Comments | gianni: Ok, here's a question for folks...

gianni

Ok, here's a question for folks...

Mar 18, 2008 23:22

Before I get started, lemmie say I have no problem with same-sex marrage. So that said, my post is asking for comments on something I'd read earlier today in a blurb on the state supreme court's review of the state prohibition against it. The item that struck me, that I hadn't thought of before was the presidence of establishing arbitrary ( Read more... )

Comments 7

cuddlycthulhu March 19 2008, 15:25:36 UTC

1. The random cultural rules that you mention aren't random. For instance, the rules against polygamy have a firm basis in Christian religious ideas of marriage. Depending on when they were inacted I'd say that they might also have been a reaction to the rise of LDS and the Mormons in the 19th century. The rules regarding first cousins is a health/bioligcal thing; there isn't enough genetic drift to stem off the possibility of birth defects (though not as much as if there was a direct link pairing like brother-sister or parent-child ( ... )

gianni March 19 2008, 15:33:22 UTC

Random was perhaps too strong a word, but the notion that it was set due to prevailing concepts of morality (the Christian ethos, etc). But given the level of whining on the topic that one hears in many quarters (read: red states, etc) it would seem this falls under that same catagory.

I know the reasons behind the original prohibitions, the point was that in the end, they were set up out of a particular world view/ethic position (the cousins issue beginning long before they knew why it was a bad genetic idea) and not for anything more solid than it was the morality position of the day.

brthnbabies March 19 2008, 15:40:22 UTC

Very interesting...and definately a social moray...hmmm...you've made me think on this one. And, I think you may have just helped me to settle my own cunundrum...

I believe marriage is a vow for lifetime companionship...through good and hard times, chosing to stick together regardless... and that VOW is taken before God/dess...ceremony shouldn't matter.

so...to me, it doesn't matter who is taking the vow...one, two, more, man, woman, transgender, etc and if they break that vow (and even the vow can be determined by the people involved) then they and their God/dess will have to settle the issue.

...as you said, I now believe the only legal function should be that is must be consenting adults.

pimpcook March 19 2008, 17:26:06 UTC

1. I don't believe that cultural rules should give any weight to the issue, though the reasons behind those rules should. For example, cultural rules about not marrying your siblings evolved from siblings marrying way way long ago and the resulting offspring being deformed. Still a bad idea. I believe that same-sex taboos came about because those unions produced no children, and back in those days society NEEDED lots of children because so many died from illness, etc. That issue does NOT hold true anymore, so the main reason for the cultural rule is void now.
2. It really depends on the prohibition. Again, what is the historic basis behind the prohibition, and does it still apply logically? Looked at as an issue on its own, does it make sense for our society today?
3. Post-sex change individuals fall into the same category of every consenting adult: They're people. Love doesn't distinguish between race, gender, or the history of one's gender, therefore our society has no right to deny two people the right to join themselves together.

toraneko March 19 2008, 17:44:59 UTC

I have such issues with marriage and legal to begin with. I do not believe that gubment should be involved in it at all. Marriage is between the people involved and their God if they so believe. Yes, prohibitions should be set aside. I can hear the questions forming about that first cousin thing. Face it, first cousin lovers are not going to let a piece of paper dictate to them anyway. Hopefully they are smart enough to not procreate since that is the issue anyway. I think restrictions should come from the church.

terpsichoros March 19 2008, 19:05:38 UTC

There are several things called marriage. What the law is dealing with is a legally-privileged contract. The legal argument for same sex marriage - the argument being made in the courts - is not that the government does not have the right to place restrictions on who may enter into the legally privileged contract called marriage, but that the particular restriction (that the two parties must be of opposite sex) is not a restriction the government is allowed to make, based on its laws regarding discrimination on the basis of sex ( ... )