|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Civil Partnership within the "prohibited degrees"
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
Would Shipmates please be able to help me out with the moral/ethical objections to Civil Partnerships being contracted between a same-sex couple falling within the conventional prohibited degrees? Many thanks ...
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
I know what the prohibited degrees are - I'm interested in why they're excluded ... (not homework)
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Incest is generally emotionally abusive as well as medically problematic for any offspring.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Are you asking why we have prohibited degrees? Because I wasn't aware of any problem with the concept. In the UK, according to the link, it doesn't even preclude cousins. Which probably keeps the stereotypical redneck from rural Alabama out of legal hot water.
I can't see any reason why the same prohibited degrees don't apply in all cases. Why should anyone be permitted to enter a civil partnership with their brother or aunt? Why should some be prevented from entering a civil partnership with a cousin?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
UK Civil Partnerships are exclusively for same-sex couples
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Fair enough.
There seem to be three ethical issues.
1. Age of consent restrictions
2. Consanguinity restrictions
These first two presume a sexual relationship in the partnership AFAICS.
3. Use of either 1 or 2 to exclude intentionally nonsexual relationships from any Civil Partnership benefits in the legislation.
I remember Norman Tebbitt banging on about 3.
Do you have a point of view on any of these which would help frame the discussion?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
Thanks. Adults of age, of course. I think Civil Partnerships do presume sexual contact, don't they, but even so - what are the established moral/ethical objections (secular or religious), given there is to be no biological issue?
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Incest is almost always abusive, which I would say is a fairly large moral objection. The only cases with no abuse tend to be where long-lost siblings or other relations meet and are attracted sexually to each other, where there may or may not be foreknowledge that they are related.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
That is a good question.
I think there would be three issues involved in incest restrictions in heterosexual marriage.
1. Social conventions or taboos
2. Abuse of power by a close family member.
3. Risks to any children.
Clearly 3 does not apply. 2 might still need to be taken into account, not just by age of consent. 1 raises the issue of sexual norms within same sex relationships, which might be different. I would think there was some prior investigation or consultation on that point, or receipt of information and views from interested groups. Don't recall ever reading anything about incest taboos in same sex relationships but I guess there will be some.
(xpost)
[ 29. January 2014, 20:51: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
I agree. I haven't used the word incest. I think it will be found very difficult to define - specifically & exclusively - why same-sex partnerships within prohibited degrees should be forbidden.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
I agree. I haven't used the word incest. I think it will be found very difficult to define - specifically & exclusively - why same-sex partnerships within prohibited degrees should be forbidden.
Really, you don't think the abuse element is a sufficient reason?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
In what way is a partnership between 2 consenting adults abusive within the prohibited degrees & yet is not abusive without?
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
Many relationships are potentially abusive. In what way is blood affinity a specific factor in same-sex Civil Partnerships?
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
"Civil Partnerships" are a political fudge. In an ideal world they wouldn't be needed, because same sex couples would be able to have the same options for formalising their relationships as couples of different sexes - which could include opening the same "almost but not quite marriage" option CPs present to heterosexual couples. Therefore, despite the legal differences there should be no moral difference between partnerships where the couple have the same sex and where they don't. Thus, if a relationship (eg: between siblings) is considered inappropriate for couples of opposite sex the same relationship should be inappropriate for couples of the same sex. Simples.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Thus, if a relationship (eg: between siblings) is considered inappropriate for couples of opposite sex the same relationship should be inappropriate for couples of the same sex. Simples.
Relationships between, for example, siblings, are considered inappropriate for two reasons (assuming we're not talking about abuse here). One is, basically, "Ewww!" dressed up in a bunch of fancy language, and the other is the genetic risk to children of the relationship.
Only one of these applies to same-sex couples.
[ 29. January 2014, 22:58: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
In what way is a partnership between 2 consenting adults abusive within the prohibited degrees & yet is not abusive without?
Current law in most Western countries posits marriage as a partnership of equals, and certain relationships (notably parent and child) will never be between equals in any meaningful psychological sense of the term. It seems likely that the "prohibited degrees" forbid marriage between adoptive parent-child couples for mostly this reason, a stricture that pre-dates civil partnerships.
All that aside, there is also inherent value in equality before the law and uniformity of justice.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Are you asking why we have prohibited degrees? Because I wasn't aware of any problem with the concept. In the UK, according to the link, it doesn't even preclude cousins. Which probably keeps the stereotypical redneck from rural Alabama out of legal hot water.
I can't see any reason why the same prohibited degrees don't apply in all cases. Why should anyone be permitted to enter a civil partnership with their brother or aunt? Why should some be prevented from entering a civil partnership with a cousin?
Frankly, I'd be all in favor of entering a (non-sexual) civil partnership with, say, my sister, who is about to have no health insurance and who could receive it through such an arrangement. I therefore suspect that one reason for prohibited degrees would be to prevent a whole heckuvalotta people with Machiavellian minds, like me, from doing likewise in order to assure their children, parents, siblings, etc. health insurance and right of inheritance without the troublesome taxes etc. that apply to anyone but a spouse.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
That was it, Kelly. I'm in favour of carers getting tax breaks. The UK politician Norman Tebbitt used that argument to try and lever the principle into Civil Partnership legislation, which had a different equity purpose.
I think one counter argument was that Tebbitt was simply trying to up the cost of the legislation by use of a different equity argument; possibly to get delay because the Treasury would have to look at the cost effect, or to extend political debate by extending the equity principle.
I doubt whether Tebbitt was being ingenuous, given his track record. That's another ethical issue, of course.
I suppose there may be an ethical argument re legislation which goes with the grain of social taboos? If current and in my view more enlightened views of homosexuality have lifted that taboo in many minds, does the incest taboo deserve similar treatment, say on the "what harm" basis? And what has it to do with homosexuality anyway, given the absence of the procreative risk?
So far as incest is concerned, the yuk factor is still there, but it isn't the same yuk factor which existed historically about homosexuality - and which is now fading. The prevailing yuk factor is probably about abuse of close family ties. One affection being used to bring in another kind of closeness? Not a free choice, in the same way as "outside the close family circle"?
I remember hearing Fred West's surviving children being interviewed, expressing what it was like to grow up in a large family where sexual use of family members was "normal", then realising it wasn't. They were pretty bent out of shape by that.
I'm pretty cautious about any changes with would take away familial restrictions re sexual relations in any form. Different strokes for different taboos, based on underlying rationalities? That looks like a safer approach.
[ 30. January 2014, 07:28: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That was it, Kelly. I'm in favour of carers getting tax breaks. The UK politician Norman Tebbitt used that argument to try and lever the principle into Civil Partnership legislation, which had a different equity purpose.
I think one counter argument was that Tebbitt was simply trying to up the cost of the legislation by use of a different equity argument; possibly to get delay because the Treasury would have to look at the cost effect, or to extend political debate by extending the equity principle.
I doubt whether Tebbitt was being ingenuous, given his track record. That's another ethical issue, of course.
Except of course that he'd been caring for his wife since the IRA put her in a wheelchair in 1984... I think Tebbitt's argument was pretty much "I don't think we should have civil partnerships but IF we're going to then they should include...." which is slightly more honourable than just bunging in amendments purely as a wrecking/delaying tactic.
If there's one thing Tebbitt does know about and have a good track record on it's the rights of carers, whatever his myriad other failings.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Fair point. The connection with his wife's injury doesn't read across to Civil Partnership legislation since as a husband he already had Civil Parnership rights.
But he did have a good track record on carers. Happy to say that. On reflection, I might have said that I doubt whether his motives were entirely pure? Norman was an astute politician. He knew how to conflate.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Fair point. The connection with his wife's injury doesn't read across to Civil Partnership legislation since as a husband he already had Civil Parnership rights.
But he did have a good track record on carers. Happy to say that. On reflection, I might have said that I doubt whether his motives were entirely pure? Norman was an astute politician. He knew how to conflate.
True, even a stopped clock is right twice a day and all that. It's a rare politician that never does anyone any good - it was Robert Kilroy-Silk of all people who exempted war widows' pensions from income tax...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
In what way is a partnership between 2 consenting adults abusive within the prohibited degrees & yet is not abusive without?
That's not the point I'm making. Incest (which a partnership within the prohibited degrees in the UK is since cousin marriages are legal) involves abuse in the vast majority of cases. Keeping incestuous marriages/partnerships illegal makes it easier to stamp out said abuse.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
But are cases of familial abuse routinely prosecuted as incest? I would have thought for a charge of incest to stick you would have to prosecute both abuser and victim.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
