> For the sake of argument, if you want to marry your sibling, and your sibling consents, are we to judge that? Aren't we holding a double standard if our religious or moral standards are opposed to that?
Most of the US puts a value judgement on incestual relationships and I can't say I agree with them, but I do believe there is an argument to be made against incestual marriage: because of the genetic risks to offsprings and the historical tendency to abuse, it is not in the state's interest to promote or encourage incestual relationships through marriage, the social advantages don't compensate for the issues.
> Or are you saying the government should still deny those marriages?
For the reasons above, yes I would say that. But I'm open to the idea that it's only a rationalisation of separately-held beliefs.
I think it's such a rare incident that the state not be concerned about sibling marriages, or whoever wants to get married at all, so long as they are capable of forming a marriage contract (of age, human/entity/Delaware C corporation, just kidding sorta, sound mind, without duress). But the true keyword is whether or not it's in the "state's interest"--and that reminds me of China.
Interestingly, Americans love pure-bred dogs despite the genetic problems these pets have.
> But the true keyword is whether or not it's in the "state's interest"--and that reminds me of China.
Why so? That's pretty much what the state does, it provides advantages for situations it wants to see happen more (tax breaks for instance, dispensations or fast tracks, direct monetary grants) and disadvantages for those it doesn't (fines and privation of liberty, mostly). Would you find replacing "the state" by "society" more palatable?
Then by what you wrote, gay marriage shouldn't be palatable to the state or society, since same-sex marriages usually do not result in natural children with today's technology. So we shouldn't provide any advantages to gay marriages by your argument.
What about "traditional" opposite-sex marriages where children are not produced within the optimal reproductive age window? Should we take away their "advantages"?
> Then by what you wrote, gay marriage shouldn't be palatable to the state or society, since same-sex marriages usually do not result in natural children with today's technology.
Why do you believe creating children is the only social value of marriage? If it figures there at all, it's very low on the totem pole, after all society could simply subsidise rape if that were the point.
> Why so? That's pretty much what the state does, it provides advantages for situations it wants to see happen more (tax breaks for instance, dispensations or fast tracks, direct monetary grants) and disadvantages for those it doesn't (fines and privation of liberty, mostly). Would you find replacing "the state" by "society" more palatable?
The problem isn't encouraging natural children, it's discouraging the birth of crippled children that has a high likelihood of occurring between closely-related family members producing children together.
Said crippled children are often a drain on society. It's not the children's fault of course, but it's still the case.
Most of the US puts a value judgement on incestual relationships and I can't say I agree with them, but I do believe there is an argument to be made against incestual marriage: because of the genetic risks to offsprings and the historical tendency to abuse, it is not in the state's interest to promote or encourage incestual relationships through marriage, the social advantages don't compensate for the issues.
> Or are you saying the government should still deny those marriages?
For the reasons above, yes I would say that. But I'm open to the idea that it's only a rationalisation of separately-held beliefs.