SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


And the REASONS for incest laws are...?

Are they the same as those against homosexuality?

Not that I've seen. Unless you mean religious reasons, which we know are invalid justification in a secular society, correct?

Well the reason for the incest law is effectively just reinforcing good evolutionary behavior... incest causes imbreeding, and imbreeding is bad. Genetic diversity is good.

If there wasn't this genetic imperitive, then an incest law wouldn't have the same grounds, certainly.

[Boris Godunov]

Exactly. Which is not related to homosexuality, since homosexuals can't, as our lovely BK and others have pointed out time and again, produce children with their couplings, this reasoning behind incest laws stand.

[Ned]

BG, I see you DO understand the REASON and that the REASON does not apply to homosexuals and that therefor the law against incest as applied to homosexuals is UNREASONABLE.

So, some day in the not too distant future, some homosexual wants to marry his or her cousin, for example. The authorities say no, the homosexual couple challenge law and are granted a marriage license because the law as to them is irrational and denies them fundamental rights to privacy.

The next day, a heterosexual couple having the same relationship tries to take out a marriage license. They are denied. They sue. They win on the basis of denial of equal protection.

Bingo! The laws against incest fall.

[chequita guevara]

Incest generally involves exploitation, regardless of the age of those involved.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Incest generally involves exploitation, regardless of the age of those involved.

It also generally involves european royalty...

[Boris Godunov]

And Biblical figures!

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Incest generally involves exploitation, regardless of the age of those involved.

I see, Che. You have no good looking counsins.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I have yet to make that decision, to act on my desires, in such a way, as to sleep with a woman. So, yes, it is a conscious decision to act on my desires.

I shouldn't be surprised, but you're twisting the point. Acting on the desires is not the choice I asked you about. I asked you about the desires themselves -- the actual, involuntary, feelings and reactions you have to sexual stimuli. Can you control them? Can you change them? Can you make your body have those same reactions to a man?

If I never had sex the rest of my life, I'd still be straight. Even if I, somehow, had a sexual encounter with a man, I'd still be straight. My desires are for women. I can't change those.

No. Would I be gay if I had to?

Your question's irrelevant. Your "no" answer effectively answers my original, untwisted question however. Your body reacts on its own to being presented with sexual stimuli that it desires. Why do you presume it is any different with homosexuals, when they themselves tell you it is exactly the same?

Could I force myself to? Sure.

Interesting. Are you bisexual, then? It would explain a lot. Because I couldn't force myself to. My body simply revolts at the thought of it.

What rights are denied to them?

Marriage to the person of their choice. It's a civil right. Judges have said as much. Or have you not read any of the relevant court decisions in Ontario or Massachussetts?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I see, Che. You have no good looking counsins.

[Aeson]

So, some day in the not too distant future, some homosexual wants to marry his or her cousin, for example. The authorities say no, the homosexual couple challenge law and are granted a marriage license because the law as to them is irrational and denies them fundamental rights to privacy.

The next day, a heterosexual couple having the same relationship tries to take out a marriage license. They are denied. They sue. They win on the basis of denial of equal protection.

Bingo! The laws against incest fall.

If a closely related couple (ignore sexuality) is determined by the courts to be able to marry based on not being able (or perhaps willing) to procreate, it doesn't negate the reasoning for disallowing incest in any other situation (where they would be able/willing to procreate). It's still deemed wrong to have children in a situation where the partners are closely related. If marriage in such cases is deemed allowable due to the guarantee of no procreation, then any marriage which gaurantees no procreation would qualify. Whether that guarantee is an oath, simple fact of nature, or irreversable medical proceedure. A marriage which didn't give that guarantee would still not be allowable.

The law against incest doesn't necessarily have to be a law against marriage between closely related couples if the only factor (it's not) is genetic difficulty that arise. Marriage != Procreation.

[Ned]

Aeson, I think you agree with me - to an extent. You agree that a man could marry his cousin if they could not have kids. This certainly would apply if his cousin is male, but could apply if the man or woman were infertile.

Sophisticated.

I don't think the courts will see it that way though.

[David Floyd]

I don't understand while y'all are still debating with BK on this. He's as much as admitted already, in this thread, that is primary motivation for his opposition to gay marriage comes from Christianity. That being the case, no scientific argument you can make will get him to change his mind. The debate really should be about why we shouldn't apply Biblical teachings to secular law, not a debate about why homosexuality should be illegal in a secular society

[optimus2861]

^ DF, I agree -- but perhaps, just perhaps, there's some other chap on here reading the exchange who thinks the same way as BK does but who is able to see the weaknesses in the position. Not likely, I know...

Plus, every now and then, you've gotta go up against a real hard-head to strengthen your own arguments, too . Practice for when you debate with people you really might be able to persuade.

[Boris Godunov]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=gays_and_lesbians

Mayor of NY town starts marrying gay couples.

[Sava]

good for NY...

I've clarified my position a little bit. The government not legislate marriage in any way (gay or otherwise). Instead, all marriages (for the purpose of gov't) should be civil unions... licensed to any two individuals of age. The actual institution of marriage is a matter for the churches, temples, synagogues, and mosques.