why won't the state allow close relatives to marry?
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
why won't the state allow close relatives to marry?
Actually, it will, depending. Here's a good quick view from a Wiki article, of all things:
"In the United States, every state and the District of Columbia have some form of codified incest prohibition.[30] However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989[30], Ohio only targets parental figures[30], and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older.[30] Massachusetts issues a penalty of up to 20 years' imprisonment for those engaging in sexual activities with relatives closer than first cousins[30] and Hawaii up to 5 years in jail for "sexual penetration" with certain blood relatives and in-laws.[30]
In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, and in some states, first cousins, although Rhode Island allows uncles to marry their nieces if they are part of a community, such as orthodox Jews, for whom such marriages are permitted. Many states also apply incest laws to non-blood relations including stepparents, step-siblings, and in-laws.[31]
UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has questioned the rationale behind laws prohibiting incest, at least as they apply to sex between adults.[32]"
In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, and in some states, first cousins, although Rhode Island allows uncles to marry their nieces if they are part of a community, such as orthodox Jews, for whom such marriages are permitted. Many states also apply incest laws to non-blood relations including stepparents, step-siblings, and in-laws.[31]
UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has questioned the rationale behind laws prohibiting incest, at least as they apply to sex between adults.[32]"
:e4e:
so they could get married if they don't have sex?
Not what the article said at all, was it... Now concern over the product of that sort of union is certainly a motivating factor for the states, but your allowance would be a virtually impossible thing to police, to take the practical turn you're fond of, if those states were inclined to grant special exceptions.
Now then, why don't we go back to the actual issue that is under consideration and your inability to affix procreation to marriage as a necessary element.
lain:
the state has no problem with them living together
they just won't let them get married
so what does that imply?
Not entirely true, as same sex statutes criminalizing aspects of their personal behavior remain on the books in a few jurisdictions.
Most won't/some do. And when I was a boy a black person could mostly live and eat where they wanted, but not in the South.
Discriminatory practice, but it isn't implied, it's established where the law treats adults unequally. And it will falter and fail on the whole, eventually, as it has begun to in parts. Doesn't matter how you feel about it. You're free to decry it, but there's no secular justification for your interfering.
I don't have a problem answering questions, to a point. I think that point is met and I won't be entertaining off topic, tangentially related side bar beyond it.
so you know of states that do not allow a brother and sister to live together?
and
you know of a state where they are allowed to get married
I am sure others find that hard to believe
I don't think there's a single one of us here who isn't familiar with his unique posting style. He tries his dance with one person until they get tired of going in circles answering inane pointless questions, then he moves on to the next dance partner. Eventually, everyone gets sick of dancing. And, it seems like Zippy gave up the ghost here. And there's been no word from K-mo in a while.
I am simply trying to show that the purpose of marriage is to protect the child
and
looking a state laws regarding marriage shows that
and
looking a state laws regarding marriage shows that
Then you missed the mark, because it simply isn't as a matter of law, whatever it might be for the individual as a matter of conscience or religious conviction.
No, Chrys, it doesn't. :nono:
why does the state prevent a brother and sister from marrying?
I was talking about the actual OP subject. I'm done with the side bar that doesn't actually attack the point regarding what is required to establish marriage OR the denied right to contract between adults.
Start a thread on your topic if it suits you. :idunno:
You already asked the why question and the answer is complicated, but I answered you on that anyway.
why is it complicated?
the state recognizes that if a brother and sister get married, it may result in an abnormal child
but
no state will interfere with a brother and sister living together
if the state were to allow a brother and sister to marry, the state would be saying that it is okay for them to have sex
Except that they don't, and you haven't yet posted anything from state laws to support your position. I've posted a fair bit of actual state laws, but you didn't care about that because it didn't support your presumptions.
it was your posts that gave me the idea
you were the first to mention incest but you don't seem to understand the problem with incest
do you?
If you'd used the link and read the text I offered you wouldn't be asking that question.
Mostly incest law is about social mores, though it is also tied to the genetic likelihood of disasterous and predictable harm should the union result in children. So what's your point?
More than you.
since you are above social mores
you would be okay with a brother and sister marrying
right?
but you were unable to show the difference between a union with brothers and a union with a brother and sister
is that still true?
- Status