Posted on 03/17/2005 1:55:21 PM PST by lowbridge
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3286878
RememberTheCoup (1000+ posts) Thu Mar-17-05 08:06 AM Original message
Why SHOULDN'T siblings be allowed to "marry" or enter civil unions?
Why do we so often hear about such a situation as a "slippery slope" result of allowing same sex unions? Why does a marriage/civil union have to imply a sexual relationship? Almost all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage are economic or legal in nature and not sexual. "Right of consortium" is one of the few I can think of that are sexual in nature.
What if a man with a wife and a couple of small children suddenly becomes a widower. What if his unmarried sister decides to come live with him to help rear the children? She quits her job in order to be a stay-at-home caregiver and the brother's salary goes to support her as well as himself and his children. Why shouldn't these two siblings, who live together, share child-rearing responsibilities, are connected by bonds of love (though familial rather than romantic), and have a financial partnership, be permitted to "marry" and enjoy spousal healthcare benefits, tax advantages, and the other rights and responsibilities granted to traditional married couples? For that matter, why shouldn't ANY two people who wish to make that commitment to each -- whether connected by bonds of blood, deep friendship, or sexual love -- be permitted to do so?
It's not a slope, it's a screaming nose dive.
Yep, I've heard that one, too.
I don't think that you can marry your first cousin in N.Y.;where did you get that from?
For example, there's the "family", the "extended family", the "clan", and the "tribe".
We might be well-served if we strengthened the extended family and the clan, to say nothing of "tribe".
Note that the US Constitution does recognize "tribe" as a quite legitimate human gathering, although for bizarre reasons, US law does not!
Well I could ask "Who wants to go for a ride?"
"Roll over" would have been just as bad, I suspect.
LOL...mine too, that is one of the reasons why I called that guy an idiot.
While its possible, its really not an unheard arguement.
Check out Peter Singer, the ethicist at Princeton, he's given lectures and written articles, that actually follow through on the logic and reasoning of some of these court cases, and these questions.
If one walks through the halls of acadamia, and brings this question up, the variety of answers, in various ways, and the debate they engage in, will either frighten you, disturb you, or you'll be one of those guys who starting looking at the family weird.
For the record, one of my former college profs saw nothing wrong with marriage of any kind as long they were both legal adults (I'm gonna skip how she wanted to even determine what at adult is) regardless of relationship, and she used abortion, and various kinds of biosurgery, etc to back herself up.
I puked after that class.
"Find the ball"
Our grandfather was a lawyer in Arizona, and he looked it up as we were trying to decide on where to get married. Our family is from NY (Auburn), and that was one of the states we considered. She had friends in NM, and we have an aunt in CA. We eventually decides on CA. It is in the above cases a greater than or equal too thing. CA states that relationship can be no closer than 1st cousin, meaning that as close as 1st cousin is permitted.
In ireland uncle niece marriages are permitted, but Aunt-Nephew is not! go figure.
Sadly, you can or at least used to be able to.
I think FDR's marriage to his wife was either 1st cousin or somehow blood close.
Either way, at the time, it would have been illegal in other states.
Q. Can two first cousins marry?
A. A marriage may not take place in New York State between an ancestor and descendant (that is, a parent, grandparent, etc. and an offspring (child)), a brother and sister (full or half blood), an uncle and niece or an aunt and nephew, regardless of whether or not these persons are legitimate or illegitimate offspring. There is no legal bar against marriage between cousins.
Source
Ewwwww.
Can I marry my cat?
I hear ya.
The 1/2 brother bit threw me some,though.:-(
But here's the easy way.....
Your mother or father has a sibling who has a child. You and that child are FIRST cousins. Each of your marry other people and have a child.Your child and your cousin's child are second cousins.WHY? Because their shared ancestors a 2 generations removed....grand parents.
Where it gets tricky,is when there are 1/2 siblings and/or when a large family has cousins who come from intergenerational age differential,as I have. My great grandmother was the eldest child of none surviving siblings. Her oldest brother's daughter had three sons who I grew up with.I went to my Junior Prom with the middle brother.But before I did,I asked my grandmother IF he was a distant enough cousin,for me to date. She figured it out and okayed it.His great grandparents were my great,great grandparents. :-)
Come to think of it, why can't ANYTHING be legal and allowable? After all, somewhere in the world is someone who wants to do something - let it ALL be legal. No rules at all, ever - isn't that what every 12 year old would like?
That depends... It could be the perfect libertarian state or total anarchy.
The problems arise when your rights impede on my rights.
How do we decide those issues?
Thanks for the info.
Nooooooooo...FDR and ERR were NOT first cousin at all. They were rather distant (fouth or fifth,I think) cousins.
"Find the ball"
Oy Vey!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.