"Kevin Wayne Williams" <kww.nihongo@verizon.nut> wrote in message
news:10ji9fmmqnu8df2@news.supernews.com...
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
> > necoandjeff wrote:
> >
> >> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>> You also haven't reply to my point about how the state does not
prevent
> >>> people who are carriers for congenital disorders such as Huntington's
> >>> Disease, SCID, and Osteogenesis Imperfecta from marrying, even though
> >>> these disorders can be far more severe and have a risk of developing
in
> >>> a carrier's child higher than an inbred child's chances of congenital
> >>> birth defect. Such people are not prevented from marrying, and they
> >>> certainly are not prevented from procreating. What do you suppose we
> >>> should do about that?
> >>
> [snip]
> >> So there's nothing I can see in the fourteenth amendment to prevent
> >> the state from saying no to peole who want to marry their sister. I
win.
> >
> > [snip]
> > Your social taboo wins, yes. You must be some sort of religious zealot.
> > You don't seem to mind being mollified, though.
> >
> Logically, he's got you, Jeff. If the state was interested in preventing
> genetic birth defects, the argument against brother and sister marrying
> is quite weak, and the argument against brother-brother or sister-sister
> marriages is non-existent. I suspect that the risk is on the same order
> as various ethnic groups that are inclined to get things like Tay-Sachs
> disease and sickle-cell anemia, but their right to breed is zealously
> protected.

What I would like to know is how I became so adamantly opposed to incestuous
marriage. As a legal matter I don't give a [fill in expletive of your
choice] about incestuous marriage. I tossed it out as an example of a type
of marriage the state prevents and that it has as a reason to prevent. I'll
admit that I *may* have been just buying into a common conception. But I'll
also admit that I'm quite willing to reconsider the issue, although it isn't
really even one I care about so much or have thought much about.

But I think we're confusing issues here. I am against the notion of
preventing gays from marrying each other on a moral/personal level. In
addition, I also think it is illegal to do so. Why? Because I believe the
fourteenth amendment prevents the state from saying that it will recognize
marriages, but not if the sex of the would-be spouses isn't what the state
deems appropriate. Therefore, I'm against it *and* I think it is against the
law.

With regard to marriages among siblings, I suppose on a moral/personal
level, I'm probably not too crazy about the notion. That's probably just
something that has been ingrained in me (as it has been in most people in
most cultures.) But what does that mean exactly? It means that I personally
wouldn't do it. I might also try to talk someone I know out of doing it. But
do I believe the state should prevent someone else from doing it? Perhaps
not, I haven't really thought the issue through or researched it that well.
But whether the state should or not, I don't see what basis you would have
for claiming it is illegal for the state to not recognize such marriages.
Violation of equal protection? Nope. Can you think of anything else? If the
state decides to prevent such marriages, they are completely free to do so
unless it is a violation of the state or federal constitution. I don't see
how it would be. Which means there is little you can do except pass another
law repealing it. Given the general attitude toward such marriages, good
luck with that one. I don't see how anyone has anyone logically here. These
are completely distinct issues. And I refuse to be painted into a corner
regarding an example that I, perhaps carelessly, tossed out in passing that
has nothing to do with the issue we are really discussing here.

> You can make a logical argument against marrying minor children pretty
> easily, based on a minor's inability toconsent. With a stretch, you
> might be able to argue that a father or mother had wielded some form of
> undue influence that deprived their offspring of the ability to consent
> when it comes to parent-child marriage. The prohibitions against
> brother-sister, sister-sister, and brother-brother marriages are cultural.

Fine. So what?

> I haven't heard an argument in favor of homosexual marriage yet that
> doesn't apply to sibling marriage. Of course, I don't have a problem
> there, as I think that both homosexual and sibling marriage should be
> legal, and parent-offspring marriage should only require judicial
> scrutiny of the offspring's ability to consent.

But there are arguments *against* the state *preventing* homosexual marriage
that don't apply to incestuous marriage.

Jeff