Why should the right to marry be restricted?

[Mr Skeptic]

In light of all the people complaining that the right of same sex couples to marry is restricted, what do you all have to say about the other restrictions on who people marry? And why don't the same or similar reasons apply to gay marriage?

 

Why should polygamy be banned? Why does the state have the right to prevent people from marrying based only on the fact that they are already married to someone? Note also that there is a lot of tradition allowing polygamy.

 

Why should marriage between close relatives be banned? If the only reason is to prevent inbreeding, should marriage between close relatives be allowed so long as they don't have children by each other? Note also that this was not only allowed, but encouraged between royalty.

 

Why should marriage or even sex with an animal be banned?

 

If there are other restrictions on marriage (other than gay marriage), why should there be those restrictions?

[Sayonara]

I suppose an obvious answer to the polygamy question would be that the state grants marriage licences in part to validate tax benefits. If a person could take as many married partners as they wished then you might end up with entire villages taking the piss.

[john5746]

Ah, you beat me to it. I was going to start a similar thread, but was going to restrict only to a man and woman.

 

Why can't a Father/Daughter be married if they are not going to have sex, ie. just partnership. Of course, if they live together and say the daughter has kids, I think they might be better off if the Father files as head of household - but other legal situations, such as rights to kids might be an issue.

[Sisyphus]

It shouldn't be restricted at all. Government should have nothing to do with marriage. Instead, you could have a "designated beneficiary" or some such, to be granted all (or at least most) rights currently awarded legally married spouses. You could restrict it to one person to prevent abuse.

[jackson33]

Suppose this is some form of reverse psychology to argument supporting 'same sex' marriage. Factually there are again NO LAWS, forbidding much of that you suggest. People can live in communes of any number or make up...one man ten women, one woman ten men or any configuration, so long as other law is not broken. Some society still allows inter marriage with in the family and doubt any county clerk has ever asked a couple if they are cousins, sisters or whatever. As for bestiality, unless you harm an animal its legal every where and in most place there is no law if some harm is perceived. Take sex out of the question and millions of couples already live together, for a variety of reason and in Elderly Homes hundreds mingle daily in friendships, dare guessing some going sexual.

 

If anything maybe grant/benefit laws or eligibility should be singular in total, or at least under common law where proving partnerships can establish a required minimal time line, the benefit then granted. Until then restrictions are to protect the majority from what others would no doubt do, to gain some tax write off or get placed on the Company Group Insurance Policy or the hundreds of legal implications granted traditional couples.

I could get cynical and suggest many women marry today, have a kid or two taking advantage of the legal marriage system, get divorced, go on welfare and collect child support, alimony or all three...

[Pangloss]

When you all have demonstrated here that you can explore this subject in a reasonable and insightful manner then you can have this thread back.