Quote:
Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
Good point about the state recognising an illegal union in the case of incest.
But just because a relationship is legal does not mean that the state must accept its conversion into a marriage relationship.
Take for example, the love of two 15 year olds - legal, but not marriageable.'
|
Fair enough. I agree that the logical reversal of my point is only partially correct.
Quote:
I would contend (in devil's advocate role) that the reason that the state is allowed (if it really is) to make incest illegal is that it undermines the traditional family unit [not because of genetic problems, because the state cannot prevent adults with inheritable genetic diseases from procreating or marrying].
In the case of incest the threat to the traditional, married family unit is a direct one, so the relationship itself must be made illegal. In the case of homosexuality the threat to the traditional, married family unit comes when they request to marry. Therefore the state can intervene at that point to make gay marriage illegal.
|
Very well put. I think that makes sense.
Quote:
So my questions would be:
Q1. Is the state allowed to rule activities illegal that undermine the traditional, married family unit as it understands it?
|
Hmm... yes. On the basis that the majority wills it, and within the constraints of fundamental rights. But it's not a restricted field. The state should act to control acts of which are repugnant to the people, within the constraints of natural law.
For the same reason murder, theft, etc... are all regulated by the state.
Quote:
|
Q2. If yes, then could homosexuality not be considered a threat to the unique importance of the traditional, married family unit?
|
Potentially, but is it really? Does forcing people to have illicit homosexual affairs which result in massive scandal and the breakup of marriages result in a positive effect?
In any case. I contend that this point relates to the legality of homosexuality. not the recognition of marriage.
If, on the other hand, we are asking if homosexual marriage is a threat to the position of heterosexual marriage; on the basis of a legal homosexual practice, I see no argument for it.
Quote:
|
Q3. If no, then on what basis is the state allowed to rule incest illegal?
|
/me leaves that for someone else.
Quote:
*devil's advocate*
EDIT:> Actually, I don't think much of Q2. It seems pretty obvious to me that allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't undermine the institution of marriage, in fact it may strengthen it by allowing it bind more loving couples and gain importance through prevalence. But if anyone thinks that homosexual marriage would undermine the tradional, married family unit then please feel free to join in on this one.
|
I know it seems sophistry, but I still want to try and separate marriage rights and the legality of the practice itself.
Rhetorical Aside: Why is it that you can never talk about homosexual rights without the whole thing turning to animals and kids?
EDIT: "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." - Winston Churchill.