Should the government be allowed to tell two people who are in love they can't be legally married?

Question

To any one that says no the government should not be allowed to say who should be legally marrierd, I also want to ask if they think 2 brothers or 2 sisters who are gay should be allowed to married. If not, why? Since they can't have kids and wouldn't be hurting anyone. Isn't it inconsistent to say the government can't say who can be legally marrierd and who can't but then say 2 brothers or 2 sisters can't marry each other. And why should the government be allowed to say polyigamy is wrong?

Answer 1

The government is business of encouraging certain behavior for the good of society.
The government decided that monogamous heterosexual relationship benefit society more then other relationship.
Thus the government provides incentive for it -- called marriage.
If two people love each other who do not fit the bill they can still live together, have sex, etc etc.
However why should the government encourage these relationship if they are less beneficial the others? It should not!
Thus the government has absolute power as to who can enter into a marriage.

Answer 2

I see marriage as a religious thing and that the government cannot interfere whether that they can marry or not. However, due to Republican Christians and other Christians with adequate political power, they make laws banning it. And it's not that 2 brothers or 2 sisters married won't hurt anyone, it's that it's out of the social norm and especially the Christian religion which is basically the "mainstream religion" of America. Incest was allowed way back when such as in royal families cause they were the ones in power and that was socially accepted/tolerated. And yeah I don't want to be repetitive but it's all about religion, in the case of polygamy, Christianity doesn't like it and thus the US politics, influenced by Christian people, bans it. That's why polygamy is allowed in the Muslim world, because Islam allows it. I believe that the government should not be allowed to control whether gays can get married because it's a religious thing and because there is supposedly a separation of church and state.

Answer 3

Great question. I do believe the government should stay out of marriage, the only prerequisites I see are two consenting adults who agree to get married. As for the incestuous couple, I would say any blood relative siblings should agree t not have children. This may be unpopular, but they could always adopt. And i completely disagree with the responder who says that gay relationships end with death. There are many gay couples raising children who Will carry on their legacies exactly as any hetero couple's child would. I think it is a crime and a sin that there are thousands of children who would die to be adopted into a loving family and the state governments deem homosexual couples as unfit. For all the talk religious conservatives have about family values, they think it would be better to have a child grow up with no parents, than 2 of the same sex who could offer all the love and support any hetero couple could. Sorry I strayed from the question a bit!

Answer 4

The law has it's roots in custom. The custom of man/woman marriage has been tested by time and common acceptance. Why should new law be put in place to serve only a very minuscule (last data I heard placed homosexual population at about 4%) percentage of the population. Homosexual coupling ends with the death of either partner. In a heterosexual relationship the results of their marriage (most importantly children) live well beyond the death of either couple.

You can bring in all the irrelevant side issues that you like but any real evaluation of gay marriage must take these issues into account.

By the way I am not against civil partnerships for gays, but trying to force society to accept their relationship under the guise of a socially acceptable label is just another way of trying to flout the customs of our culture.

Answer 5

I agree w/ the poster that said it's an ethical Q, and I'm not interested in such, since it's purely personal and situational. However, I would like to weigh in on your comment that brothers and sisters "can't have kids". Biologically, there is no reason two siblings can't produce offspring, nor that their offspring would necessarily be unhealthy.

Besides the moral/ethical questions, gov'ts have restrictions on sibling coupling because there is an increased RISK of passing on genetic problems to the offspring, in particular those problems carried as recessive genes. Two siblings mating would have a much higher risk of ea. sibling carrying such recessive genes than would two random individuals in a given population (this is also the reason for some states still requiring blood tests before issuing marriage licenses - they test the blood for recessive genetic probs).

So, go get your marital freak on.

Answer 6

Incest is a sickness not love. Our Government should not be involved with marriage except for the contract law of it. But laws against incest and polygamy should remain on the books. Incest does terrible harm to its victims. If a man wants more then 1 wife he should just live with them like Hef does.

Answer 7

incest is totally wrong its your brother or sis what ever you are in love w/ its wrong you are hurting someone when you do that THE REST OF US

Answer 8

the question goes to ethics sort of no they shouldn't but it's not against the law to do so.

Answer 9

no no no no no that is none of the government's business and it is not right.

Answer 10

no! they should mind there own biz