Org Mobile Site
You orgahs may have seen this already, but I haven't been around for a while so I wouldn't know. The irony of this little tidbit tickles me pink, as one of the main arguments the "gays shouldn't marry" crowd has been using is that it's the slippery slope to incest, bestiality, and all other little bits of nastyness. They'd prolly blame global warming on gay marriage, except they don't believe in global warming.
Most of the states that alloq gay marriage also allow cousin-marriage.
None of the states that allow gay marriage were trying to ban other types of marriage on the grounds that the sanctity of marriage would be violated and using the argument that it would lead to other aberrations such as incest. So I don't see that there was much of a point to your observation.
Interesting.
Though there's some states that allow civil unions but not gay marriage.
CR
Though there's some states that allow civil unions but not gay marriage.
CR
Originally Posted by :
None of the states that allow gay marriage were trying to ban other types of marriage on the grounds that the sactity of marriage would be violated and using the argument that it would lead to other aberrations such as incest.
Can't say I've ever heard that one, so...None of the states that allow gay marriage were trying to ban other types of marriage on the grounds that the sactity of marriage would be violated and using the argument that it would lead to other aberrations such as incest.
Considering that the anti-gay movement is largely religious in nature, I think this seemingly apparent logical dissonance can be traced to the Bible. Quite frankly, the characters described in the Old Testament lived like trailer trash. All sorts of sordid, entangled incestuous relationships are played out in its many pages. It reads like a transcript from Jerry Springer at times. And as we all know, trash will intermarry to keep it in the family, but they don't take kindly to no man on man love. It just ain't right.
Wait, marrying your first cousin is NOT allowed in West Virginia? 
The difference is that this is a list of "want to" not "have to".
Well, my prospects just opened up
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
Considering that the anti-gay movement is largely religious in nature, I think this seemingly apparent logical dissonance can be traced to the Bible.
Reminds me of this:Considering that the anti-gay movement is largely religious in nature, I think this seemingly apparent logical dissonance can be traced to the Bible.
So where is Utah on that map?
Yep, legal in the UK.
Not legal for Roman Catholics, something to think about.
Not legal for Roman Catholics, something to think about.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Yep, legal in the UK.
Not legal for Roman Catholics, something to think about.
I don't follow you. Do you mean its legal to marry your cousin in the UK, or to marry a gay partner? Do you mean its not legal for Roman Catholics to get married in the UK? Surely that can't be true.Yep, legal in the UK.
Not legal for Roman Catholics, something to think about.
Legal here as well, though I'm not too sure since I don't really understand genealogy, its terms and mostly its idiom.
The law here defines a marriage as being agreed to between “two partners of different or equal gender”, and restricts marriage (among other restrictions) to people who are by birth or by law (adoption) family in the same line (by parentage) or siblings. You can apply for exemption to that restriction in case of adoption which would be decided on by a civil court. Additionally you have the restriction that you can be married to only one person at a time, and that you cannot marry whilst being married. It is also illegal to enter into a religious marriage* before entering into a civil marriage with the same person or to enter into a religious marriage* without entering into a civil one.
EDIT: There's a caveat with the religious marriage thing though: it's only a religious marriage if conducted by a member of clergy, as that law was specifically written with the institutionalised clergy in mind. So some of the more ad-hoc marriage practices from, say, Iran would not fall foul of the law.
The law here defines a marriage as being agreed to between “two partners of different or equal gender”, and restricts marriage (among other restrictions) to people who are by birth or by law (adoption) family in the same line (by parentage) or siblings. You can apply for exemption to that restriction in case of adoption which would be decided on by a civil court. Additionally you have the restriction that you can be married to only one person at a time, and that you cannot marry whilst being married. It is also illegal to enter into a religious marriage* before entering into a civil marriage with the same person or to enter into a religious marriage* without entering into a civil one.
EDIT: There's a caveat with the religious marriage thing though: it's only a religious marriage if conducted by a member of clergy, as that law was specifically written with the institutionalised clergy in mind. So some of the more ad-hoc marriage practices from, say, Iran would not fall foul of the law.
Originally Posted by Brandy Blue:
Do you mean its not legal for Roman Catholics to get married in the UK? Surely that can't be true.
Do you mean its not legal for Roman Catholics to get married in the UK? Surely that can't be true.
That is actually a very amusing take on PVC's comment.Yes, marrying your first cousin is legal in the UK, so is 'gay marriage'/civil union. But the whole idea of marrying your cousin is absurdly taboo that such an occurrence would never actually happen on any real scale.
Interesting that the Catholic Church forbids it though, I never knew that. I never knew there was much opposition towards it, especially where Royalty is concerned, those were some close cousin connections.
Originally Posted by :
close cousin connections 4
Now you've got a proper porno title! close cousin connections 4
Originally Posted by Beskar:
Interesting that the Catholic Church forbids it though, I never knew that. I never knew there was much opposition towards it, especially where Royalty is concerned, those were some close cousin connections.
The modern position of the Churches is greatly watered down from the medieval one, where as late as the thirteenth century consanguinity was restricted to the eighth degree, which is something like the fourth generation, prior to that it was the twelth degree. Suffice to say, if you knew you were related the Church forbade marriage, magnates and monarchs got around this only with Papal dispensation, and such dispensations were often flawed - which resulted in annulled marriages and bastard children.Interesting that the Catholic Church forbids it though, I never knew that. I never knew there was much opposition towards it, especially where Royalty is concerned, those were some close cousin connections.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
The modern position of the Churches is greatly watered down from the medieval one, where as late as the thirteenth century consanguinity was restricted to the eighth degree, which is something like the fourth generation, prior to that it was the twelth degree. Suffice to say, if you knew you were related the Church forbade marriage, magnates and monarchs got around this only with Papal dispensation, and such dispensations were often flawed - which resulted in annulled marriages and bastard children.
Oops, I beg pardon, that is the 4th and 7th degrees.The modern position of the Churches is greatly watered down from the medieval one, where as late as the thirteenth century consanguinity was restricted to the eighth degree, which is something like the fourth generation, prior to that it was the twelth degree. Suffice to say, if you knew you were related the Church forbade marriage, magnates and monarchs got around this only with Papal dispensation, and such dispensations were often flawed - which resulted in annulled marriages and bastard children.
Linky: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~medieval/consang.htm
In any case, lets take a moment to think about how civilised our ancestors were compared to us.
There was the very ancient "Stealing of a Wife" from other villages too, in order to have 'new blood' in the system.
I believe that everyone from Iceland is actually related to everyone else (those living there for a few generations). There was this article I read when a boyfriend joked to his girlfriend about it (both from Iceland) so they did some research and found out they are 3rd cousins.
I believe that everyone from Iceland is actually related to everyone else (those living there for a few generations). There was this article I read when a boyfriend joked to his girlfriend about it (both from Iceland) so they did some research and found out they are 3rd cousins.
Since I stumbled upon an article about this recently and can read it on the net (in Swedish) I do have some info on this.
Genetical damage on the children is compareable to having children at 40+ for 1 generation (as in your ancestors didn't do it as well). Becomes worse the longer the trend continues.
Legal here since 1845, was common in desolated regions in nothern Sweden (record areas were about 10%, more normal for such regions were about 3%). Was much less common in most of the country. Those regions are suffering from genetical diseases as well, by some mysterious reason.
Very commonly used to consolidate the land ownership.
Extremely uncommon today. About one in 10.000 of the marriages.
Genetical damage on the children is compareable to having children at 40+ for 1 generation (as in your ancestors didn't do it as well). Becomes worse the longer the trend continues.
Legal here since 1845, was common in desolated regions in nothern Sweden (record areas were about 10%, more normal for such regions were about 3%). Was much less common in most of the country. Those regions are suffering from genetical diseases as well, by some mysterious reason.
Very commonly used to consolidate the land ownership.
Extremely uncommon today. About one in 10.000 of the marriages.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
I believe that everyone from Iceland is actually related to everyone else (those living there for a few generations). There was this article I read when a boyfriend joked to his girlfriend about it (both from Iceland) so they did some research and found out they are 3rd cousins.
But Iceland is something of a unique case in that regard. As native Icelanders have no family names, only Patronyms. So due to this social quirk before a marriage license can be issued to a couple they have to do a genealogical study to make sure they aren't 1st or 2nd cousins.I believe that everyone from Iceland is actually related to everyone else (those living there for a few generations). There was this article I read when a boyfriend joked to his girlfriend about it (both from Iceland) so they did some research and found out they are 3rd cousins.
Originally Posted by lars573:
But Iceland is something of a unique case in that regard. As native Icelanders have no family names, only Patronyms. So due to this social quirk before a marriage license can be issued to a couple they have to do a genealogical study to make sure they aren't 1st or 2nd cousins.
I think they can and do have family names as well, they simply aren't required to have them by law. Certainly, my ancestors were (mostly) "Wallinder" before 1902 when the law was changed in Sweden.But Iceland is something of a unique case in that regard. As native Icelanders have no family names, only Patronyms. So due to this social quirk before a marriage license can be issued to a couple they have to do a genealogical study to make sure they aren't 1st or 2nd cousins.
Although, they were also all called "John".
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO