6 ms·

Honest question, when will LGBT support incest? Having relatives covered by insurance would be great. We could abort if we conceive or adopt if we want children

by incest 14y ago

Honest question, when will LGBT support incest? Having relatives covered by insurance would be great. We could abort if we conceive or adopt if we want children.

incest 14y ago
Down votes just show the hypocrisy of anti-incest yet LGBT supporting bigots we still have in this world. http://socyberty.com/crime/gay-marriage-incest-and-hypocrisy/ http://socyberty.com/crime/gay-marriage-incest-and-hypocrisy...
- jrockway 14y ago
  Incest and equal rights for LGBT are two completely separate issues. Without going into the merits of the issues, there are pretty much no people lobbying for father/daughter marriages, while there are lots of people lobbying for gay marriage. One goal of society is to codify rules that its members believe in, and in order to do that, people have to speak up. So if you want to marry your kids, start lobbying! (You can already marry your cousin, if that's good enough for you.)
  - kazoolist 14y ago
    At the risk of troll feeding, it's inaccurate to say state recognized incestual relationships and state recognized gay relationships are "completely separate issues." At the heart of the moment for the later is an effort to change what the purpose of marriage is (or, perhaps, recognize a change that has already happened). Specifically, the move to support gay marriage requires changing the idea of marriage being a relationship primarily concerned with natural procreation into one centered on the expression of romantic "love". You'll note, for instance, that Google is calling its campaign "Legalize Love". The reason the state has opposed incest is that inbreeding leads to a much higher rate of birth defects. But if marriage is shifted in focus from being primarily about creating an ideal situation for natural procreation to one based on "love", who is the state to say that two direct relatives are or aren't in "love" with one another?
    - Nursie 14y ago
      Incest 'relationships' in the real world are mostly coercive, abusive relationships. Often similar to real world polygamy where young (usually highly religious and often underage) women are married to older patriarchs and young men are shown the door. There are reasons that some things are banned, and it's not just because of inbreeding.
      - nosse 14y ago
        "Incest 'relationships' in the real world are mostly coercive, abusive relationships." How do you know? Headlines tell this? If most incest is abusive, then why we ban that non abusive incest? With the same logic you should ban all narcotics because most of them are evil (still you can buy alcohol legally). If LGBT and straight is ok but nothing else is not, you should be able give some waterproof arguments.
- crag 14y ago
  What the hell does LGBT issues have to do with incest? There are VERY real reason why we as a society don't practice incest.
  - UntitledNo4 14y ago
    I agree, and in addition, the probability of incest is much higher for heterosexuals than homosexuals since the probability of two homosexual family members is much much smaller. In other words, when and if support for legalising incest arises, it will most likely be by heterosexuals, not the LGBT community.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - incest 14y ago
    Very old fashioned reasons. There have been many advances in abortion.
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    You have to define incest. For some definitions it actually has a lot to do with it. For other definitions not so much. Certainly SSM has little to do with hypothetical brother/sister marriages. But what about first cousin marriages? These are legal in a bit over half the states including California, and in a bit under half the states such marriages are banned as incest. South Carolina, always an odd-ball, allows marriages of first cousins, provided they aren't double first cousins. Now, what makes this interesting is that sometimes first cousins get married in a state like California and then they move to a state that does not recognize such marriages (I think I read a case from Arkansas). In every case to date where this has been challenged, the marriage has been upheld, but it isn't clear the new state of residency is required Constitutionally to recognize the marriage. Usually it is settled on a conflict of laws basis. The only cases where the marriage has been invalidated thus far (this could change due to Arizona's strange laws, see below) were where residents of a state that banned the practice travelled to another state for the sole purpose of getting married and then immediately returned. Occasionally anti-SSM laws end up colliding here. For example Arizona passed a law stating that all marriages that could not legally be done in Arizona would be treated as if they didn't exist. This was done in order to prevent SSM from being recognized in Arizona without specifically singling gays and lesbians out. So it covers first cousins, etc too. Well, then the Cooks got divorced, being first cousins from Virginia who had married there and later moved to Arizona before this law was enacted. The law was ruled not to apply to them on retroactivity grounds (similar to the CA Supreme Court holding that Prop 8 could not be retroactive). So beyond SSM cases likely drawing on incest cases, you have the potential for things to go the other way. If choice of marriage partners is a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny, then does that mean we hold incest bans to strict scrutiny and only allow states to forbid sex or marriage between brother and sister, mother and son, and father and daughter? Wouldn't first cousin marriage bans have to fall? Would infertile brother/sister couples get to (ahem) mount as-applied challenges to such bans? I think that would be a mess. Also keep in mind that to date there have been a lot more first cousin couples married in the US than there have been same-sex couples, so a lot of the common legal issues have been litigated in an incest context first. Edit: I highly recommend Andrew Koppelman's (pro-SSM) work on this subject: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=665701 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=665701 Among other things he looks at how bigamy, incest, and pre-Loving miscegenation cases impact the SSM legal question. Koppleman is also the author of the classic law review paper entitled "Dumb and DOMA"
jrockway 14y ago
Wow, it's really about time to start charging money for new accounts.
- incest 14y ago
  jrockway, do you support both LGBT and incest? It's a chicken-and-egg problem. If LGBT supporters supported incest, more people would speak up. Incest and equal rights for LGBT are not separate issues. Incest couples are discriminated against as the LGBT.
UntitledNo4 14y ago
I'm not trying to convince you, I guess you are beyond that, but for other people who think "maybe this person has a point": The issue for most homosexual couple is not a semantic issue: to be allowed to have their relationship legalised by calling it "marriage", but to a legal issue: to be allowed to legalise their relationship for the reason that they want to have the same legal rights. Here in Europe, in the countries which have the system, it is referred to as "civil partnership" and the LGBT community is happy with that despite it not being called "marriage". Actually, complaints about the system in the UK came from heterosexual couples who want want to have access to civil partnerships instead of marriage (ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835). An example to the rights that are in question is that health insurance in Germany is cheaper for couples who marry or who are civil partners than it is for two adults in a relationship not legally defined (i.e. two girlfriends, a girlfriend and a boyfriend, two boyfriends). Finally, by linking homosexuality and incest, the poster tries to create a link between homosexuality which is now acceptable by most people to incest which is universally unaccepted and immoral. In western countries one is also legal and the other isn't.
- adrianhoward 14y ago
  Here in Europe, in the countries which have the system, it is referred to as "civil partnership" and the LGBT community is happy with that despite it not being called "marriage". Actually, complaints about the system in the UK came from heterosexual couples who want want to have access to civil partnerships instead of marriage (ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835). Read that campaign again - it's as much about LGBT people having a right to marry as it is about civil partnerships for straight folk. It's about equal rights. Some of my gay friends would prefer to marry over a civil partnership. My partner and I would prefer a civil partnership - but can't coz we're straight. Indeed - in the UK anyway - LGBT are likely to have the right to marry soon (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18412222 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18412222). I don't think we'd be changing the legislation if folk weren't unhappy with the current status quo.
  - UntitledNo4 14y ago

by incest 14y ago

Honest question, when will LGBT support incest? Having relatives covered by insurance would be great. We could abort if we conceive or adopt if we want children.

incest 14y ago

Down votes just show the hypocrisy of anti-incest yet LGBT supporting bigots we still have in this world. http://socyberty.com/crime/gay-marriage-incest-and-hypocrisy/ http://socyberty.com/crime/gay-marriage-incest-and-hypocrisy...

jrockway 14y ago
Incest and equal rights for LGBT are two completely separate issues. Without going into the merits of the issues, there are pretty much no people lobbying for father/daughter marriages, while there are lots of people lobbying for gay marriage. One goal of society is to codify rules that its members believe in, and in order to do that, people have to speak up. So if you want to marry your kids, start lobbying! (You can already marry your cousin, if that's good enough for you.)
- kazoolist 14y ago
  At the risk of troll feeding, it's inaccurate to say state recognized incestual relationships and state recognized gay relationships are "completely separate issues." At the heart of the moment for the later is an effort to change what the purpose of marriage is (or, perhaps, recognize a change that has already happened). Specifically, the move to support gay marriage requires changing the idea of marriage being a relationship primarily concerned with natural procreation into one centered on the expression of romantic "love". You'll note, for instance, that Google is calling its campaign "Legalize Love". The reason the state has opposed incest is that inbreeding leads to a much higher rate of birth defects. But if marriage is shifted in focus from being primarily about creating an ideal situation for natural procreation to one based on "love", who is the state to say that two direct relatives are or aren't in "love" with one another?
  - Nursie 14y ago
    Incest 'relationships' in the real world are mostly coercive, abusive relationships. Often similar to real world polygamy where young (usually highly religious and often underage) women are married to older patriarchs and young men are shown the door. There are reasons that some things are banned, and it's not just because of inbreeding.
    - nosse 14y ago
      "Incest 'relationships' in the real world are mostly coercive, abusive relationships." How do you know? Headlines tell this? If most incest is abusive, then why we ban that non abusive incest? With the same logic you should ban all narcotics because most of them are evil (still you can buy alcohol legally). If LGBT and straight is ok but nothing else is not, you should be able give some waterproof arguments.
crag 14y ago
What the hell does LGBT issues have to do with incest? There are VERY real reason why we as a society don't practice incest.
- UntitledNo4 14y ago
  I agree, and in addition, the probability of incest is much higher for heterosexuals than homosexuals since the probability of two homosexual family members is much much smaller. In other words, when and if support for legalising incest arises, it will most likely be by heterosexuals, not the LGBT community.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- incest 14y ago
  Very old fashioned reasons. There have been many advances in abortion.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  You have to define incest. For some definitions it actually has a lot to do with it. For other definitions not so much. Certainly SSM has little to do with hypothetical brother/sister marriages. But what about first cousin marriages? These are legal in a bit over half the states including California, and in a bit under half the states such marriages are banned as incest. South Carolina, always an odd-ball, allows marriages of first cousins, provided they aren't double first cousins. Now, what makes this interesting is that sometimes first cousins get married in a state like California and then they move to a state that does not recognize such marriages (I think I read a case from Arkansas). In every case to date where this has been challenged, the marriage has been upheld, but it isn't clear the new state of residency is required Constitutionally to recognize the marriage. Usually it is settled on a conflict of laws basis. The only cases where the marriage has been invalidated thus far (this could change due to Arizona's strange laws, see below) were where residents of a state that banned the practice travelled to another state for the sole purpose of getting married and then immediately returned. Occasionally anti-SSM laws end up colliding here. For example Arizona passed a law stating that all marriages that could not legally be done in Arizona would be treated as if they didn't exist. This was done in order to prevent SSM from being recognized in Arizona without specifically singling gays and lesbians out. So it covers first cousins, etc too. Well, then the Cooks got divorced, being first cousins from Virginia who had married there and later moved to Arizona before this law was enacted. The law was ruled not to apply to them on retroactivity grounds (similar to the CA Supreme Court holding that Prop 8 could not be retroactive). So beyond SSM cases likely drawing on incest cases, you have the potential for things to go the other way. If choice of marriage partners is a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny, then does that mean we hold incest bans to strict scrutiny and only allow states to forbid sex or marriage between brother and sister, mother and son, and father and daughter? Wouldn't first cousin marriage bans have to fall? Would infertile brother/sister couples get to (ahem) mount as-applied challenges to such bans? I think that would be a mess. Also keep in mind that to date there have been a lot more first cousin couples married in the US than there have been same-sex couples, so a lot of the common legal issues have been litigated in an incest context first. Edit: I highly recommend Andrew Koppelman's (pro-SSM) work on this subject: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=665701 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=665701 Among other things he looks at how bigamy, incest, and pre-Loving miscegenation cases impact the SSM legal question. Koppleman is also the author of the classic law review paper entitled "Dumb and DOMA"

jrockway 14y ago

Wow, it's really about time to start charging money for new accounts.

incest 14y ago
jrockway, do you support both LGBT and incest? It's a chicken-and-egg problem. If LGBT supporters supported incest, more people would speak up. Incest and equal rights for LGBT are not separate issues. Incest couples are discriminated against as the LGBT.

UntitledNo4 14y ago

I'm not trying to convince you, I guess you are beyond that, but for other people who think "maybe this person has a point": The issue for most homosexual couple is not a semantic issue: to be allowed to have their relationship legalised by calling it "marriage", but to a legal issue: to be allowed to legalise their relationship for the reason that they want to have the same legal rights. Here in Europe, in the countries which have the system, it is referred to as "civil partnership" and the LGBT community is happy with that despite it not being called "marriage". Actually, complaints about the system in the UK came from heterosexual couples who want want to have access to civil partnerships instead of marriage (ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835). An example to the rights that are in question is that health insurance in Germany is cheaper for couples who marry or who are civil partners than it is for two adults in a relationship not legally defined (i.e. two girlfriends, a girlfriend and a boyfriend, two boyfriends). Finally, by linking homosexuality and incest, the poster tries to create a link between homosexuality which is now acceptable by most people to incest which is universally unaccepted and immoral. In western countries one is also legal and the other isn't.

adrianhoward 14y ago
Here in Europe, in the countries which have the system, it is referred to as "civil partnership" and the LGBT community is happy with that despite it not being called "marriage". Actually, complaints about the system in the UK came from heterosexual couples who want want to have access to civil partnerships instead of marriage (ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835). Read that campaign again - it's as much about LGBT people having a right to marry as it is about civil partnerships for straight folk. It's about equal rights. Some of my gay friends would prefer to marry over a civil partnership. My partner and I would prefer a civil partnership - but can't coz we're straight. Indeed - in the UK anyway - LGBT are likely to have the right to marry soon (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18412222 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18412222). I don't think we'd be changing the legislation if folk weren't unhappy with the current status quo.
- UntitledNo4 14y ago