In similar fashion, I don't really like the way many Muslims treat women. It's not icky like two dudes or incest, but still offensive. But if there is no force used to compel the woman, then the state has no interest in the issue.
Reality: Homosexual Marriage
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
In similar fashion, I don't really like the way many Muslims treat women. It's not icky like two dudes or incest, but still offensive. But if there is no force used to compel the woman, then the state has no interest in the issue.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
UHHHHH, yes I was; so the problem has to lie with your reading and comprehension skills.
Unless you want to point to something specifically.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Strawman argument.
Major failure.
It would be akin to saying that since you support hetrosexual marriage, it means you must also support marrying underage girls.
I don't agree. Incestuous marriages may be prohibited or discouraged by the the state to prevent birth defects. The issue in underage marriages is different and relates to protecting the interest of an existing person, i.e., the child.
If sm rephrases to...
Because if you support queer marriage you must also support incestuous marriages that can't (or agree not to) produce children.
... then he would have a valid point. If there is no chance of reproduction then why should the state prohibit an incestuous relationship or marriage?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
But he's already removed the argument that marriages are solely for reproduction and I see you missed where Damo posted about some States require that the couples sign an agreement to not reproduce.
Just admit that you want to revert back in time and you're happiest with "SEPERATE, BUT EQUAL".
I am going to assume you mistook who was posting. My point, was that incest and marriage of a child are different issues and that there are different legitimate state interests involved. There is no legitimate state interest in homosexuality or homosexual marriage and the opponents of gay marriage can not provide one.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Sure there is.
Inheritance
survivorship
medical information release
joint income
etc.
If you want to marry your mother, it doesn't bother me.
Okay. There is no legitimate state interest in prohibiting gay marriage.
IMO, there is no legitimate state interest in defining and licensing marriage at all.
I would say there is a legitimate state interest in requiring a license for incestuous marriages or marriages involving minors. USA mad a valid point that there is still state interest outside of licensing or defining marriage. Marriages should be dealt with by common law practices or under whatever conditions are stated in the contract.
There is no necessity to make a separate area of contract law to define a religious institution. Simply treat it as contract law, no need to be in the "marriage" business at all. The state needs to remove itself from that religious institution rather than seek a compelling reason to define such things. The interest is in protecting children from incest. I like that, do not allow union contracts to include incestuous relationships where progeny may be involved...
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
So, then how is the state to protect it's interest in incest or marriages involving children?
IMO, these examples are true to the legitimate purpose of licensing, i.e., to allow what is otherwise prohibited by law.
I don't think the state should necessarily stop an 18yo and 17yo (or whatever age consent is set at) or a sister and brother from marrying or engaging in sex. But, it does have an interest (especially in the child marriages/sex) and I do not object to prohibiting those things in the absence of a hearing to determine the affect to the legitimate state interest.
In other words, if they want to grant a license after determining there is no negative impact on the legitimate state interest to make legal what otherwise would be illegal, fine. That is the point of a license.
I explained that in edit.
From the preceding post:
The interest is in protecting children from incest. I like that, do not allow union contracts to include incestuous relationships where progeny may be involved...
W
WinterBorn
Guest
The point is that it is the state's duty to protect children. That can be done without interfering with religious ceremonies.
My point, Strings, is that by moving into religious territory and assigning and defining marriage they almost will always fall foul of the 1st Amendment. There is no compelling state interest in such a thing, but there is a prohibition from it. Instead of messing in marriages they need to define a secular issue that gives them control of the state interest within that contract.
Sure, but what does marriage (or the contractual agreement) have to do with a religious ceremony? The religious ceremony is irrelevant. IMO, the state has a legitimate interest in prohibiting the exploitation of children (for certain) and possibly incestuous couplings. There need be no religious ceremony or a contractual agreement between these couples in order for the state's interest to be effected.
In these cases, licensing is useful. It allows individuals some due process in satisfying the state that it's interest are not negatively effected. That's the point of a license.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
No because underage can't consent. Your logical fallacy is what's called a weak analogy.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
And if one or both of the incestuous couples were sterile?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
So you support incestuous marriages as long as they have these agreements.