It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas signals that gay marriage will be law of the land

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Oh. Like I said, I have no problem with it if they are all consenting. Doesn't harm me in the slightest and it is what all parties want equally so alls ok in my book. I was just trying to explain the negative stigma attached to it.




posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

Oh. Like I said, I have no problem with it if they are all consenting. Doesn't harm me in the slightest and it is what all parties want equally so alls ok in my book. I was just trying to explain the negative stigma attached to it.


Oh, I get it.

The mother of one of the families that broke away from the Warren Jeffs complex in Colorado said polygamy should be accepted, but never legalized for the exact reasons you fear.

But, I (as non religious) do not want to be penalized because of behaviors of a religious cult.

IMO "poly" marriages would be a much healthier way to live for many reasons.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
All the "poly" marriages would require specific legal structure we do not yet have.


Just a note on this. There are poly marriages now where the man is legally married to one wife and the others are legally just live-in girlfriends and baby mamas. I don't see any problem with that. The first wife is the only one who would legally be considered his wife and all that entails.

I don't even THINK about the childhood or forced marriages when I think of polygamy. After watching so many shows on healthy polygamous families, I've completely forgotten about the stereotype.

I don't actually know if polygamy, as I've described here is legal or not. It's no different legal structure, just a different family arrangement.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Maybe, but it could also create new problems. Be interesting to see how secularists would tackle polygamy.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

If "poly" marriages become legal, which I think they should.

I think people in "poly" marriages will seek more legal status and tax benefits, etc.

Right now they are under laws for a couple. Its what we have, but it's not a perfect fit.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: jheated5
Why not make incest marriage legal in all states? What's the problem, two consenting adults and all....


Incest is legal in New Jersey between consenting adults. (But not incestual marriage)

Why do some insist on bringing incest into gay marriage discussions?

Apples and Oranges.



What is apples and oranges about it? I read a story about a daughter who has sex with and wants to marry her estranged father. They are both consenting adults. They could adopt children just like gay couples right?

I want to know what the apples and orange difference is between the two things? Why not make the comparison? Is there a moral difference between the two? I would just like an honest answer in yours and others opinion.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

Maybe, but it could also create new problems. Be interesting to see how secularists would tackle polygamy.


I am addressing all the "poly" groups.

I don't think anyone has the right to define a marriage for others.

I expect some will want legal status somewhere down the line. I think they should have it.

But, what exactly should they have with that legal status?



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: jheated5

Well for one, adoption doesn't prevent pregnancy. You'd also have to require the girl or the father to force-sterilize.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I'd personally leave that nest of vipers up to the people who want to tackle it. I definitely support it, but until there is a need to implement it, I wouldn't want to pick such fights with the moralists.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: jheated5

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: jheated5
Why not make incest marriage legal in all states? What's the problem, two consenting adults and all....


Incest is legal in New Jersey between consenting adults. (But not incestual marriage)

Why do some insist on bringing incest into gay marriage discussions?

Apples and Oranges.



What is apples and oranges about it? I read a story about a daughter who has sex with and wants to marry her estranged father. They are both consenting adults. They could adopt children just like gay couples right?



What does that have to do with gay marriage?

Anyone can adopt or get IVF ---- straight, gay, trans, etc.

Genetics is the main reason against incestual coupling. Which does not apply to other couplings.

Genetics = Apples
Other = Oranges



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
If any of you are science-fiction fans, and have read much Robert Heinlein, you can get ideas about what a legal system acknowledging "polyamorous marriages" (because technically speaking, polygamy means "many wives" and I certainly don't think it should be limited that way, that's just more sex discrimination.).

It was just a side note. I realize that there is as much or more legal red tape in the way for those sort of "marriages" to become reality. My comment was more along the lines of "why should we care."

Of course, if Krazyshot is right absolutely that all members would have to be adults agreeing freely to enter into such a covenant.

And as far as the legal complications, it wouldn't be any worse than many business partnership agreements.

Not advocating for it, but to borrow a phrase from the Wiccans, "an it harm none, do as thou wilt ."



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I guess we'd have to be a little more coarse and a little more specific and call it incestual breeding.

Which does, by the by, more times than not, cause harm ...



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: jheated5

What happens between two consenting adults is not the business of the government.

It's no different than gay marriage but it's still extremely taboo just like gay marriage was extremely taboo.

The way that law changes work is that society changes it's view towards something and then eventually the government starts to shape policies based on the overall societal view change.

With incest, it is still taboo in America for most types. In many parts here even first cousin marriages are illegal.

In other parts of the world not so much.

There are many parts of the world where uncle/niece and cousin/cousin marriages are common place. Other parts of the world it's not uncommon for incest to occur between direct family members(think the Ostrich people).

In America though, this is still a taboo and until that overall viewpoint changes...it will stay illegal.

Now there are two other arguments that are not applicable which is people marrying animals and child marriages.

Reason?

Legal consent.

Dogs, children, and severely mentally disabled people do not have the legal and mental capacity to consent to sex. They also do not have the ability to sign legal contracts.

I honestly do not care about whether marriage is legal between family members because it doesn't change the fact they are having sex. It is simply a legal document with benefits and rules. Right now at any given moment I'm sure there are people all over the U.S. engaging in incest(probably in and around this one part of Alabama I had passed through). Legal contracts would not change that.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: jheated5
I would just like an honest answer in yours and others opinion.


If they're two consenting adults, I think they should be allowed to marry.

What OrphanApology said.

edit on 2/10/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
This is really an interesting political philosophy problem.

Should a government act to prevent incestuous breeding, and if so, why?

I'd be interested to hear all the "limited or no government" purists have to say on the issue; perhaps another thread?



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

As a Libertarian I'll give you my take on it. The government shouldn't act at all. But then again as a Libertarian, my stance is that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage to begin with, so my views are already irrelevant in this discussion.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Annee

I guess we'd have to be a little more coarse and a little more specific and call it incestual breeding.

Which does, by the by, more times than not, cause harm ...


I think it's the same as a couple who knows they have an inhereted genetic defect.

Should they reproduce? Should they have a test (if there is one) and abort the child if it has the inherited defect?

Having a baby is a very selfish act. There is no non-selfish reason to have a baby.

I have no issue with legal adults marrying, related or not. I do have an issue with irresponsibility.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I absolutely agree. I personally have no problem with the appropriate level of government doing everything it can to prevent inbreeding. I do wish we were developed enough as a species to simply teach children not to breed with their close relatives, but history says otherwise.

The whole matter revolves around "doing the least harm, hopefully none."



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Annee

I absolutely agree. I personally have no problem with the appropriate level of government doing everything it can to prevent inbreeding. I do wish we were developed enough as a species to simply teach children not to breed with their close relatives, but history says otherwise.

The whole matter revolves around "doing the least harm, hopefully none."


BTW -- before I get back on track with the OP.

Genetic Sexual Attraction is not uncommon.



Genetic sexual attraction You're 40, happily married - and then you meet your long-lost brother and fall passionately in love. This isn't fiction; in the age of the sperm donor, it's a growing reality: 50% of reunions between siblings, or parents and offspring, separated at birth result in obsessive emotions. Last month, a former police officer was convicted of incest with his half-sister - but should we criminalise a bond hardwired into our psychology? Alix Kirsta talks to those who have suffered the torment of 'genetic sexual attraction'. www.theguardian.com...



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: jheated5

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: jheated5
Why not make incest marriage legal in all states? What's the problem, two consenting adults and all....


Incest is legal in New Jersey between consenting adults. (But not incestual marriage)

Why do some insist on bringing incest into gay marriage discussions?

Apples and Oranges.


What does genetics have to do with them getting married or sleeping together? Besides the chance of them having children? If we take that part out of the equation you should have no qualms right?>



What is apples and oranges about it? I read a story about a daughter who has sex with and wants to marry her estranged father. They are both consenting adults. They could adopt children just like gay couples right?



What does that have to do with gay marriage?

Anyone can adopt or get IVF ---- straight, gay, trans, etc.

Genetics is the main reason against incestual coupling. Which does not apply to other couplings.

Genetics = Apples
Other = Oranges


So genetics is the it factor for you and the only reason you are against is because of the outcome of their children. I'm talking about marriage, not children. Take them out of the equation and you have no problem with it right?
edit on 1004America/Chicagopm28America/Chicago105 by jheated5 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join