Thursday, April 30, 2009

Why Can't I Marry My Brother?

I love my brother and I want the world to know that I love him by having the state legally recognize that love and commitment.

We are both sterile so children would not be a problem. But we not only want that legal recognition of our love for each other but we also want the benefits that married couples have. One of us is unemployed and the other has a good job with health insurance so we could take advantage of that benefit. It would be good for the state because then the unemployed spouse would not become a public burden by going on Medicaid.

We know that this is not a traditional marriage but times are changing and the definition of marriage as being only between people who are unrelated needs to change as well. We all need to be treated equally before the law and love should be the only requirement that is needed for a marriage license. 

You might find this morally offensive but I should not have to live by your morals. In other words, keep your morals out of my private life. You can live the way you want to and I can live the way I want to. I am not hurting you by marrying my brother.

So, should I set a date?


Anonymous said...

if there is absolutely no chance of children coming out of this union, then i don't care if you marry your brother.

well, actually i do, because i'm your daughter and that means we'd all have to move to arkansas and i'd have to explain that my uncle is also my step-father and truth be told i might just stay in texas and when people ask me about my parents i'll have to say that my mom is missing.

but anyway.

if two consenting adults want to marry each other (and/or 10 other consenting adults as well) then i don't care. if the two (or 12) consenting adults are closely related (i.e. siblings, parents, grandparents etc.) then they have to prove that NONE of them can have children before any marriage can take place.

Liz said...

But then we have completely changed the definition of marriage to the point that it becomes meaningless. Why bother having marriage at all? Why not just give everyone the same "marriage benefit" (or just take it away completely) and be done with it. No more marriages.

Redefining a word to make it broader in scope will inevitably lead to confusion. If we get rid of the word "cat" and describe that animal as a mammal that is furry, walks on four legs and has a tail is accurate but how do you distinguish it from a dog? Or a squirrel (or a dog acting like a squirrel ;) )

Every culture on the planet, whether primitive or advanced, has had an institution that can be described as marriage - and it has always been between a man and a woman. This has been going on for thousands of years and just now we have become enlightened? For what?

Abigail said...

Marriage= 1 man and 1 woman

As you said in your comment, Liz--always has been that way, and it quite frankly should remain that way. I don't think two of the same sex people--especially if related--should be living together, BUT--they definately should not be "married". There are civil unions and such that provide for the whole benefit situation, maybe not as "adequately" as in a marriage, but if you're after the "benefits" well then, find a woman if you're a man or find a man if you're a woman and get those fully intended. :)