It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
GFY. It says nothing.
False equivalence. Two consenting adults of the same gender want to marry. That is not like incest. Especially when consent could seriously be questioned when it comes to father and daughter relationship.
Again, it's a reasonable question. I just think we're culturally not ready (and never will be imho) to accept such a practice, which most people everywhere consider unsavoury.
I admit that the same was said of homosexuality many years ago, but we have changed culturally (the world has and is changing on this issue). I don't think the US wants to be left behind on this or be seen as backward, like it was on slavery.
From a strictly legal point of view/interpretation, you may have a point though.
Where is the false equivalence, a man 55 and his daughter 25 are both adults under the law. Therefore, under the 14th amendment they should allow to marry.
Believe it or not, many are suggesting yesterday's gay marriage decision may very well expand gun rights in the US.
She would have been raised by her would be husband. Consent can be seriously doubted in this instance.
In both cases, something very important has to be taken into account when interpreting the Constitution: reality. When the constitution was written, it was ok to own slaves, nobody could have a private arsenal able to murder a dozen people in a matter of minutes, interracial relationships were considered against nature, etc. Now guns are bigger and more powerful, women have the right to vote and have the same jobs as men, Blacks are no longer slaves and can also vote and take whatever job they want, and homosexuals don't have to hide their sexual orientation, which is no longer illegal.
:)
Why can't people simple be happy for other people? Did gays abolish marriage for straight people?
Some people don't want to be happy about it because they don't want to pass as gay. Sorry for the terrible pun.
That is the silliest response I ever heard. Talking about gasping for straws.
Therefore you dodge it. Just like you dodge telling us what is wrong about homosexuality that would make disqualifies homosexuals for marriage.
Also, are you aware of the fact that there are some gay people who are against gay marriage? Take this guy for example: https://twitter.com/nero
NY State recently allowed a union between a half uncle & niece.
http://nypost.com/2014/10/29/new-york-state-blesses-incest-marriage-between-uncle-niece/
So the argument comes down to cultural/societal acceptance of such currently unusual activity (and we are some ways away from that) and/or genetic health arguments.
One cannot discount how important cultural acceptance is. I'm pretty sure that swayed the Supreme Court's hand in their decision yesterday. They wouldn't have decided in favour if the case was brought before them 10 years ago, for instance.
If the institution exists and as long as it exists it should be available to all.
@ bondjames- that she turns 18 would not change the fact that she was raised and educated by her would be husband. Again one can seriously doubt it is full, uncoerced consent.
good question. It's a bit of an exceptional case though.
I'm not sure what the rules are on this (I think it would fall under incest and therefore be currently disallowed) but constitutionally, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to stay married, as long as they consent/want to after having discovered their blood ties. Perhaps they should be asked to do it again to prove they want to after discovery of the link.
@Ludovico, I don't think it matters who raised her. There are other factors at play, including her financial independence etc. in determining if she is being coerced or not. Otherwise, one could say that every adult is being coerced by his/her parents into making decisions, especially if they continue to stay under the same roof. The law recognizes 18 as when one is no longer a minor as far as I know.
My answer would be yes. Why? Like Riggs' & Murtaugh's Captain said, I'm not gonna get a heart attack over this because I don't give a f**k. Go ahead, marry & be happy. As long as no one underage or mentally incapacitated gets hurt, go for it.
Who raised her matters a lot. You know a woman when she was not sexualised, from when she was only a baby and you want to marry her when she is at an age to be sexually active? And you had authority over her all these years, and taught her about sexuality from a young age. That becomes central to determine consent.
And not only for this hypothetical incestuous father. When René Angelil married Céline Dion, whom he had known and trained since she was ten or so, some questions were legitimately raised (but only vaguely answered by the couple): when did they start having feelings for each other, when did he get turned on by her, when did he first touched her sexually, etc.? Paedophilia is a criminal act and should remain so.
Off topic, I know, but this is because incest and homosexuality are two intrinsically different things.
I think Perdogg's point stands though. In terms of the Supreme Court's rationale yesterday for its decision, they are not two intrinsically different things -as the court's decision had to do with equality of rights.
I still disagree on the point about a daughter marrying a father after the age of consent. In some cultures, cousins marry, including historically in some kingdoms etc. They certainly knew each other before being sexually active, and in some cases there are large age gaps. Sometimes a father is not present, and someone else raises the child.....so I don't think it matters who raises the child. What matters is whether she is ready to make decisions for herself and is allowed to in law imho - and as long as is she is financially independent, emotionally independent, not acting under duress, and of sound mind, her decision should stand.
That's quite a different question from whether this should be allowed (which is primarily a cultural/societal and a genetic/health question - not a religious one imho since we have separation of church and state).
We were talking about a father marrying his daughter whom had been under his authority from a very young age and as a prepubescent. Can we agree that this is not the same situation as two unrelated adults wanting to marry? Yes it's not culturally accepted. Because it raises a number of questions regarding the nature of their relationship. Regardless of inbreeding.
Not on the exact same tangent but maybe it is, I find it ironic that some conservatives are condemning gays as an abomination while they were more than ready to defend Josh Duggar, who sexually abused his own sisters and other prepubescent children and whose parents did everything so he could escape justice. I'm against legitimizing or excusing any sort of sexual predatorism. But finally legitimizing love between same sex couples I'm all for it. And that's what the Supreme Court decision was about.
I completely agree. Ideally I'd rather have gay marriage legalized by vote like it was in the U.K. and Canada. Or by referendum like in Ireland. But I'm this instance the Court took the right decision and also the one the people demanded.
@Perdogg has a point that the rationale which the Supreme Court used to allow gay marriage applies to these situations as well. There's no arguing around that. He brought it up to suggest/argue that gay marriage is an abomination that should not be allowed. I don't agree with that, but I agree with his point that legally based on the constitutional rationale, there is no difference.
If a daughter and father, or brother and sister for that matter, are consenting adults, in love, and want to marry, then they should, based on the legal rationale the Supreme Court used to allow gay marriage. This is not automatically a case of sexual/emotional abuse etc.....that is a separate argument that must be made on a case by case basis. Once someone is an adult, the law says they can make their own decisions, whether those decisions are bad (from a religious/moral, societal or health point of view) for them or not.
The only argument that can be used against such behaviour, is that it is unhealthy and not culturally acceptable (interestingly, this was the argument used against homosexuality years ago).
I don't think there is an incestual argument against two sisters marrying, as long as artificial insemination from either of them to either of them for offspring is not allowed.
On the point about whether the Supreme Court should get involved to pass such decisions vs. Parliament or elected officials........I'm not sure whether I agree on the superiority of elected officials making judgments. The Court is supposed to rationally review an issue and pass judgments based on the legal merits in accordance with the Constitution. It is not supposed to be politically motivated, in theory. In fact, it unfortunately is. Regardless, I think I would prefer this more objective/legal basis for making changes of this magnitude over a bunch of politicians pandering to public opinion, which can change, be emotional, and be influenced by fear/political strategy (witness the Scotland secession vote).
On the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, as I said a few pages back, in my opinion this was a travesty, as it essentially injected more corporate money into US politics, and ensured that US democracy became more of a shambles (all but ensuring Bush vs. Clinton in 2016). However, the Court had a constitutional rationale for its decision. If the American populace does not agree with this decision (and in my opinion they shouldn't), then they should demand a constitutional amendment be passed to restrict it via a referendum imho.
And I still say you can't equivocate incest with homosexuality. Which is what Perdogg was doing. And this court decision was not about incest or man boy love or what have you.