Question to supporters of gay marriage?

I’m indifferent towards the issue and think most arguments against gay marriage dont hold through, but what are your thoughts on this: if 2 members of the same sex can get married, who has the authority to prohibit incestuous marriage or polygamy? Both cases would involve consenting adults, does equality for all not encompass these relationships? Thoughts?

I’m all about people marrying who they love, as long as it’s two consenting adults. However, there are problems that come with both incestuous relationships, and polygamy, and I don’t think it’s fair to compare either of these to same-sex marriage. There is nothing healthy about an incestuous relationship, even non-human animals and plants have developed anti-incest mechanisms. Humans are born with anti-incest mechanisms as well. Closely related people have an extremely high chance of bearing children with birth defects. If a family continues incestuous relationships for more than a generation, it will pretty much wipe out their reproductive abilities. I personally find incetuous relationships to be repulsive, but if people choose to live their lives that way, that’s their choice, but I personally wouldn’t support an incest marriage bill, and I don’t think that makes me a hypocrite. Incest never occurs in healthy, well-adjusted individuals, and children deserve to be born without the social stigma of sibling parents, and without birth defects.
As far a polygamy goes, I have no issue with it as long as everyone is in agreeance. I do, however, see some issues as far as polygamist marriage goes: first, if they legalize it, will it be men and women who can marry more than one partner? And are all the partners married to each other, or only to one person? And what about divorce? If you’re in a multiple marriage, do you have to divorce your husband and his 6 other wives? And what about if you’re in a multiple marriage, and you decide you want multiple spouses as well? When does it end? Other than the legal implications, I see no problem with polygamy. While I personally wouldn’t be able to share my husband, if that works for others, more power to them.
I don’t believe gay marriage can be compared to either of these things, though. Gay marriage is just like any other marriage, except that it occurs between two people of the same sex.

Edit- I have to disagree. Almost nothing I’ve said applies to same-sex relationships. People, animals and plants don’t have anti-homosexuality mechanisms, as homosexuality is quite prevalent in nature, as I’m sure you’re aware. Same-sex partners aren’t very likely to bear children with birth defects. And same-sex marriage doesn’t come with the problems of polygamy. But I’d be interested in hearing how you could turn any of this into an argument against same-sex marriage if you’d explain further.

Incestuous relationships are outlawed because although in theory they involve consenting adults, it’s the opinion of the courts that familial relationships come with a built-in level of coercion. There is always a power imbalance in the relationships between siblings, parent and child, aunts/uncles, etc, that would allow for one partner to exercise significant influence over the other, which negates the argument that both parties are truly able to consent.

Polygamy is currently outlawed, as there are financial advantages available to married couples, and it’s necessary to limit marriage to a single partner, to keep the number of individuals claiming those benefits to a minimum.

Just so you know, you’re arguing from a principle called &quot:The Slippery Slope Fallacy&quot: . Simply because one event has occured, there is no proof that something MUST follow. Assuming that extending the legal right of marriage to homosexual couples means we will next allow for incest is ridiculous.

Some supporters of gay marriage support full marriage equality, some don’t. Most people who engage in consensual incest (and polygamy) are heterosexual. Let’s not forget that part. BUT, I do know of some triads and quads and brother couples who would marry if they could. Consensual adult incest is legal in a few US states and many modern countries, and there hasn’t been a problem. I’m only referring to CONSENTING ADULTS. Last I checked, children were not able to legally consent through our broad legal structure. Minor changes in the law should be made so that an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Some people only care about monogamist gay rights, not the rights of anybody else. There were African-American civil rights supporters who didn’t care about Latino-Americans, and vice-versa. This is nothing new. There are polygamists who support gay rights and polygamists who don’t. People typically try to pin pedophilia on gays, polygamists, and those involved in incest, but I’m addressing CONSENTING ADULTS only.

I support FULL marriage equality. That includes 30-year-olds marrying 60-year-olds. That includes African-Americans marrying Anglo-Americans.That includes two men marrying, even if they are brothers. That includes one women marrying two men. It is ridiculous that in most of the US, it is perfectly legal for a woman to love, have sex with, and have children with two men at the same time, but she isn’t free to legally marry both at the same time even though they all agree.

Equality just for some is not equality. Don’t like it? Don’t do it. As with interracial, adult intergenerational, or gay sex/marriage, there is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against polyamorous or consanguineous sex or marriage. Personal disgust or religion is only a reason why one person would not want to personally engage in polyamory or consanguinamory, not why someone else shouldn’t do it.

Some people try to justify their prejudice against consanguineous sex and marriage by being part-time eugenicists and saying that such relationships inevitably lead to “mutant” or “deformed” babies. This argument can be refuted on several fronts. 1. As I noted, some consanguineous relationships involve only people of the same gender. 2. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. 3. Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems: while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. 4. We don’t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. For example, it is legal for someone with Huntington’s Disease to marry and have children. Look that one up.

Some say &quot:Your sibling should not be your lover.&quot: That is not a reason. It begs the question. Many people have many relationships that have more than one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can’t their sister be a wife, too?

Some say “There is a power differential.” This applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to sex or to marry. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes
an enormous power differential. It is entirely legal for, say, a 21-year-old woman to marry the President of the United States, or a 50-somthing billionaire. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning.

Some say “There are so many people outside of your family.&quot: There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial marriage. So, this isn’t a good reason either.

Yes, there are patriarchal societies that have gender inequality and allow religion-based polygyny only, and people cite problems in those societies, but the problems are not caused by polygamy. They are caused by sexism and gender inequality under the law. All the paperwork issues can be resolved. And if paperwork issues could be an excuse to deny fundamental rights, we wouldn’t have the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Victims of abuse and coercion would be MORE likely to work with law enforcement if we had relationship rights for all adults. Let consenting adults marry!

Everybody is entitled to love. However, polygamy was out lawed by agreeance between the Mormon church and US government, though it is still practiced where noone will see. I’m also thinking STDs and intermarriage between siblings will happen, because of the close relation. As for incest, I believe cousins are allowed to marry, so long as they are past child bearing age. In Switzerland and France, I believe close relatives are allowed to marry again so long as they are past child bearing age. To each his own.

1. Incestuous marriage is forbidden because it causes real harm, i.e. the children of these marriages are likely to have birth defects.
2. Polygamy is forbidden in all developed countries, it is only found in backward societies and is symbolic of the oppression of women by men. Why would developed countries and modern democracies want such a backward institution?

Marriage equality (same-sex marriage) on the other hand is only found in progressive democracies.

Wow I like you thinking incestuous would still be frowned upon though

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *