Quote:
Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
Sorry, but nope.
Remember that marriage is not just intended to create a family bond (and certainly not just any old family bond - we wouldn't say to a gay couple, "Can't marry? Never mind, why don't you try and adopt one another?"). You are forgetting your own words (which I labelled Premise 9):
|
No no. Wait a moment. I have obviously not made myself clear.
Try thinking of it as Marriage as a institution which confers ties on two people who do not otherwise have those entitlements. In that specific definition, familial marriages are invalid because the basic requirement of two people being independent from one another is not fulfilled.
Quote:
|
EDIT:> And as for "Incest is illegal, homosexuality is not" that is a cop out. Because (i) the laws on this vary between regions and besides, we are trying to go beyond laws here so we can decide what should be and not what is, (ii) the laws on a borther and sister not having sex seems to stem from the exact same (biblical/conservative?) tradition that has made homosexual sex illegal for so long - to have archaic laws as both the target of your argument and its support seems a little problematic.
|
You see, its not a valid example if you exclude the genetic issue.
(you cheater :P)
It's the source of the taboo, you see. Ignore the Bible, which is arguably irrelevent (the Romans also had laws on incest. Much of Western Legal and Social morays are from this civilisation also).
But in any case, I disagree. The point is that we are recognising the legitimacy of a legal relationship, or we are recognising the legitimacy of an illegal union.
You have to separate the issues, otherwise the argument is too muddled to make any progress.
Should a state acknowledge marriage of an illegal union (including homosexual ones where that is illegal)? Obviously not.
But on the other hand, if you wish to debate the morality of homosexuality or (insert sexual practice of choice) then that is a separate issue, and furthermore, should a state recognise the union of legitimate relationships? Well, I think so.