[Gay] Gay News from Around the Gay World That is Gay

[Eddie Teach]

However, if taboo is rejected as a rationale for prohibition in one case, it makes it hard to argue for it's maintenance in another.

I'm not sure how much is that taboo has been rejected as a rationale and how much is that that particular taboo has been eroded. 

[Admiral Yi]

Do you feel like trying again in English? 

[Eddie Teach]

People are still fine with banning things that are taboo; homosexuality isn't nearly as taboo as it was 50 years ago.

[Admiral Yi]

People are still fine with banning things that are taboo; homosexuality isn't nearly as taboo as it was 50 years ago.

The only taboo I can think of that people are fine with is the one I touched on: consumption of charismatic fauna. 

I think the fact that homosexuality has been un-tabooed reinforces my point.

[Maximus]

I think Yi and Barrister have a point.  If the Marriage is now between two consenting adults, why must it only be two?  Why not three?  Why can't those people be family members?

Indeed, why not?

[Martinus]

I have always thought that incest between consenting adults is going to be the next one to go. Unless you want to engage in eugenics, there is really no rationale for banning it that is not already caught by laws against coercive sex. And of course the eugenics argument is irrelevant for homosexual incest.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, a ban against homosexual incestuous marriage could be easily challenged. If you have a brother marrying a sister, the society could argue that this should be prohibited because of the risk of producing genetically defective offspring (as I said this is too eugenic-y for a liberal society, imo, but still the argument at least has some basis in reality).

But what if you have two brothers wanting to marry each other? Assuming they are sound of mind, and there is no element of coercion, how is this going to be addressed? I can see such ban not standing in court, to be honest.

[jimmy olsen]

The issue of consent among family members is a signifcant issue. There will be exceptions were both individuals have equal agency, but in the great majority of such relationships there will be significant power discrepency and laws are written with the majority of relationships in mind.

[The Brain]

The issue of consent among family members is a signifcant issue. There will be exceptions were both individuals have equal agency, but in the great majority of such relationships there will be significant power discrepency and laws are written with the majority of relationships in mind.

What significant power discrepancy?

[Brazen]

Incidentally, a ban against homosexual incestuous marriage could be easily challenged. If you have a brother marrying a sister, the society could argue that this should be prohibited because of the risk of producing genetically defective offspring (as I said this is too eugenic-y for a liberal society, imo, but still the argument at least has some basis in reality).

But what if you have two brothers wanting to marry each other? Assuming they are sound of mind, and there is no element of coercion, how is this going to be addressed? I can see such ban not standing in court, to be honest.

I know it's not what you're talking about, but there have been examples of gay couples where one officially adopted the other to get the same inheritance rights as married couple, then they went on to marry each other when the law changed, effectively a son marrying is father.

[Valmy]

But what if you have two brothers wanting to marry each other? Assuming they are sound of mind, and there is no element of coercion, how is this going to be addressed? I can see such ban not standing in court, to be honest.

First of all there is no practical reason for them to get married. They are already close family members and so the annoyances non-related gay couples had are non-issues. Secondly how would you prove there are no elements of coercion?

So what would be the social value of allowing this?

[Martinus]

Secondly how would you prove there are no elements of coercion?

Burden of proof is on the one asserting a positive (in this case, existence of coercion), not the one denying it. You cannot prove the negative.

So what would be the social value of allowing this?

Same as with the above, in a free society, the burden should be on the party willing to ban some practice between consenting adults - not the one willing to allow it. The social value is, obviously, letting adults decide who they wish to be married to and thus achieving greater happiness for the parties involved.

[Martinus]

The issue of consent among family members is a signifcant issue. There will be exceptions were both individuals have equal agency, but in the great majority of such relationships there will be significant power discrepency and laws are written with the majority of relationships in mind.

Do you have any evidence for this assertion or is it just your belief? And surely we should assume free agency between consenting adults, unless proven otherwise.

[Admiral Yi]

Most of the antis seem to be thinking of father/daughter.

[Martinus]

Most of the antis seem to be thinking of father/daughter.

Yeah but my example was specifically referring to two brothers. There is really no argument against such sex being illegal (unless one proves there is coercion, but then the same goes for two unrelated men fucking).