My point is that the "close family members" prohibition is a lazy way to get at the real problem, which is adult/child influences that may or may not be familial.

 

It's not lazy. It's effective.

 

If there's 10 gang members in a house and another 10 gang members scattered in unknown houses throughout the city, then having the police raid that particular house is smart. Raiding every house in the city is not practical.

 

My personal opinion is that marriage should be eliminated. Allow consenting adults to "consumate" whatever relationships they want through legal paperwork.

 

Why only consenting adults? That's a restriction (two, actually), and if the state can have that restriction, it can have every restriction, right?

It's not lazy. It's effective.

 

If there's 10 gang members in a house and another 10 gang members scattered in unknown houses throughout the city, then having the police raid that particular house is smart. Raiding every house in the city is not practical.

 

 

 

Why only consenting adults? That's a restriction (two, actually), and if the state can have that restriction, it can have every restriction, right?

 

The gang analogy fails. You're talking about a police response to crimes that have already happened, as opposed to a blanket denial of rights based on a criteria.

 

As for consenting adults, being consenting and being adult are the basis for all legal transactions. It's more of a necessity of functioning rather than a value judgment.

The gang analogy fails. You're talking about a police response to crimes that have already happened, as opposed to a blanket denial of rights based on a criteria.

 

The analogy is fine. The point is you can single out an area for focus even if it doesn't knock out every instance of a problem.

 

As for consenting adults, being consenting and being adult are the basis for all legal transactions. It's more of a necessity of functioning rather than a value judgment.

 

And prohibiting close incestuous marriages recognizes that necessity and seeks to maintain it.

The analogy is fine. The point is you can single out an area for focus even if it doesn't knock out every instance of a problem.

 

 

 

And prohibiting close incestuous marriages recognizes that necessity and seeks to maintain it.

 

Incestuous does not automatically mean non-consenting.

 

Incestuous does not automatically mean non-consenting.

 

And some 14-year olds have 10 times the maturity and sense of some 18-year olds. We still allow the latter to do things the former can't.

 

You have to draw lines somewhere, and try to do so in the places where you feel the most good is done.

And some 14-year olds have 10 times the maturity and sense of some 18-year olds. We still allow the latter to do things the former can't.

 

You have to draw lines somewhere, and try to do so in the places where you feel the most good is done.

 

A 14 year old can file a legal petition to be emancipated and have his/her case heard by a judge, so individual cases are allowed to be considered rather than making a blanket prohibition that has no flexibility.

A 14 year old can file a legal petition to be emancipated and have his/her case heard by a judge, so individual cases are allowed to be considered rather than making a blanket prohibition that has no flexibility.

 

You can always advocate flexibility within the anti-incest laws if you'd like. Perhaps they can file a similar petition.

You can always advocate flexibility within the anti-incest laws if you'd like. Perhaps they can file a similar petition.

 

Or maybe everybody should have to file a petition and have a judge determine that they are fit for marriage. Maybe that cuts down on the divorce rate.

Or maybe everybody should have to file a petition and have a judge determine that they are fit for marriage. Maybe that cuts down on the divorce rate.

 

It would cut down the divorce rate only because it cut down on the marriage rate.

It would cut down the divorce rate only because it cut down on the marriage rate.

 

It's a consistently-applied regulation and it cuts down on divorces. Sounds like a win-win.

It's a consistently-applied regulation and it cuts down on divorces. Sounds like a win-win.

 

Wouldn't it need very specific criteria to be consistently applied? It certainly can't be only on a judge's whim. You'll have some judges who give a pass to everyone and others who are super strict.

Wouldn't it need very specific criteria to be consistently applied? It certainly can't be only on a judge's whim. You'll have some judges who give a pass to everyone and others who are super strict.

 

Yes, like everything else in the legal system judges need criteria that can be consistently applied, and there needs to be an appeals process when judges seem to vary too far outside the lines.

There are plenty of non-traditional households where children are interacting with lots of people who aren't parents or siblings.

 

I support consistency. Either states have the rights to make restrictions or they don't.

 

States have the powers (people have rights, not states) to make restrictions up to the point that they run afoul of peoples' constitutionally protected rights. States have the power to restrict drinking alcohol to people aged 21 or older. They do not have the power to restrict drinking alcohol to only Hispanic females because it runs afoul of the Equal Protection Clause and the state has no arguable reason for doing it (I'd say "rational basis" again but I think the standard a clear race-based policy is strict scrunity; IANAL and only know the basic concepts of these standards of judicial review).

 

There is nothing inconsistent with saying that a state does not have the power to restrict certain citizens' rights with no rational basis but that it does have the power to restrict rights in other cases that meet some sort of rationale standard.

My point is that the "close family members" prohibition is a lazy way to get at the real problem, which is adult/child influences that may or may not be familial.

 

My personal opinion is that marriage should be eliminated. Allow consenting adults to "consumate" whatever relationships they want through legal paperwork.

 

I don't see why would should scrape the idea of civil marriage just because gay people can get married as well. Or is my marriage doomed now that my brother is engaged?

A 14 year old can file a legal petition to be emancipated and have his/her case heard by a judge, so individual cases are allowed to be considered rather than making a blanket prohibition that has no flexibility.

I could be wrong but I don't think a 14 year old can emancipate themselves around age of consent laws. The possible exception would be states that allow marriage that young with parental consent but we're talking pretty extreme edge cases here.

I don't see why would should scrape the idea of civil marriage just because gay people can get married as well. Or is my marriage doomed now that my brother is engaged?

 

We should have scrapped the idea of civil marriage a long time ago. The gay marriage debate simply serves as an impetus to bring the issue to the forefront.

We should have scrapped the idea of civil marriage a long time ago. The gay marriage debate simply serves as an impetus to bring the issue to the forefront.

 

Weird that marriage equality brings this argument to the forefront for so many when they didn't seem to care much about it before.

Weird that marriage equality brings this argument to the forefront for so many when they didn't seem to care much about it before.

 

I don't think this argument has been brought to the forefront for "so many". I see very, very few others suggesting that we entirely do away with civil marriage. I think that marriage equality making the headlines that it has provided the platform for people to reach an audience that wouldn't have listened previously.

Civil marriage makes sense from a paperwork standpoint. Probably saves some legal fees (or creates haha).

 

As for polygamy, I dont really care. Only issue is you just have to create fractional spousal share for things, but that shouldnt be difficult. Also have both wifes/husbands sign in agreement, so that there is no future argument that they didnt understand.

 

As for brother-sister, I think that there is some science behind their children being more likely to suffer defects. But I guess when pressed about the issue I just dont care.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor loses in his primary.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor loses in his primary.

 

Seems funny/good until you realize who he lost to and what the partisan breakdown of that district is like

Seems funny/good until you realize who he lost to and what the partisan breakdown of that district is like

 

I had this argument with a couple friends on FB last night. They are both left wing and very excited to be rid of Cantor. I noted that the guy that beat him is even farther right, and unlike the Mourdock/Lugar fiasco in Indiana, moving farther to the right is not going to cost the Republicans this election.

 

Cantor and Boehner are two of the main reasons that I ever got to go back to work. A few more people like Brat in the House, and the government shutdown might still be going.

Eh, Cantor was the one who kept egging the Tea Party on into "no surrender!" over a national default.

 

It's not like this seat is going to flip (D) now, it's more 1) f*** Eric Cantor and 2) it messes up the GOP leadership structure. Also, so much for all of those "the tea party is dead" articles written a month or so back after the last set of primaries.

Good, I hope every last incumbent loses their primary and/or the election to whoever they're facing, whether they be democrat or republican. Every last member of congress needs to be replaced, because it actually CANNOT get worse than it is now, so sticking with the status quo is the only stupid decision the people can make at this juncture.

Edited June 11, 201411 yr by Y2HH

One completely non-partisan aspect of that race that should make "get money out of politics" people happy is that Cantor lost despite outspending his opponent 20:1. Cantor's campaign spent more money just at steakhouse dinners than David Brat spent on his entire campaign.