If it's between consenting adults, it isn't abuse. Sure, there could be abusive situations, but this is the case in ANY relationship, and therefore nonapplicable. It's an open and shut case - 1/1 parallel with the case about homophilia.
Yeah, that is true. You can't limit freedoms based on the possibility of abuse. You need to demonstrate there will be abuse/demonstrable harm. So, good point.
However, my concern is more along the lines of benefits. You get certain taxable benefits and whatnot for marriage... so what happens if a guy gets married 20 times? Does he get 20 tax benefits? It leaves the door wide open for a lot of frivolous marriages based on trying to avoid paying the tax man.
That is an issue that does not apply to same sex marriage, as a man and woman can also have a "tax break" marriage if they want, and two guys won't receive any more benefits than is already allowed. However, if the possibility is open to receive that benefit multiple times, I don't know if it makes legal sense to do it.
My first choice would be to simply remove marriage in all forms from the legal system, including marriage benefits. The origin of those benefits came from a time when the woman stayed at home, so the guy was given a break as he was now supporting two people with his paycheque instead of just himself. For the most part, that is no longer true. I agree with giving tax breaks to two people who are raising children, but I don't agree with giving people a tax break just because they went and signed a marriage licence down at town hall.
Given the success rates of marriage these days, and the costs associated with divorces, and the other legal messes, I think it's time government just gets out of that game. If a church wants to marry two people in a ceremony, that's cool, however it has no legal bearing, it's just a religious ceremony to unite two people under whatever god they worship.
But, that's probably not going to happen... so as far as things are in the current world, it would really depend how they want to set up the legal aspects towards benefits and other legal problems that can be raised. Until I see that plan, I can't really have an opinion on it.
Now, this is something we can use, instead of the "It's mentioned, therefore God approves of it!"-nonsense that so many others reply with. What are these verses saying? That David had multiple wives, and that God sanctioned and blessed this?
No.
They're saying that everything that was Saul's, was now David's. His "house" (if you can call a King's palace a "house") and the household, which included Saul's many wives. This form of listing is very common in Hebrew (Biblical Hebrew, anyway), and its meaning is, as mentioned: "Everything".
You cannot conclude from this, that David then proceeded to have many wives, and that this was according to God's will.
God gave the guy multiple wives. If he has a problem with multiple wives, or it was forbidden, then why would he do that?
ohgodwhy.jpg.
I spoke too soon above - you DID feel the need to add a nonsensical copy-pasted list.
You will note, that God's approval and blessing is never over these arrangements. They're listed, because they happened, but never once is there a "And the Lord saw that is was good"-type of sentence.
In much the same way as slavery, it was taken as a fact of life, and thus tolerated, but not encouraged. Especially not in the NT - where Jesus ( = God) settles the issue once and for all. Finally, the list just proves how moronical it is, by adding the story of the bridesmaids. Does the one who made this list not know that those "virgins" were NOT all going to be married to the groom??? They were invited as guests to the wedding, but missed their hour.
You'll notice there's references to polygamous marriage in Deuteronomy, which is one of the books of Jewish Law. It was certainly permissible in ancient Israel. It wasn't just "tolerated", polygamy was fairly widespread. After the babylonian exile the culture shifted more towards monogamous relationships over time.
And while bringing up slavery is off-topic, it certainly was not just "tolerated" either. It is quite clearly encoded in Jewish Law, including the values you can buy and sell your slaves for, and the procedures for acquiring your very own slave.
In most cases, yes, thank God.
However, that wasn't my point. My point was, that the authorities do not say: "Your parents were alcoholics, so there's a chance you might become one too. Therefore, you can't get married or have children.". The point was, that your "There are risks" is no different from in normal marriages that go sour.
There's a big difference between someone having an addiction to alcohol, and having irreparable genetic damage due to an incestuous pregnancy. Trying to equate the two is nonsense.
"Should a child be born to parents whose parents were alcoholics/drug addicts, there's decent odds there will be problems. Therefore for the good of the offspring those people should not be permitted to marry".
Would you agree or disagree with the above sentence, and if not - please demonstrate how it's fundamentally different from your own.
Should they be allowed to marry? Sure. Should they be allowed to raise a child? No. And I'd be quite happy to detain a woman with a drinking or drug problem for the duration of her pregnancy if there's a clear risk she'd abuse those substances while pregnant. In fact, it's a good time to try to help her kick an addiction. However, if it's clear they are in no shape to raise the child, have child services step in and find a family who will raise him right.
However, an incestuous child is going to have problems no matter what you do, there is ways to manage the risks with alcoholics, and get the child out of that situation if needed. There is no way to get around genetic problems in a similar fashion.
