If you support homosexual marriage, you must also support

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2003-08-10 12:44am

Polygamy and Incest, if you don't you are a hypocrite.

At least this is what some of my opponents are saying.

I will state on the record that I oppose homosexual marriage, but I fully support the RIGHT of homosexuals to marry regardless of my opinions of homosexuality itself.

But some people who wish to determine what people can and can not do, are so ignorant that they without fail ask the question "Why should'nt we legalize polygamy and incest then?"

Why can't these morons understand that homosexual marriage is an INDEPENDENT ISSUE, and that it is a logical fallacy to bring Polygamy or Incest into the equation?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-10 12:49am

Incest should in my opinion be legal. Provided protection is used (and this is enforced to some degree). As for polygamy, I don't think that individuals should be able to have a legal marriage to more than one person, but if certain women think that being part of some moron's harem is a valid lifestyle choice, I say let 'em go for it.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-10 12:51am

Silly connection, but I do support them!

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-08-10 01:10am

While I find incest disturbing, two consenting adults should be able to get it on if they want. Why not marry, as well? Wouldn't be the first time in modern history. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were first cousins, after all, and it's their repressed views on morality that color so much of religious popular thought today.

Polygamy, again, why not? If all avenues of legal recourse are avialable to a member of such a marriage. Why limit it to 1 husband, multi wives, anyway? I'd imagine that many women might enjoy multiple husbands. Then again, that's my imagination we're talking about.

It's not like you're promoting pedophilia here, anyway.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-10 01:14am

I love you Frank. Can I be one of your husbands?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-08-10 01:25am

kojikun wrote:I love you Frank. Can I be one of your husbands?

Get to the back of the line, I'll think about it.

Now there's something you could bring up, Lord MJ! Polygamous, Gay, Incestuous Marriage. Other than the thought of incest making my skin crawl, which is hardly the most objective argument, I can't think of reason why not!

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2003-08-10 01:30am

There are sort of two types of incest, marriage between close relatives, such as first cousins, and parents raping their children. Generally, when the word incest is used, it brings to mind the latter image, not the former. That is what these folks are counting on. Logically, there is little reason to forbid first cousin marriages. There is a very slight increase in the risk of birth defect, but if you remember that for most of man's history people lived in very small groups, first cousin marriages were probably very common. Even today many developed countries do not forbid it. But, as I said, when you say incest, most people automatically think of daddy sneaking into little Sally's room while mommy is asleep. Obviously, that sort of behavior falls under the category of statuary rape and child molestation, and so would still be illegal.

As to why sibling marriage and polygamy should be illegal, it is reasonable to outlaw a behavior if the behavior hurts innocent people. If a brother and sister make babies, there is a high risk of birth defect, which would obviously hurt the babies in question and society at large, by placing extra burdens on our healthcare system. Polygamists tend to have very large families. The more children you have, the more money it takes to support them. Polygamists, in America at least, tend to live near the poverty line. Allowing a man to have as many wives as he wants is inviting him to make more babies than he can afford, which will cause the babies suffering through poverty and will necessitate intervention by the state, draining away more money and resources.

The case against polygamy is a bit weak, I know, but not completely irrational.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-10 01:36am

johone, thats why you outlaw the actual act of putting people in danger, not the innocent act that MIGHT lead to it.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-08-10 01:57am

So long as plygamy and ncest harm no one, though I may find the practices disgusting, go for it.

ncest really shouldnt be done due to inbreeding.. but hey, if you want to have sex with your sister then use protection and go at it, so long as no horribly diseased children are not brought into the world.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-08-10 02:01am

"Do what thou wilt, an' it harm none..."

~ver

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-08-10 02:09am

Having multiple wives might lead to having more children that the family could support, but it might be less of a problem if all the wives had good jobs, and the concern over too many children might not be a problem at all when it's one woman with several husbands.

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2003-08-10 02:19am

kojikun wrote:johone, thats why you outlaw the actual act of putting people in danger, not the innocent act that MIGHT lead to it.

But if you allow a man to marry his sister, how are you going to outlaw their making babies? You can either forbid them to marry at all, or allow them to marry on the condition that they have no children. How would you enforce the latter? Put them in prison if she gets pregnant? Force her to have an abortion, even if she finds abortion morally repugnant? Sterilize them against their will? It is much more reasonable to simply forbid them to marry. Although that leaves a gaping hole for gay incest. I think that if a brother and sister to have sex, which is what you expect a husband and wife to do, they are actively putting people in danger, because, if they are both healthy, she will get pregnant sooner or later. Polygamy has the same problems. Is it reasonable to say, "sure, marry as many women as you want, but we will punish you if your family grows too large for you to support"?

As I said, the case against polygamy is a bit weak, I am just showing that permitting gay marriage does not necessarily invalidate arguments against incest and polygamy.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-08-10 02:25am

Are people with known genetically transmitted diseases prevented from having kids because of the potential for birth defects?

Can it be proven that a brother/sister pairing will result in a child suffering from a defect/s 100% of the time, and they should be prevented from concieving?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-10 02:34am

johone:

lawsuits would be filed if they get pregnant from a sibling. its their responsibility not to.

i also find it very odd that you believe polygamy means one person must support the entire family. if your children or mates are malnourished, you're either being neglectful to your children, or the mates are just tossers who need to find a job, like in every other situation. infact, having more peolpe might be beneficial, because you dont need more then one house, you can have more people available to watch the children, etc, and as a whole family youre bringing in more money (much the same way couple brings in more SPENDING money together then the sum of both seperately. one house means you pay less rent per person, less electricity per person, etc. polygamy is actually beneficial in that respect.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-10 02:35am

Frank Hipper wrote:Are people with known genetically transmitted diseases prevented from having kids because of the potential for birth defects?

Can it be proven that a brother/sister pairing will result in a child suffering from a defect/s 100% of the time, and they should be prevented from concieving?

its actually been shown to require generations of inbreeding to result in serious defects. the main reason they occur is because with the same genes staying from generation to generation, the probability of a negative recessive gene becoming an active gene increases.

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2003-08-10 02:38am

Frank Hipper wrote:Are people with known genetically transmitted diseases prevented from having kids because of the potential for birth defects?

Can it be proven that a brother/sister pairing will result in a child suffering from a defect/s 100% of the time, and they should be prevented from concieving?

I am not certain. If the risk is low enough, then you are right. My understanding is that there is a significant risk of severe defect with sibling parents. I may be mistaken, in which case it might not be reasonable to forbid incest. However, I do not think the risk needs to be 100%. If it is more likely than not that such a pregnancy will result in disaster, I think it is reasonable to forbid incestuous marriage, especially as it is extremely rare for a brother and sister raised together to feel any sexual attraction towards one another. I am too lazy at the moment to do any real research now. For the moment I will partly concede that, if the risk is low enough, you are right.

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2003-08-10 02:57am

kojikun wrote:johone:

lawsuits would be filed if they get pregnant from a sibling. its their responsibility not to.

Who would file the suits?

i also find it very odd that you believe polygamy means one person must support the entire family. if your children or mates are malnourished, you're either being neglectful to your children, or the mates are just tossers who need to find a job, like in every other situation. infact, having more peolpe might be beneficial, because you dont need more then one house, you can have more people available to watch the children, etc, and as a whole family youre bringing in more money (much the same way couple brings in more SPENDING money together then the sum of both seperately. one house means you pay less rent per person, less electricity per person, etc. polygamy is actually beneficial in that respect.

Whether it is reasonable or not, that is the way it goes in real life. Polygamy is almost always a rather misogynistic practice, with the man treating his wives as property. Even in America, when cases of polygamy show up, they usually involve a man who has very traditional views about the role of women. Ideally, you are right. There are many benefits from having multiple adults in the household. Unfortunately, the law cannot always be based upon the ideal, but must sometimes face reality, and the reality is that polygamy in the U.S. almost always results in very bad situations.

Now that does bring up an interesting proposal. We could make it illegal simply to have children you can't support, and never mind about polygamy. Perhaps we could have state-run industries and poor houses. If a man makes babies he cannot support, then he is convicted of a crime, put in a poor house and forced to work. The state then provides for the mothers and children. Dealing with irresponsible mothers might be a bit more complicated, but something similar might work.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-10 03:09am

the same people who file neglect suits on parents.

and youre right, polygamy tends to be misogynistic. but almost all cases of polyamory are not that way. and those outnumber the actual polygamist marriages

i favor making it illegal to have children. period.

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2003-08-10 04:32am

kojikun wrote:the same people who file neglect suits on parents.

Which would be the state. Civil courts can decide to give custody to someone else, but that rarely happens. Child neglect is a crime and under criminal law, making it the job of the state to enforce, which it rarely does. Naturally, the state is much more concerned about sending pot smokers to jail than making sure children are protected. That's why there are so many stories like the baby who was boiled to death. In many of these sick cases, the parents have already been investigated and cleared before they kill their children.

i favor making it illegal to have children. period.

Now, you don't want to get me started on the evils of the nasty, smarmy, stinky little brats that the breeders shit out every chance they get. I hate children. The only thing they are good for is growing into sensible adults, and so very few of them do. No offense to any parents who might read this. From a distance, children are pleasant enough, like tame rats in a cage. In the abstract, I have no problem with them. It's just when I actually have to deal with the vermin, especially in numbers, when they try to crawl all over you, and then start crying when you yell at yhem, and then the parents come over and get asngry because you made their precious little devi; cry andlskjfnv, I think that was why the doctor wanted me on blood pressure medicine.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-08-10 06:25am

Now, i'm not going to start on incest, because frankly I find it disgusting, which is just an indication of how inbreeding prevention is indoctrinated into me.

But I have to argue against the idea that polygamy is anymore misogynistic than monogamy. Let me explain...

First of - we're not talking about any old polygamy here, we're talking about polygyny. That's well and good, but the distinction has to be made.

all cultures are misogynisitic, and women have beed treated as property in all cultures. We have more freedom in this century in Western society, but I don't think that has anythng to do with our accepted marital system.

I'm now talking about cultures that don't have the same level of female emancipation that we enjoy - but the far more common situation of having no role in society other than wife and moter, and unable to support herself.

An unmarried daughter is a liability. She needs to be supprted for her entire life, and is a social stigma. An unmarried son is less so, because he can still support himslef and have a career

In soically imposed (aot ecologically imposed) monogamy, there is competition for the men who want to get married. Dowries are practised, in whch the bride's family pay to get rid of their daughter. Daughters are therfore even more expensive. In societies like these, practices such as female infanticide and selective nutrition are common, because too many daughters is a bad thing.

In polygynous societies, A man can have many wives, so it's easier for a woman to find a good husband, and there is competition for the women. In these societies, the groom's family pay the bride's family (bride price). yes, this sounds like buying a wife, because that's what it is, but at least the woman is wanted.
Because there is far less social stigma in an unmarried son, tere is no need to pay for marriages that the family canot afford, and many sons are not the problem that daughters are in socially imposed monogamous societies.

So... yay polygamy. But I think it shoudl be open to any combination - polygyny, polyandry, or even polygyandry, allthough personally I can't imagine being happy in anything more than a Babel-17 style triple.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-10 01:42pm

brat, explain a babel-17 triple.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-08-10 02:07pm

kojikun wrote:brat, explain a babel-17 triple.

Babel-17 is an excellent Science Ficiton novel by Samuel Delaney, in which certain people form 'triples' (boy/boy/girl or girl/girl/boy or presumably ggg/bbb) instead of couples.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-10 02:10pm

ahh. are they triangle relationships or triad relationships?

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-08-10 02:19pm

What's the difference?
These were completely equal, lmutually oving and emotionally supportive groups of 3.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-10 02:37pm

innerbrat wrote:What's the difference?
These were completely equal, lmutually oving and emotionally supportive groups of 3.

in triangles they are all involed with one another but not simultaneously. in triads its simultaneously.