Quantcast

Well done New Zealand.

HardtailHack

used an iron once
Jan 20, 2009
8,015
7,528
Full homo, I have no idea why governments don't allow same sex marriages, maybe priests will push for age reductions now for same sex marriages:thumb:
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
is there anything in his argument (well, spoken, i must admit) that couldn't then be used for making marriage even 'more equal'? specifically, age requirements & 1st cousins, laws for which vary state-by-state, and are seemingly arbitrary.
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
89,382
27,606
media blackout
is there anything in his argument (well, spoken, i must admit) that couldn't then be used for making marriage even 'more equal'? specifically, age requirements & 1st cousins, laws for which vary state-by-state, and are seemingly arbitrary.
my wife and i got married in maryland. as such we had to file with that state. on the marriage license application there was a field for "relationship to groom (if any): _________________" I looked into it, apparently Maryland still marries first cousins :twitch:
 

HardtailHack

used an iron once
Jan 20, 2009
8,015
7,528
my wife and i got married in maryland. as such we had to file with that state. on the marriage license application there was a field for "relationship to groom (if any): _________________" I looked into it, apparently Maryland still marries first cousins :twitch:
Same as NZ, you can now marry your same sex first cousin.
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
is there anything in his argument (well, spoken, i must admit) that couldn't then be used for making marriage even 'more equal'? specifically, age requirements & 1st cousins, laws for which vary state-by-state, and are seemingly arbitrary.
Age requirements are easy to defend, as there's a legal age of consent below which we (as a culture) have decided that children aren't able to make legally-binding decisions. Some states allow a slight deviation below that with the consent of the parents, but even then there's still a minimum age to protect against child abuse.

Marriage between siblings or 1st cousins is done due to the possibility of genetic defects, but I'd be totally ok with allowing two family members to get married if there was no possibility of children (ie, sterilized or same-sex).
 

HardtailHack

used an iron once
Jan 20, 2009
8,015
7,528
because "god" doesnt like it.
Australia is sort of run by a female atheist who lives in a de facto relationship with a male hairdresser........ but we still hate the gays for some reason.
 
Last edited:

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
43,499
15,701
Portland, OR
Age requirements are easy to defend, as there's a legal age of consent below which we (as a culture) have decided that children aren't able to make legally-binding decisions. Some states allow a slight deviation below that with the consent of the parents, but even then there's still a minimum age to protect against child abuse.

Marriage between siblings or 1st cousins is done due to the possibility of genetic defects, but I'd be totally ok with allowing two family members to get married if there was no possibility of children (ie, sterilized or same-sex).
And it would be less of an issue if 1st cousins weren't so hot in the South.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
Age requirements are easy to defend, as there's a legal age of consent below which we (as a culture) have decided that children aren't able to make legally-binding decisions. Some states allow a slight deviation below that with the consent of the parents, but even then there's still a minimum age to protect against child abuse.
from a legislative point of view, i get that, but have you talked to a barely legal person (not just one who says they are on their PPV website)? they're positively crackers, & wholly unfit to enter into a legally binding contract that exceeds the terms of auto insurance. but i digress...
Marriage between siblings or 1st cousins is done due to the possibility of genetic defects, but I'd be totally ok with allowing two family members to get married if there was no possibility of children (ie, sterilized or same-sex).
you bring up a good point: if the concern is defending against genetic defects, should that not then promote that *everyone* who's viable for reproduction get screened for genetic defects? why would we allow jews to marry jews? would that not increase prevalence of tay-sachs with the higher likelihood of both parents carrying the recessive gene? same for blacks & sickle-cell. odds of passing those 'genetic flaws' is *increased* with 'same-race in-breeding', so if the concern is one borne out of medical reasons, we should strongly promote the 'right' balance of genetic diversity within our species.

and of course, this too would embolden the case for any relationship that would be void of reproduction.

is that what's best for our society? a race striving to be void of 'genetic defects'? or is marriage truly 'just about love'?
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
I've known plenty of mid-30 year olds like that as well...

As for your second point, I'd gather that it's about (as most things are) balancing the needs of society as a whole against the specific freedom of the individual. "No marriage between siblings because it's likely to produce genetic defects" is far different than no marriage between Jews because there's a slight chance of genetic defects".
 

stevew

resident influencer
Sep 21, 2001
41,340
10,266
Only on the internet my friend.
it's a whole different scale....a girl a straight guy might consider a "5" or "6" becomes a "7" or "8" in the lesbian world....i almost feel sorry for them...