 ¹ As I have stated, in many parts of the world, it is acceptable to marry a first cousin. There are less restrictions on second or third cousins. Edited July 26, 2012 by why me
why me Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Yet there doesn't seem to be any interest for brothers and sisters to marry. Humm wonder why? Maybe this is not such a good slippery slope argument after all.But should they have the human right to marry if they so desire? Would you deny them their right to marry?How long has it been since gay right activists were pushing the right to marry? Not long. For gay rights activists it was important to have being gay acceptable to the american public by showing them in what I would call typical sitcom hetero situations (just like the neighbor next door). Certainly, we never saw Will attempting to pick up a man in a public toilet or Will going to a gay bath house to have multiple partner sex. We just saw the gay lifestyle like a sitcom hetero lifestyle. And it did soften our attitudes toward the gay lifestyle.And so, now we have the push toward gay marriage or same sex marriage. And attitudes have soften about it. But if one grants the possibility for gays and lesbians to marry, should polygamy be legalized? Should it be my right as a human being to marry two women because I love two women and they love me?
treehugger Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 If we push a human right envelope further down the table, I see none. It becomes a matter of choice. They can make a promise not to have sexual relations and sign a paper. My point was simple: when is it permissible to deny a human right?Should I have the legal right to have two wives? Is it my human right to have 25 wives? Should I be denied this right? Now I am not speaking about a religious reason at all. Just a human right.whyme, you are not even attempting to make a honest comparison. you are comparing apples to oranges. First off, polygamy is a none issue in terms of gay marriage, because the people opposed to gay marriage have suggested that polygamy is an acceptable form of "traditional marriage".Now, that polygamy is out of the way. Can or will you explain why incestuous marriages are prohibited? Then explain why a heterosexual incestuous couple is the same as non-incestuous homosexual couple.Do you believe there are legitmate government interests in prohibiting incestuous marriages?
ERayR Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 I just went and read it again. It has been awhile.I don't have a problem with most of it, Ray. There are some wonderful and inspired things in the Proclamation. I am not going to be so presumptuous as to critique it.But you just can't quite agree that marriage is between a man and a woman, right.
Libs Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 But you just can't quite agree that marriage is between a man and a woman, right. Sure, I believe in marriage between a man and a woman. I've been married to a man for forty years. I just don't think our secular gov't should be limiting marriage to heterosexuals only.
KevinG Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 I just don't think our secular gov't should be limiting marriage to heterosexuals only.The problem is that our secular government has already poked its nose into sacred matters by deciding who can issue marriage certificates and providing financial incentives for those who marry. If they back out of the marriage business and limit their activities to recording partnerships then the church would be in no danger from those who want to define marriage more broadly or perhaps enforce their own definition on others who disagree with them. 1
ERayR Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 EnglandI somewhat agree with you. YIKES. There is far too much attention paid to gays by the church and by the media. There are far more members that are alcoholics, addicted to porn, committing adultery and fortification then there are gay members. Yet for some (I find strange) reason, the church felt it should get politically involved in gay marriage. I mean how many gay Mormons want to get married compared to all the straight sexual sin that is going on in the church?? Yet this is the line in the sand that the church chose to seek a political solution on. Just how big of problem was gay marriage in the church to justify asking members to give millions to fight it in such a public way? Given the time and resources the church and it's members have poured in to this one moral issue, you would think it was the most immoral thing going on in the world today. Like you said, only 1-4% of the population identifies as being gay. I remember when blacks were fighting against discrimination they were subjected to. It was on the news every night. A lot of people were tired of hearing about it every night on the news. They didn't want to hear one more time "black is beautiful" They didn't want the Mexico City Olympics to be "politicized" They didn't want rioting in the streets and burning of businesses. They didn't want to hear from that black activist Martin Luther King any more. Once civil right laws were passed, all the hype and argument played out in the media nightly concerning blacks civil rights went away. I think the same thing will happen when the courts and legislatures give gay's their civil rights as well. In a couple of years, this issue will no longer be in the news. DOMA will be appealed. Gay marriage will be legal. It will be illegal to discriminate against gays on employment, housing and other basic human rights. People will calm down and once again, accept the fact that ALL Americans have the right for equality in this country. Mormons will live with the idea that the world may have a different view of what is moral and what is not. Parents will teach their children what their standards are and explain to them that there are some outside the church that don't follow the same standards that Mormons have. Members will quit defending discrimination. And gay rights will no longer be disproportionally discussed.Two things: 1-If you want to know why the church urged involvement in the ssm issue read the Proclamation to the Family. It is a moral issue. Churches are all about moral issues.2-You can always tell when ones arguments are weak when they have to resort to the race card. I know it plays well in the media it is really a desperation ploy. 1
ERayR Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Sure, I believe in marriage between a man and a woman. I've been married to a man for forty years. I just don't think our secular gov't should be limiting marriage to heterosexuals only.Just not only a man and a woman. See post #60 above.
CASteinman Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) Different people have different ideas about what is right and wrong.[media=] Edited July 26, 2012 by CASteinman
Garden Girl Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) In terms of marriage why is it presently illegal for a sister to marry her brother, a mother her son, a father his daughter? Can you provide reasoning why these types of marriages are currently prohibited?Hello treehugger...I think these laws go back several centuries and are probably based on the biblical scriptures which outline sexual behavior for men and women as found in Leviticus chapter 20... many times laws were enacted that mirrored biblical writings, i.e. thou shall not steal, thou shall not kill, thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not bear false witness (for instance, putting your hand on the bible in the courtroom and vowing to tell the truth), etc., etc. And, subsequent scientific studies have shown genetic consequences of producing offspring with close biological family members.Lev. 20:10... no adulteryLev. 20:11... no sex with motherLev. 20:12... no sex with daughter-in-lawLev. 20:13... no man lies with another man as he would a womanLev. 20:14... no sex with mother-in-lawLev. 20:15 & 16... no sex with beastsLev. 20:17-21... no sex with sister (and other extended family)Lev. 20:22... Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.Secular society may eventually choose to disregard current laws prohibiting the types of relationships you question, and may formally negate some of the current laws. but....GG Edited July 26, 2012 by Garden Girl
Damien the Leper Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Hello treehugger...I think these laws go back several centuries and are probably based on the biblical scriptures which outline sexual behavior for men and women as found in Leviticus chapter 20... many times laws were enacted that mirrored biblical writings, i.e. thou shall not steal, thou shall not kill, thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not bear false witness (for instance, putting your hand on the bible in the courtroom and vowing to tell the truth), etc., etc. And, subsequent scientific studies have shown genetic consequences of producing offspring with close biological family members.Lev. 20:10... no adulteryLev. 20:11... no sex with motherLev. 20:12... no sex with daughter-in-lawLev. 20:13... no man lies with another man as he would a womanLev. 20:14... no sex with mother-in-lawLev. 20:15 & 16... no sex with beastsLev. 20:17-21... no sex with sister (and other extended family)Lev. 20:22... Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.Secular society may eventually choose to disregard current laws prohibiting the types of relationships you question, and may formally negate some of the current laws. but....GGThis is the kind of rot that needs to stop.I would like for you to define the Hebrew word to'ebah, first. Then I would like for you to define abomination as modern religious practitioners do. Then compare the 2. The differences are quite distinct.Furthermore, since Jews are the authority on Jewish culture and practice, perhaps you should talk to a Jew about enforcing Jewish laws and ritual practices upon non Jews.
Damien the Leper Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Hello treehugger...I think these laws go back several centuries and are probably based on the biblical scriptures which outline sexual behavior for men and women as found in Leviticus chapter 20... many times laws were enacted that mirrored biblical writings, i.e. thou shall not steal, thou shall not kill, thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not bear false witness (for instance, putting your hand on the bible in the courtroom and vowing to tell the truth), etc., etc. And, subsequent scientific studies have shown genetic consequences of producing offspring with close biological family members.Lev. 20:10... no adulteryLev. 20:11... no sex with motherLev. 20:12... no sex with daughter-in-lawLev. 20:13... no man lies with another man as he would a womanLev. 20:14... no sex with mother-in-lawLev. 20:15 & 16... no sex with beastsLev. 20:17-21... no sex with sister (and other extended family)Lev. 20:22... Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.Secular society may eventually choose to disregard current laws prohibiting the types of relationships you question, and may formally negate some of the current laws. but....GGJust for fun...you should read those verses using The Message Bible translation.
why me Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 whyme, you are not even attempting to make a honest comparison. you are comparing apples to oranges. First off, polygamy is a none issue in terms of gay marriage, because the people opposed to gay marriage have suggested that polygamy is an acceptable form of "traditional marriage".Now, that polygamy is out of the way. Can or will you explain why incestuous marriages are prohibited? Then explain why a heterosexual incestuous couple is the same as non-incestuous homosexual couple.Do you believe there are legitmate government interests in prohibiting incestuous marriages?I don't think that you are understanding me. 20 years ago, the question of gay marriage would have been unheard of and it certainly would have been taboo. However, through the media attempting to push gay rights for many years by situational sitcoms and with it now gay marriage, it is no longer taboo.My point was simple: when should a human right be denied when it comes to marriage? Brother and sister? polygamy? Polyandry? Mother and son? etc? For same sex marriage it has become a human right. Do you agree that this is a human right?
why me Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Furthermore, since Jews are the authority on Jewish culture and practice, perhaps you should talk to a Jew about enforcing Jewish laws and ritual practices upon non Jews.Since the west is basically judeo-christian we cannot escape the influence of the bible when it comes to our moral code. I think that this is garden girl's point. And she would be correct. For gay rights campaigners years ago, they needed to crack this influence if they wanted gays to be more accepted. And now with same sex marriage the judeo christian moral code will also need to be cracked. And they are certainly putting cracks in it.
why me Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Secular society may eventually choose to disregard current laws prohibiting the types of relationships you question, and may formally negate some of the current laws. but....GGAnd this was my point too. Gay marriage may just be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what is perceived to be a human right. So far the people that I have addressed the question to have not responded. When should a human right be denied when it comes to marriage? Or should all have their rights acknowledged?
treehugger Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Two things:2-You can always tell when ones arguments are weak when they have to resort to the race card. I know it plays well in the media it is really a desperation ploy.So when did you write Elder Oaks to let him know that his comparing LDS to blacks was an act of desperation?-------------------------------Garden girl, the admonition from the Bible is not a legally acceptable reason for a law.
treehugger Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 I don't think that you are understanding me. 20 years ago, the question of gay marriage would have been unheard of and it certainly would have been taboo. However, through the media attempting to push gay rights for many years by situational sitcoms and with it now gay marriage, it is no longer taboo.My point was simple: when should a human right be denied when it comes to marriage? Brother and sister? polygamy? Polyandry? Mother and son? etc? For same sex marriage it has become a human right. Do you agree that this is a human right?I understand your point. However, the law must be involved. So what legal reasoning that supports gay marriage can also be used to support incest.Does the government have an interest in prohibiting incest?
Garden Girl Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 This is the kind of rot that needs to stop.The question that treehugger asked... was, why current law prohibits marriages between close biological relatives, i.e., brother-sister, father-daughter, etc etc.MY point was that many of the laws that have been established for sometimes centuries were based on biblical scriptures, for instance, thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, etc etc. and, the influence of those scriptures in Leviticus that outlined physical relationships between family and close relatives. People then followed the Bible as the word of God and the way morally society should be... I don't think they stopped to analyze if the teaching or scripture was Jewish to non-Jewish... and many of these laws are in practice yet today. That was the standpoint from which I answered the question. I will not comment on your view, not mine, of the quoted passages as "rot" nor turn this into yet another argument on same sex marriage, etc. The question was asked and I gave a response as to how/why certain marriage relationships were "presently illegal."GG 1
why me Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 I understand your point. However, the law must be involved. So what legal reasoning that supports gay marriage can also be used to support incest.Does the government have an interest in prohibiting incest?It is not a legal question but one of human rights. When should one's human right be denied when it comes to marriage. 20 years ago, most people in the USA did not consider same sex marriage a human right. But now, many do. What has changed? And can can you see a time that a person who wishes to marry two women should be granted that right without a religious reason to do so? And should this be a human right?
treehugger Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 It is not a legal question but one of human rights. When should one's human right be denied when it comes to marriage. 20 years ago, most people in the USA did not consider same sex marriage a human right. But now, many do. What has changed? And can can you see a time that a person who wishes to marry two women should be granted that right without a religious reason to do so? And should this be a human right?Whyme, it absolutely is a legal question. If someone claims a right is being violated the Courts decide whether or not there is a right and the Court decides if there is a violation.so comparing gay marriage to incest, fails at the outset.
Garden Girl Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 -------------------------------Garden girl, the admonition from the Bible is not a legally acceptable reason for a law.Hi treehugger....While this may be questionable, i.e., stealing, killing, etc., keep in mind many laws still in effect today were established long ago when people viewed the bible's place and influence differently. Some of these laws are being challenged today and will be decided in the courts... whether this will be of true benefit for society is a question that remains to be answered.from the beach on a beautiful warm, sunny afternoon... GG 1
Recommended Posts