Fly or Die Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 To those who say things along the lines of "it's about time," I just want to point out that what is right/obvious is very time-sensitive. There was a time when gay marriage was unthinkable everywhere in the world -- if the legalization of gay marriage seems overdue, think about where the movement has had to come from. For example, you can bash slave owners for being racist, etc but I don't think it's right to put all the blame on them. For most of history, it's not like they even had the choice of releasing their slaves. And when they lived, probably nobody questioned it. And in case you think our society today is free of moral relativism, there are plenty of issues which are only banned because the vast majority of people find the concept disgusting. For example, sibling incest (in some cases). I can't think of anything objectively wrong with consensual incest, yet the idea of it being legalized is quite repulsive to me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Well, incest does kind of make the risk of sex linked diseases like Hemophilia higher. That's about it, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 from a sociological perspective incest violates familial norms, and assigning roles become difficult. "are you my sister or my wife? and what does that make our children?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 We don't have that muslim culture, to begin with. And if our culture is not enough to be against polygamy in the west, I'm also willing to see through researches what most people think about this, and whether they would we willing to participate in such relations in order for them to ever become an issue here. Gay people obviously necessitate gay marriage, but people don't necessitate poligamic marriages. Without such a need, there is no reason for a change. It also seems like a legal clusterfuck. Imagine pensions and all that jazz in a family with one man, four women and ten children. There's something that tastes awful about it. There must be a good argument that stops this madness from happening, and I'll find it. some parts of the us have it (some fundie mormon groups). polygamy is definitely against american culture, though. i've never heard of a woman getting multiple husbands. i don't think you have anything to worry about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) some parts of the us have it (some fundie mormon groups). polygamy is definitely against american culture, though. i've never heard of a woman getting multiple husbands. i don't think you have anything to worry about. Yes, that's what I thought. Since poligamy and incest (brother and sister incest, I mean, as it's controversial whether cousin relationships are incestuous) is culturally abhorred in the west, and laws don't come without the need for them, I doubt they'll become a thing anytime soon. That said, there's still an issue to be solved. People who have beliefs contrary to gay marriage are being forced to accept such contracts or be fired. People shouldn't be forced to go against their beliefs like that. A solution? Transfer these cases to people who are willing to accept. Edited July 2, 2015 by Rapier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 That said, there's still an issue to be solved. People who have beliefs contrary to gay marriage are being forced to accept such contracts or be fired. People shouldn't be forced to go against their beliefs like that. A solution? Transfer these cases to people who are willing to accept. Mine is the following: - All "marriages" defined under law are civil unions - Marriage may only be performed as a religious ceremony - Anyone can refuse to perform a marriage - Religious marriage has no legal significance (as in, "special discounts for those who are married") - No one may lawfully discriminate against married/couples in a civil union and otherwise (to prevent employers from firing people because they didn't go through a religious ceremony, even if that can be stretched to religious discrimination) That way, the religious aspect of marriage can GTFO out of government, two people can be seen as one under the law, and those who don't want to marry certain couples based on moral preference won't be forced to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I don't know whether this is even possible, but I wish no one had authority to intervene in marriages, so long as they don't conflict with the law (for example, marriages with minors should be prohibited). The State's job should be to recognize the individuals' marriages/apply the "OK" stamp and only that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Yes, that's what I thought. Since poligamy and incest (brother and sister incest, I mean, as it's controversial whether cousin relationships are incestuous) is culturally abhorred in the west, and laws don't come without the need for them, I doubt they'll become a thing anytime soon. The same reasoning which validates gay marriage can be used to validate incest and polygamy. So what? There's nothing unethical about incest or polygamy as long as there's consent. Good luck making a rational argument against those two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irysa Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) Yeah but there's a veritable minefield for what exactly constitutes "consent" with polygamy, since every party has to consent to an additional satellite in the relationship. And typically, the older wives in the relationship get shafted for the sake of a younger one. Notably, they're often coerced by their husband, who they're dependant on to a significant degree. I think there's also a practical argument for it messing with the availability of partners for bachelors and bachelorettes, as well as mental health concerns (don't know the validity of the studies though). Edited July 3, 2015 by Irysa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Cynthia- Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I feel like polygamy could also be abused to theoretically get dozens of people on one insurance plan or whatnot. The way marriage rights are handled legally may have to be redefined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) The same reasoning which validates gay marriage can be used to validate incest and polygamy. So what? There's nothing unethical about incest or polygamy as long as there's consent. Good luck making a rational argument against those two. I already did: No law is made without need. No one (or an insignificant number of people) sees the need for legalizing polygamy and incest. Therefore, polygamy and incest will not be legalized anytime soon. Even if, logically, the same argument for gay marriage can be used for incest and polygamy, I inductively believe that our culture and customs will pose as a roadblock for it for some time (because it influences people to dislike both), unless we get a lot of Muslim immigrants and it becomes necessary. So, yes, although I couldn't make a valid argument against it, it was possible to make a factually correct argument about it (or at least I think it is factually correct. In any case, it's your turn). I feel like polygamy could also be abused to theoretically get dozens of people on one insurance plan or whatnot. The way marriage rights are handled legally may have to be redefined. I can't imagine how polygamy would be handled legally in the west. It's going to be a legal clusterfuck. I imagine the US has laws that benefit spouses, children, heritage laws and all that jazz, right? I've yet to look at the US legislation. Anyway, imagine a family with a couple of wives and triple the number of children. It's an utter legal madness. Edited July 3, 2015 by Rapier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewjeo Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Also what happens if your second wife also has three other husbands (and maybe a wife or two, also)? How does the law deal with it? This isn't so much a rational issue as it is a practical one. I think it would require a total restructuring of legal marriage. Incest is harder to argue against because the only rational argument (genetic issues) is not as big a deal as people make it out to be, and besides that we don't ban other people with genetic problems (who then are actually more likely to have kids with that same genetic defect than a random sibling pair) from having kids. Also, same-sex incest could be a thing.Then of course there is the problem that both polygamous and incestuous relationships tend not to be healthy, on top of being rare, so we likely won't get the necessary public support for them ever to be legalized, even if people stopped viewing them as squicky (because that will happen ever). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 About incest, some cultures don't see first degree cousin pairs as incest, so I'm not against it in any way, but it seems the west agrees that sibling pairs are incestuous. Also, Chiki, since it would require a total restructuring of the meaning of marriage, wouldn't such move be invalid because it reforms the meaning of the word? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 No one (or an insignificant number of people) sees the need for legalizing polygamy and incest. Therefore, polygamy and incest will not be legalized anytime soon. This argument is a joke. First, you have been arguing about what should be the case, assuming we were trying to make the law as perfect as possible. I'm not arguing about whether or not incest and polygamy will be legalized. Second, it's silly to say that a law doesn't matter if an insignificant number of people have a need for polygamy and/or incest. We should always try our best to serve the needs of every citizen in a country, even if it's just one, or a hundred, or a thousand, or a million, or a billion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanami Touko Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 chiki do you want to fuck your sister is that why you're so adamant about this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) This argument is a joke. First, you have been arguing about what should be the case, assuming we were trying to make the law as perfect as possible. I'm not arguing about whether or not incest and polygamy will be legalized. Second, it's silly to say that a law doesn't matter if an insignificant number of people have a need for polygamy and/or incest. We should always try our best to serve the needs of every citizen in a country, even if it's just one, or a hundred, or a thousand, or a million, or a billion. Asuming we were trying to make the law as perfect as possible, then yes, these rights should be included. But that's mere wishful thinking - it's how the law should be, but not how it is, which is my point. There is no account of a historical occurence where a law was approved without the circumstances needing it. No one woke up in a hot Sunday morning and thought "Hey, slavery is bad, we should ban slavery!". This is not how society works, lol. And the law is merely a tool of society to regulate its needs, simply put. If there is no express need of [a significant part of] the society to change the law (because we live in a democracy), then it won't change. The second paragraph is ideally true but practically false, because of the bolded sentence above. I'm arguing about how the law is, you're arguing about how it should be. It should be like you said, but it isn't, because there's a world of difference between how the law should ideally be and how it is in practice. I'm just repeating myself. In case you did not notice, we're speaking about polygamy and incest in a practical level. Edited July 3, 2015 by Rapier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) Asuming we were trying to make the law as perfect as possible, then yes, these rights should be included. But that's mere wishful thinking - it's how the law should be, but not how it is, which is my point. There is no account of a historical occurence where a law was approved without the circumstances needing it. No one woke up in a hot Sunday morning and thought "Hey, slavery is bad, we should ban slavery!". This is not how society works, lol. And the law is merely a tool of society to regulate its needs, simply put. If there is no express need of [a significant part of] the society to change the law (because we live in a democracy), then it won't change. The second paragraph is ideally true but practically false, because of the bolded sentence above. I'm arguing about how the law is, you're arguing about how it should be. It should be like you said, but it isn't, because there's a world of difference between how the law should ideally be and how it is in practice. I'm just repeating myself. In case you did not notice, we're speaking about polygamy and incest in a practical level. Bolded part: rofl, do some research before posting stuff like this. There are mountains and mountains and mountains of counterexamples to this, with a website dedicated to it: http://www.dumblaws.com. It's patently false: http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/massachusetts No gorilla is allowed in the back seat of any car. Yes, I'm sure this law was needed... And now your entire argument falls down since a crucial premise was false. Edited July 3, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perfect Infinitive Exitus Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Just thinking about prohibiting marriage for heterosexual people for equalitys sake in my opinion marriage is nothing more then a status, a title, a contract which reduces your freedom to a certain extent in exchange for power, whealth and prestige I still don't know why people make such a fuss about marriage, just because normal people were taught as kids that marriage is the highest form of expressing love to one another while actually just existing for exchanging power still, i think america did good job forcing people to allow gay marriage the only thing left to do is an actual democracy, resolution, antisexualisation and legal suicide ... ... jk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) Bolded part: rofl, do some research before posting stuff like this. Was the gorilla law needed? No. But people thought it was needed, so it was added. People can be dumb and think that an absurd law is needed, so dumb and unreasonable laws can come from legislators. No contradiction here with my argument, where I say laws come out of a need. Here's where you slipped. Find a counterexample of a law that was added in a democratic country and that people did not see the need for adding it (note that, for such, you'll also need to cite a historical context)... I think that is impossible, though, because every action is moved by a personal need, and dumb people have reasonably questionable needs. Whether their unreasonable needs should be met with laws is another question. Just thinking about prohibiting marriage for heterosexual people for equalitys sake "If I can't get part of the cake, I'm crashing this party!". This is so wrong in so many levels... Edited July 3, 2015 by Rapier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Was the gorilla law needed? No. But people thought it was needed, so it was added. People can be dumb and think that an absurd law is needed, so dumb and unreasonable laws can come from legislators. No contradiction here with my argument, where I say laws come out of a need. Here's where you slipped. Find a counterexample of a law that was added in a democratic country and that people did not see the need for adding it (note that, for such, you'll also need to cite a historical context)... I think that is impossible, though, because every action is moved by a personal need, and dumb people have reasonably questionable needs. Whether their unreasonable needs should be met with laws is another question. "If I can't get part of the cake, I'm crashing this party!". This is so wrong in so many levels... Yes, I'm sure a law is needed to prohibit gorillas from sitting in the back seat of a car. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Yes, I'm sure a law is needed to prohibit gorillas from sitting in the back seat of a car. LOL Ok, I'll repeat myself... A law to prohibit gorillas in the back seat of a car is unneeded. However, people could've been dumb and seen it as needed. So it does not contradict the part where I said laws are born from need. Is it so hard to understand this? ._. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 However, people could've been dumb and seen it as needed. this is purely speculation lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Espinosa Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I'm sure there are a lot of people who want to fuck their sisters who think the law is needed; they just aren't very comfortable about making this necessity known to the public. You know, just like the gays were a few decades ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Ok, I'll repeat myself... A law to prohibit gorillas in the back seat of a car is unneeded. However, people could've been dumb and seen it as needed. So it does not contradict the part where I said laws are born from need. Is it so hard to understand this? ._. I'm 100% sure a law on polygamy and incest is far more needed than a fucking law about gorillas sitting in backseats. This philosopher, who is also imo a slut, is in an open marriage and I'm sure she would marry the other person she's fucking if she could. There's a lot more people like this. I don't have any siblings so I don't know what incest is like. But I do know people elsewhere who want to have sex with their little sisters, and they have no qualms about marrying them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I'm 100% sure a law on polygamy and incest is far more needed than a fucking law about gorillas sitting in backseats. This philosopher, who is also imo a slut, is in an open marriage and I'm sure she would marry the other person she's fucking if she could. There's a lot more people like this. I don't have any siblings so I don't know what incest is like. But I do know people elsewhere who want to have sex with their little sisters, and they have no qualms about marrying them. Kindly refrain from calling other women "sluts". --- The topic itself is about gay marriage - not polygamy/incest/dumb laws. Feel free to make a topic or two about it, but not here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.