Gay Marriage

[Occam's Banana]

I agree. Inbreeding is not a victimless crime because innocent children can be born with birth defects from the consummation of incestuous relationships. Don't see the laws on that one changing any time soon.

I would disagree with claim that (consensual) incest is "not a victimless crime (because any offspring might be born with birth defects)." If that is the case, then consensual sex between unrelated males & females who carry the gene(s) for, say, cystic fibrosis should also be deemed "not a victimless crime."

Nobexliberty is also correct in pointing out that without the purported "crime" the "victim" would not even exist in the first place.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

You win the internet.

What this is really about, is that government provides the most simple and easy legal framework possible for so many legal questions. How hard and expensive is it to create wills, and various legal permissions and powers, versus the simple and easy process of getting married? The government has under-priced and simplified a vast array of legal services, and wrapped that in "marriage". Why pay a lawyer to create a will when you can go to a marriage Chapel and have an Elvis impersonator provide an even better legal service for $40, in ten minutes, while you're drunk?

If marriage as a government institution were abolished, I'm fairly certain that market services would arise for packaged wills, property ownership, and related services. The insurance/legal services market as it exists now would not be the same one that exists post-government involvement.

 

[WhistlinDave]

I would disagree with claim that (consensual) incest is "not a victimless crime (because any offspring might be born with birth defects)." If that is the case, then consensual sex between unrelated males & females who carry the gene(s) for, say, cystic fibrosis should also be deemed "not a victimless crime."

Nobexliberty is also correct in pointing out that without the purported "crime" the "victim" would not even exist in the first place.

That's a really good point. I just said in another post above, I really don't know what the right answer is on this. Obviously if two siblings want to marry, who am I to tell them not to? If they do have kids, it's even possible they could turn out fine. (I don't know the odds on that.) So I think I see where that reasoning isn't right.

Still though, I don't see the laws on that one changing any time soon, regardless of letting gays get married.

 

[Acala]

Is there anyone on the list who wants to have sex with his mother/father/sister/brother/son/daughter and is only refraining from doing so because it is against the law? Right. I thought not. The "problem" is vanishingly small and to the extent it exists at all, it is not prevented by the laws that prohibit it. Government intervention not justified. Next?

 

[Schifference]

It is always about the children. What about 2 brothers or sisters that really just love each other? No chance of ever having children.

 

[BamaAla]

Precedent is there, test case...