03-27-2013, 04:09 PM
Lemon Drop wrote:
marriage should be between two adults of legal age, neither currently married to anyone else, not related by blood according to that state's laws.
Why should state's decide blood relationships? That has lead to discrepancies such as California allowing first cousins to marry, Michigan not allowing first cousins to marry and Texas making it a criminal offense for first cousins to marry. Is that much different than what was argued at SCOTUS yesterday?
The whole ban is based on two principals:
1) the YUCKY factor.. incest just goes against most peoples comfort zone. I can accept that but at the same time why should I tell someone else how to behave as long as no one is being hurt.
2) deformed babies -- this is always a popular argument but basic biology pretty much debunks it. The risk is higher but nothing in comparison to a mother that drinks or smokes during pregnancy and those are not illegal. It is a very small risk factor.
Now I'm not saying I want to run out and marry my sister (I don't), but why should it matter if we are both legal age and consenting?
I know this is exactly the argument some anti-gay marriage activists use but I just don't get the real problem with it. Adult/child?, adult/animal? etc.. one party cannot give informed consent, so those should not be allowed. But why should there be legal limits on legal, consenting adult behavior (no matter how yucky)?