Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
The reinforcing of recessive genes in any offspring is really the only "legitimate" complaint.

This is what I was thinking of... not an ick factor. My original point was that "it's never so simple". I know we're not really debating the issue of whether blood relatives should be allowed to marry, but after seeing those points, I have to say I agree: not really much reason to prevent it by law. So I take back what I said about there being 'good reasons' to do so. I've flipped my position based on new information.

After a big argument with my VERY anti-gay-marriage bride this morning (I started it), this discussion resonated with me a little more that it otherwise might have.

My point about simplification, though, can be expanded: didn't you already make it more complex by saying 'couples'? I'm fully ready for this next point to be taken out of context, but I can already hear her voice in my head saying it: 'If blood relatives can marry, why restrict it to just couples?' (Humans, I think any reasonable person can agree upon.) Strictly in the context of making marriage simpler, I stand by my point that the simplest definition of marriage isn't always the best one--there are reasons to restrict it to humans of a certain age (what age? why? who decides?), and presumably to couples.

I'm saying that we DON'T want the simplest definitions because, at least in the case of the definition of marriage, that 'slippery slope' the bigots always complain about is fraught with both the best and the worst reasons to add caveats. Pick the best ones, and only make it as complex as it needs to be, but simplest is not always best.

So I come back to every citizen should have the same rights as every other citizen (with exception of some age requirements for voting, drinking, serving in the military, etc)

But therein lies the rub: Those exceptions are important, and the complexity they bring is important complexity. As we all seem to agree here, age-based exceptions are appropriate, but race and gender* ones aren't. As a general statement of 'all rights', it's fine, but be ready for the list of exceptions to be big. Maybe even so big as to make the original statement seem kinda frivolous.

-n8
* presume we're talking about basic human rights, not questions like 'oh, so should LeBron James be allowed to play on a WNBA team?' here.
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.