For medical reasons - not moral reasons. Children born out of cousin marriages have a high incidence of developmental problems.
It is a right. Gun licenses are issued. Is gun ownership not a right?
But equal protection of the law is a right in everything the government has a hand in. Including marriage.
license as in carrying, is that what you mean?
yes, everyone is to be treated equally under the law, by GOVERNMENT only!
but because government uses a license as the tool of marriage, its sets it own standard [based on sexuality] for what people must do to get that license, therefore some people are denied marriage, and this is what I have stated many times, government is not in the business of sexuality in creating laws /polices, therefore they have no authority to stop people from marrying.
you and I have many many rights to marry ,carry a firearm, however government has moved into these rights, and asserting their powers over them unconstitutionally.
actually I think the incident for birth abnormalities from cousin type unions are pretty low
Go Ahead, Kiss Your Cousin | DiscoverMagazine.com
Actually, a conservative with no humor is... a conservative.
You're not a conservative, you just reflexively defend Republican politicians, hate gays, are against abortion....basically agree with them oneverything.
It doesn't work that way. The government has to be able to justify any restrictions on any licenses/contracts by showing that a legitimate state interest is furthered by that restriction.
For example, the government issues driver's licenses. They have a restriction on age for them. 16 most places. States can justify this age restriction easily by showing normal height needed to be able to drive safely, safe driver mentality likely to begin, and other things about age and maturity. On the other hand, the government could not restrict owning a driver's license by saying that Asian women cannot have one, or by saying that those between the ages of 35 and 45 cannot have a license, or that gay men cannot have a driver's license. They have to show how any restrictions further an actual state interest.
The same goes for marriage, and this was set forth in the biggest case Loving v VA but also in other cases, including Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley.
whether you want to call it a license or certificate, anything that is government issued that gives government approval is not a right, rights do not have government authority connected to it, that is a privilege.
can you explain something to me, because I have asked this question many times and I can not get it answered!
if marriage is a right, as you say the court has ruled, then how are states banning its institution, since all that would be need would be referring the ussc court case your which you site, can you explain this?........how is unlawful action taking place over a ussc decision?
mind you, I believe marriage is a right, however if government is a recognizing factor that contracts between two people based on any sexuality then that is not a government authority.
marriage is a contract, government is here to recognize contract from a basis of economic legality, not sexual aspects , it is not here to decide who gets to make a contract, or to create benefits because citizens make a contract between themselves, or make sexual laws/ policies because of those contracts, because government is not a moral authority.
The problem is that laws against incest aren't based on morality but a large amount of studies that show that inbreeding is not beneficial. They're also based on the very real possibility that children being out of such unions will more than likely have development problems. Obviously, marriage does not necessarily include procreation - however, there is a medical/societal interest in ensuring the gene pool remains as diverse as possible. This makes the approach some states have taken to the matter the most legally consistent one: allow cousin unions as long as at least 1 of the partners is unable to procreate.
I believe it is a central reason as to why marriage was sanctioned by government in the first place, however if it was not the defining argument I accept that... and now it is as I have stated, any two or more consenting are acceptable despite their intimate status. Marriage no longer has meaning.
That wasn't me. My point was that sibling marriage does not equal incest. If it did, as you imply, we would definitely have to draw the line that discriminates against incestuous people. See the dilemma for your side?
Personally, I think it's a grey area when it comes to inbreeding; it's analogous to child abuse or neglect, but it's kind of ridiculous to charge someone with abusing a child that doesn't exist. Possibly the legality could simply be contingent on mandated birth control, with heavy fines for pregnancies. The problem all comes down to protecting unborn children, whilst also not infringing the rights of potential parents. But, this is a TANGENT, Homosexuals can't procreate.
They still kinda risked the health of a child (albeit a future one) by having a kid. Moreso than any other couple, that is.And what if the child is born with no defects? Should the parents be punished for that even if they are related by blood?
They still kinda risked the health of a child (albeit a future one) by having a kid. Moreso than any other couple, that is.
That said, at some point in the future I expect that Sci-Fi will become reality, and parents will be able to have doctors scan their kids DNA before birth, then remove any potential problems from the inherited genes.
Require a DNA scan/comparison looking for possible issue before you're allowed to have a kid?Not necessarily. As I've noted before there are other factors that can raise a given non-incestuous couple's risk to above that of an incestuous couple's. This could be due to age, genetic history (non-incestuous), post-birth genetic damage (e.g. from radiation or other causes) and many more. Yet we don't regulate them. Why not?
If a drunk driver doesn't hit anyone, should they still go to jail?And what if the child is born with no defects? Should the parents be punished for that even if they are related by blood?
Require a DNA scan/comparison looking for possible issue before you're allowed to have a kid?
Umm...Because this is America, and that would never fly? I hope....
Because we aren'tSo if we are not looking for birth defect risks above a certain level why does this fly for blood related couples only?
You really shouldn't be accusing anyone else of being a shill. The resulting irony could literally rip a hole in the space time continuum.
It's an odd analogy but makes sense from the fact that homosexuality is as abnormal as incest
don't give a **** what the rational counter argument is because you view it as a partisan political statement rather than a rational argument.
Gay marriage discriminates against cousins who want incestrial marriage
marriage to pets or inanimate objects etc.
The best part is that you actually have the ****ing audacity to believe that those opposed to homosexuality have NO RIGHTS
MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT NOR A CIVIL LIBERTY - is that too difficult to understand?
I know you wish it was but legally it's NOT...
Marriage is NOT a legal right... Not even heterosexual marriage - that is a status quo...
My personal opinion on gay marriage is moot - I'm telling yall what the constitution says and the constitution say absolutely nothing about marriage between a woman and woman man and man or man and woman.
I like who I like and I go with the woman I like regardless of race.... If that was against the law that would be a violation of both my girl and my civil liberties - more specifically the Fist Amendment...
Do people not realize they can cite the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment as a constitutional means to establish socialism? -- the Clause is that vague!
The document reads "give me whatever the **** I want or it's discrimination" unless congress shall pass no law...
WTF...
I'm an individual that hates your society
I'm not a conservative so I just sit back and watch the dung fly..
I'm hardly a progressive or democrat so I just sit back and watch the rubber fly....
I suppose your information comes from the "Daily Shoe"
Are you kidding? Try making a joke about liberals and the refrains of "that's not true" and accusations of being a hack and a troll are inevitible. I don't think I've ever seen one liberal think a joke about liberals was funny and harmless. On the other hand, I've posted jokes about right wingers so put that in your juice box and suck on it. :2razz:
Because we aren't
As I understand it, the laws regarding incest are in place because there is a much higher chance of birth defects and the like in such cases.
That has been a known fact since looooooooooong before DNA tests.
If children weren't taught that incest was wrong, they wouldn't know it. It's only through generations of seeing the results that people finally started to catch on and made it taboo. Children aren't born knowing to never have sex with anyone closer than a second cousin.
For medical reasons - not moral reasons. Children born out of cousin marriages have a high incidence of developmental problems.
Because we aren't
As I understand it, the laws regarding incest are in place because there is a much higher chance of birth defects and the like in such cases.
That has been a known fact since looooooooooong before DNA tests.
Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings
Typical "conservative/republican" ignorance. :roll:
What a douche nozzle.
So he's saying homosexual = incest
A true moron in so many ways.
Except incest laws apply to homosexual relationships too, of which there is not only a zero chance of birth defects, but births.
However, there is still a psychological aversion to such relationships that does develop in most households where the siblings are raised together.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?