Should there be no limits on marriage?

Question

Suppose a brother wants to marry a sister. Or how about a 65 yr old man wanting to marry a 10yr old boy. Where do we have the right to outlaw anything? WHat will end up being the morals if there aren't any, hmmm?

Answer 1

I like this question. I'm a Christian, so of course my beliefs will be made clear in my answer. A legal marriage and marriage in God's eye's are two different things. People have told me and will continue to tell me, if you don't believe that homosexuals should be married, that you're intolerant, a bigot, a homophobe, and much worse. Biblically, a marriage is between man and women period. People whom do not believe (or may believe in God and choose not to accept this fact) will justify it, saying things like "It's okay if they are both consenting adults.", or "Two people who love each other should be allowed..." And on it goes. I believe, legally, if people really want to get married, by law, under God, they MUST BE MAN AND WOMAN, no exceptions. If you want a legal union, fine, but it is not a marriage, legally recognized nor by God. I understand this question. Where do you draw the line? What if a man want's to marry a Goat? Why not? People can legally leave all their earthly possessions to a cat. Or NAMBLA...why can't a grown man marry a young boy? They believe it's perfectly acceptable to have relations with young boys. In closing, I'm including two links, to further define marriage, bot legally and Biblically. Accept it or not, get upset or not..."...But as for me and my house, we will serve the lord."
Josh 24:15

Here's two links, one, a legal link to Cornell:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Marriage

The other to Easton's Bible Dictionary:
http://studylight.org/dic/ebd/view.cgi?number=T2423

Answer 2

I think the non-marrying into family rule was primarily designed because of the babies born with defects - both mental and physical.

Recently in my state, the law against cousins marrying was challenged and broken. The belief being that there is enough distance that the genes will not be weakened.

I also read a couple years ago where a woman who had been adopted into a new family as a youngster grew up and married a man who looked almost like herself. When questions were put to the couple, it became apparent they were father and daughter......

They were hounded by news people and eventually required to be tested.........They were given the opportunity and chose to not view the test results, but to continue the marriage without having children.

So, it's not so much about morals as about genetic disposition of future generations. Only society has forgotten what started the ban and turned it into a moral dilemma, as they do with almost everything.

Personally, I think it's nice to marry a stranger and have the pleasure of learning outside your own realm of experience.

Now, when you talk about a 10 year old child marrying, it is a moral issue since a 10 year old cannot make a responsible decision and will acquience to the will of an elder.

As far as homosexuals of age to marry.......why shouldn't they? That is not societies moral issue. It is up to the individuals as adults to follow their own spirit.

IMHO

Answer 3

To come up with a thought like this shows how sick and preverted you are. Only a person with a perverse mind would even think to ask such a question. There are reasons why the idea of a relative marrying a relative is considered immoral. Their are genetic reasons and only a child molester would pose the question about an ADULT being with a CHILD. This is so ridiculous why traumize a child with things that are beyond their comprehension and things that their bodies are not mature enough to handle. I am glad that their are laws out there to prevent preverts like you from doing such acts.

Answer 4

You're obviously stating your position against gay marriage. Keep in mind that same-sex marriage is very different from incestual, pedophilic, and bestial marriages and relationships. The latter 3 exist in both same sex and different-sex categories and have been demonstrated to be damaging to the human species (psychologically and otherwise). Therefore, all 3 of those relationships are illegal, based upon real data. Same-sex relationships are not illegal because the data (scientific, psychological, natural law) shows it to be the same as different-sex relationships for the human species. Given that same-sex relationships are not illegal (again, because they are not psychologically harmful to the species), they don't fall into the same categories of the other 3 and, therefore, there's no reason not to have a societal mechanism equal to different sex marriage. Note that if you doubt this, one can also arbitrarily re-arrange your question to make the same argument against different sex marriage; by basing arguments on demagoguery and bias, one doesn't get very far.

Answer 5

yes there definately should be but at the present time genetic science is not advanced well enough to allow reproduction by geneticly related people. also vd is still a real threat, as well as having unwanted children, jelousy and any number of other things our society will not tolerate. i wonder if sutch genetic advances would be a blessing or a curse. adolph hitler tried to breed a "master race" i don,t know very mutch about that expierment, but i,ve heard that he failed miserably. or perhaps if he had had enough time(hundreds of years) it might have worked. i just don,t know. this is a difficult question. i do know that inbreeding has produced the best livestock in the world today, but a lot of young are killed at birth. we just can,t do that with babies

Answer 6

Incest is taboo because it has real world consequences (greater probability of genetic disorders in any offspring). Sex with children is taboo because children are regarded as being incapable of informed consent to sexual relationships. So far as I'm aware there is no such practical or moral problem with same sex marriage (which is undoubtedly what you're alluding to), so why is it anyone's business other than the consenting adults involved? The only reason people object to it is personal distaste, and that is not a good enough reason to rob someone of their chance of happiness, in my view.

Since homosexuality is morally neutral, same sex marriage must be too, and it can't therefore form the basis of any kind of 'slippery slope' argument about morality.

Answer 7

My philosophy is that as long as everyone who is involved is an adult, is consenting, and no one (including future children who would be inbred if their parents were related) is harmed, people should generally be aloud to do whatever they want. What you describe is a slippery slope and is a logical fallacy, my friend.

Answer 8

No, it should be man and girl with no relations by family. That's it, that's all.

Brother and sister would mean incest, which leads to diseases. And gay marriages is just GAY.

Only exception to the rule is HOT lesbian marriage. And I stress the work HOT.

Answer 9

who cares, people are going to do what they want to behind closed doors anyway. whatever can be done somebody is doing it right now somewhere, no matter how insane it may be they are doing it now. those that do do and those that dont dont

Answer 10

Marriage is obsolete.