INCEST and new definition of marriage

[newbie.86]

---

Guys, just wondering:

Marriage is being re-defined by liberals as "an intimate or close union of two people". If the only requirement for marriage is CONSENT (or the willingness of both parties), can it open a way to legalize INCEST?

Anyway, an incestous relationship is possible as a loving relationship between "brothers and sisters", " brothers and brothers", "sisters and sisters", "mother and son" and "father and daughter".

If I interpret the new definition of marriage, these things could be possible:

two gay brothers marrying each other
a brother and her sister could marry
a mother marrying her own son
a father marrying his gay son

What do you think?

If the new definition can apply to gays, why cant we apply it also to those people who happened to be relatives, but are in a loving and intimate relationship. I have known cousins who are sexually and romantically involved but they are not permitted to marry.

Would it consist discrimination if we criminalize those people who marry but happen to be relatives?

[keanurem]

It isn't not allowed it would just be awkward.

[jairoh_]

ay na pagdahom ana ts. pangita nlng ug di kadugo nimo oe. hehe

[TristanE]

Guys, just wondering:

Marriage is being re-defined by liberals as "an intimate or close union of two people". If the only requirement for marriage is CONSENT (or the willingness of both parties), can it open a way to legalize INCEST?

Anyway, an incestous relationship is possible as a loving relationship between "brothers and sisters", " brothers and brothers", "sisters and sisters", "mother and son" and "father and daughter".

If I interpret the new definition of marriage, these things could be possible:

two gay brothers marrying each other
a brother and her sister could marry
a mother marrying her own son
a father marrying his gay son

What do you think?

If the new definition can apply to gays, why cant we apply it also to those people who happened to be relatives, but are in a loving and intimate relationship. I have known cousins who are sexually and romantically involved but they are not permitted to marry.

Would it consist discrimination if we criminalize those people who marry but happen to be relatives?

Liberals or anyone for that matter can redefine marriage for all they want but as far as our State and laws are concerned, Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law established of conjugal and family life (Article 1, Family Code)

There are two essential requisite of marriage as defined in Article 2 of our Family Code:

ARTICLE 2.No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present:

(1)Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and
(2)Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer.

Legal capacity here pertains not only to the age (at least 18 years old) and *** (male and female) requirement, but also inter alia that the party is free from legal impediment such as that the relationship must not be incestuous (Article 37) or against public policy (Article 38 ):

ARTICLE 37.Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from the beginning, whether the relationship between the parties be legitimate or illegitimate:

(1)Between ascendants and descendants of any degree; and
(2)Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood.

ARTICLE 38.The following marriages shall be void from the beginning for reasons of public policy:

(1)Between collateral blood relatives, whether legitimate or illegitimate, up to the
fourth civil degree;
(2)Between step-parents and step-children; cdt
(3)Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;
(4)Between the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(5)Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(6)Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter;
(7)Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter;
(8 )Between adopted children of the same adopter; and
(9)Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that
other person's spouse or his or her own spouse.

Almost all aspect of marriage is already being defined in our laws, before you start interpreting these matters, it might be best to read our Family Code and start disabusing your notion about marriage.

[balipseyev]

Ganahan man kaha mo ma in-ani inyuhang anak... Hala pag incest mo...

[Metz]

Guys, just wondering:

Marriage is being re-defined by liberals as "an intimate or close union of two people". If the only requirement for marriage is CONSENT (or the willingness of both parties), can it open a way to legalize INCEST?

Anyway, an incestous relationship is possible as a loving relationship between "brothers and sisters", " brothers and brothers", "sisters and sisters", "mother and son" and "father and daughter".

If I interpret the new definition of marriage, these things could be possible:

two gay brothers marrying each other
a brother and her sister could marry
a mother marrying her own son
a father marrying his gay son

What do you think?

If the new definition can apply to gays, why cant we apply it also to those people who happened to be relatives, but are in a loving and intimate relationship. I have known cousins who are sexually and romantically involved but they are not permitted to marry.

Would it consist discrimination if we criminalize those people who marry but happen to be relatives?

sa unang panahon ok rana kay ganihit ang tao. However karon daghan na kaayo pwede pagpilian.
incest became a taboo due to biological reasons.
if nahan ka dako chance abnormal imo anak then go ahead.