I think they'd be AWESOME!

Strongly discouraging, sure, and encouraging termination in the case of detectable problems, okay. But legally forbidding it or forcing termination? Sounds dangerous to me.

Yeah. I think it's wrong but if it's illegal for siblings to have kids I assume that's to protect the health of the child. Why not therefore make it illegal to smoke while pregnant? Why not make pre-natal care mandatory?

Won't somebody please think of the half-human-half-box-turtle children???

yah, my mind wandered while I was working out today. I thought, am I saying inter-species marriage is wrong? What about Spock's parents? So I decided any being with the capability of informed consent has the right to marry any other being with the same capability.

My true feeling on marriage is that it is a spiritual contract and as such the state should not be involved at all.

wait until Science creates a genetically modified talking box turtle.

Then that'll be the SciFi Channel movie of the week! A courtroom drama, as the box turtle sues for her right to self-determination! Staring William Shatner, representing the State in its attempt to prevent the marriage, and Keanu Reeves as the turtle's attorney....

They could never make that movie. There wouldn't be able to build the sets fast enough, what with all of the scenery chewing of Shatner and Reeves (they fight crime!)

My true feeling on marriage is that it is a spiritual contract and as such the state should not be involved at all.

Hmm. Don't know how I feel about that one. It's legal rights that my partner and I are getting 'married' for. (We're not thinking about any kind of blessing-type ceremony until we can decide what a Jewish atheist and a practising Christian are supposed to do for that.) Right now we just want to make sure that we can have next-of-kin rights and the related stuff. And I get that there are ways whereby that could happen without our cultural concept of marriage being involved, but the minute you start talking about legal rights, you're talking about the state to at least some extent.

half-human-half-box-turtle

But it's already happened!

But it's already happened!

But in that case it was a male box turtle and a female human. That's just sick.

the minute you start talking about legal rights, you're talking about the state to at least some extent.

Oh yeah, and I'm certainly not going to start campaigning to dissolve all existing marriages. It's a belief I hold not strongly enough to fight for, that the state never should have married anyone in the first place.

First you allow gay marriage and then the slope slips to allow siblings or animals or children or whatever.

The Equal Right Amendment didn't pass because of all those slippery slope arguments. One of them, of course, was "Your daughter will be in combat." and another extemely common was "You'll have unisex bathrooms." Hmmm. (Theoretically, women still can't serve in combat roles. That affects their chances for promotion, yet bullets and roadside bombs seem to be completely unaware of their non-combat status.) We've frequently ended up at the bottom of the slippery slope without the republic falling, but also without any legal gains.

My true feeling on marriage is that it is a spiritual contract and as such the state should not be involved at all.

My belief is that marriage is a civil contract that offers specific legal rights and privileges, such as survivor benefits, pensions and inheritance. Churches should be free to offer any type of "spiritual union" they want, even between a man and his beloved box turtle, but that should have no legal standing.