Apparently, it's way more acceptable to be in love with someone who shares your genes than someone who shares your junk. We as a nation are just way more tolerant of unions that increase the risk of congenital birth defects than we are of unions that might make us watch two dudes kiss. As soon as gay marriage gets legalized nationwide, can we start a movement to define marriage as being between "two people, of either same or opposite sex, who did not meet at their family reunion?"
-
J. | 11/14/2011 flag |
Watch this vid for some solid definitions of "Traditional Marriage": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw&feature=youtu.be
-
Albert | 11/11/2011 flag |
Daimeon,
I don't think you will find a case where one man and two or more women walked up the isle at the same time.
I'm sure what you will find is that it was normally one man and one woman getting married at one time and then that same man, at a different time got married to another women.
In history, the man was just allowed to have more than one marriage. We haven't changed the definition of marriage, we've only limited the number of concurrent marriages a person can have.
You continued, "many cultures have celebrated and cherished unions of multiple husbands, or wives, or polyamory, and same sex unions."
Which cultures?
You said, "You really need me to go into detail?"
Well, not so much detail as perhaps give me those references where you got your information so I can see it as well.
I do know of other types of marriages, such as Nero marrying a boy, but that isn't shown to be the normal standard for marriage there, more than an emperor using his power to do what he wanted.
You say to Google it, it's all there.
But are the sources that I get the information from on the web reliable?
It's very easy to say what you did and expect people to believe it, but it's not really a valid argument without evidence. Without any evidence it's just an assertion. And anyone can make an assertion based on their own opinion. And opinion, isn't always correct.
And if you are not wanting marriage to be redefined, then should we be exploring history and making sure that your claim isn't true or we don't have a leg to stand on. -
Daimeon | 11/11/2011 flag |
Biblical "heros" were rife with having multiple wives. In history, many cultures have celebrated and cherished unions of multiple husbands, or wives, or polyamory, and same sex unions. You really need me to go into detail? You can google it, it's all there.
-
Albert | 11/11/2011 flag |
Daimeon,
I believe we are on the same side of this issue but I would like to understand something you claimed in your last post.
You said, "Marriage has been redefined many times over the centuries"
What do you mean by that?
Do you have examples that you are referring to of these redefinitions?
Where is the bible does it redefine marriage, and the same for history books? -
Daimeon | 11/11/2011 flag |
Marriage has been redefined many times over the centuries. Dont' believe me, read the Bible, then a history book.
The only way I want to see marriage "redefined" and this is only in the civil definition, because religious institutions can continue to define marriage however they want according to the first Amendment rights they enjoy in the Constitution, is to say the legal union of two consenting and unrelated adults. After that, if a religious institution wants to recognize it, it's their business not mine. -
Albert | 11/11/2011 flag |
The issue is not which ones causes birth defects or which one is more right than the other.
The real issue is what is the definition of what marriage should be?
Definition of marriage: The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
First cousins, though probably not very desirable for them to marry would still fit into that definition.
If we allow the redefinition of the word marriage, we open it up to being able to be redefined over and over. A very slippery slope.
Homosexuals want marriage to mean a formal union of a person, regardless of gender, to another person, regardless of gender.
So then after that polygamists will want it redefined as one person, regardless of gender to union with multiple people, regardless of gender.
This might sound absurd because it is. But the fact is, that is exactly what is happening in Canada right now. Canada has equality marriages that homosexuals can be defined as I stated above. Polygamists are in court trying to get these equality marriages to also include what they are wanting marriage to mean.
Also happening in Canada is a group that has presented something to the parliament to define Pedophilia as a sexual orientation. Once they do that, it will be considered the same as heterosexuality and homosexuality as a sexual orientation defined for the way the want to be oriented.
The natural progression there is for them to want to have committed unions. So marriage will be pressed to be redefined again.
At some point marriage is not longer what it is supposed to be. Any one can have a union with anyone under the idea of marriage.
This issue is not about equal rights. Everyone in America already has equal rights. We might not agree with the rights we have, but they are equal for all.
And if the laws that are in place restrict you from something you think you should have, we have the right, as individuals, to put in place bills to change those rights. But make no mistake, everyone in America has the same rights.
We can't allow the redefinition of marriage because of the slippery slope it will cause.
As a note: Nothing I have stated above is a judgement of homosexual, pedophiles or of any one else as to weather they are morally right or wrong. None of what I said is linked to a specific religion either. So if we keep that out of the discussion, and stay on the subject it should not be something that causes anyone to be emotionally tied.
If you redefine marriage to include same sex marriage, you do not in anyway remove the idea that first cousins could still marry. You have just opened up that same sex first cousins can now marry too.
Some have you have claimed that first cousins marrying is 'odd', would that make same sex first cousins marrying any less odd? -
J. | 09/11/2011 flag |
SN - I'll happily stay in any bubble that thinks that Gay Marriage is perfectly fine and the idea of marrying your 1st cousin is kinda....odd.
-
SN | 09/11/2011 flag |
J, thats my point, 100 random elistis off San Francisco or NYC streets yes - but 80% of the rest of the country would not answer as such. Stop living in a bubble.
-
J. | 09/10/2011 flag |
Hey "First Cousin Marriage" defenders using the birth defect defense:
Comparing these two maps is not to show the logic of what would happen if two 1st cousins married.
It's the PERCEPTION of the act: That more people in America are OK with 1st cousins marrying vs. gays marrying.
Sure, if two 1st cousins had a baby, chances are the kid would be alright. But ask any 100 random people on the street what they thought about 1st cousins marrying, and their IDEA of it would be "Ewww!" despite the logic of the off-spring probably being fine.
Nevertheless, these two maps together show that more people seem to be OK with 1st cousins getting it on as opposed to two people of the same sex getting it on.
Which is just effed up.
(PS. I live in LA...but I hate lattes. Now cappuccinos - that's where it's at!) -
daisieh | 09/09/2011 flag |
I am very much pro-gay-marriage, but the geneticist in me would like to point out that the risk of birth defects based on any two random first cousins mating is really, really low, assuming that your family doesn't do it all the time. If you're a known carrier of a freakish gene, you should be looking into genetic counseling in any case. An occasional reticulation in your family tree won't hurt anything.
-
WillfromSF | 09/09/2011 flag |
My aunt and uncle were married in Virginia and were first cousins. It was no big deal since that was just an interesting detail about them from day one for me and my cousins, although I know it freaked out the family when they first started heading in that direction. They had three normal children. It was no big deal. Just like gay marriage should be.
-
normalcy | 09/09/2011 flag |
Respectfully, your an idiot elitist snob for posting that. Throughout most of human history, people lived in small villages where EVERYONE was related. In fact, probably half or more of the world STILL DOES. And there is no scientific proof 1st cousin babies are anything different than average (as already noted in comments). Put for those people who live in a bubble of NYC or Los Angeles and think thats how the rest of the world works, because they are lucky enough to slurp on a double lattee rather than have to start work in the fields at 8 years old because their family is starting, thats what happens.
-
rac3rx | 09/09/2011 flag |
Effective in 2005, Texas didn't allow the marriage of first cousins. For a full list see: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266
We get the point, but it's ineffective if it's inaccurate. -
KMS | 09/09/2011 flag |
The odds of birth defects from a union of first cousins are exactly the same as the average. - Source: Marilyn Vos Savant
-
Bradleigh | 09/07/2011 flag |
Oh good, I'm glad my piece of shit state can be part of the second map and not the first *eye roll* Well, here's to hoping we can make that first map completely yellow!
-
WDTY | 09/07/2011 flag |
Errhm...what about if you want to marry your gay cousin?
-
Daimeon | 09/06/2011 flag |
Too bad the map is already out of date. Woohoo NY!
-
ditzen | 09/06/2011 flag |
In Arizona the special circumstances are that you have to be too old to make babies.
-
lulu | 09/06/2011 flag |
marrying family, ick
-
Stacy101825 | 09/06/2011 flag |
What are the special circumstances? How horrifying!
-
Jen | 09/06/2011 flag |
Hey, what about New York? The Gay map needs to be updated. In fact, we'll let you get married to your gay cousin here!
