I don't understand your response to Faith. Faith is setting out common ideas of what is allowed and not allowed for marriage and your response does not undercut her argument at all...
{regarding children}Because they cannot give legal consent to anything, although for the vast majority of the history of marriage, men marrying very young girls (and often more than one) was quite common, and it even appears in the Bible.
Actually kids can get married, even in the US. It all depends on the state and what you define as a kid. 13 and 14 still count as a kid to me and I suspect it would to you too. The only difference is that they need the consent of parents.
In any case, how is throwing around Biblical concepts of marriage relevant? Clearly Faith is suggesting these things are not right or allowed now. You might show that she has rejected an original Xian concept/practice of marriage for a modern Xian one, but that doesn't change anything with regard to her argument.
Ironically marrying (and having sex with) kids was acceptable way back when long term open homosexuality was an acceptable practice (even though there were no marriages). Both became denounced and eventually banned by Xians, if not earlier then later under Xian Progressive reasoning (which added child relationships/sexuality to the same banned list as homosexuality). Feminist doctrine which has advanced restrictions on child sexuality and marriage into the public arena is based on the Xian Progressiive reasoning regarding sex and relationships.
How do you consistently argue for the continued repression of one practice, and yet the acceptance of another practice when such a position involves rejecting one portion of "modern" belief and not another? Or perhaps more accurately, how can you suggest Faith is wrong for picking and choosing when you are doing the same thing?
{on close relations}because it results in genetic problems with offspring.
Again, you have taken a rather dubious pick and choose position. How does getting married to a close relation result in offspring, much less genetic problems in offspring? The point is they are not allowed to marry at all and not even adopt (like gays).
It doesn't take marriage to result in two closely related people having kids (they can just have sex), and getting married does not mean a couple can or will have kids. Thus the ban on close relations getting married has NOTHING to do with preventing potential for children being born with genetic problems. What it does do is prevent children who might be born to such parents getting legal and social coverage/validation available to other kids (even sickly kids with genetic problems which HAPPENS to nonincestuous couples), as well as couples never intending or capable of having kids getting legal/social credit like other couples.
It is wholly a moral legal proscription based on the same animous proscribing homosexual relationships (indeed such regs came before knowledge of genetics) and your inability to see or admit this is confusing.
This is not to mention your statement is inaccurate. Inbreeding is not necessarily going to result in genetic problems. Recent studies have shown the rates of this are less than people have assumed, and it is known that such breeding can result in some positive benefits in offspring by strengthening positive characteristics. You should know this from horse breeding?
{on animals}They also cannot consent to a legal contract.
Not to try to compare humans with animals but you've used a statement to cover both kids and animals, and it should be noted the same state holds for the mentally handicapped. Is it your position that the mentally impaired should not be allowed to marry because they cannot give direct legal consent?
I cannot see how two consenting adults who's offspring are not likely to have inbred problems should be denied a civil union just because of your personal and religious prejudice.
You are simply picking and choosing based on your own personal beliefs. They can certainly argue that statistically such behaviors are related to greater health and psychological problems and so pose a risk for society and also to any children they might adopt, than is seen in hetero relationships. Thus their concern has a different focus, but could be just as valid.
It is also possible to show that homosexuals have a greater incidence of rape or molestation than heteros, and the damage of such acts having greater impact on children than hetero equivalents, and since most molestations happen with the family it is better to keep kids out of such environments.
All of this is certainly more clear cut than what you have just presented for kids getting married or incestuous couples. It might even be noted that if gay marriage was allowed, gay incestuous couples would be remain blocked (where is the genetic harm in that?).
Can you provide a better reason than "I don't think they should"?
How about you lead by example? One day I'm going to be shocked when someone arguing for gay rights realizes the only logical and evidentiarily consistent position is to fight for all sexual and relational minorities, including ones they might not like based on their own personal feelings.
holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
™ Version 4.2
