Should prostitution and incestuous/polygamous/etc. marriages be legalized?

[Chiki]

Making this thread here upon eclipse's advice.

Interesting example that people in the Western world do want to marry multiple people: http://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/07/02/polygamist-applies-for-marriage-license-pkg.ktvq?iid=ob_article_organicsidebar_expansion&iref=obnetwork

Edited July 11, 2015 by Chiki

[Snowy_One]

This is an interesting question to be certain and, honestly, it's a bit hard to say.

Incest: Well... Depends? On a biological level an adopted/step child is not really any different than anyone else, but that's selling the issue short. The real problem is that incestuous relationships are often abusive and/or brought on by absent parents. While if it's being brought up to the alter there is likely more than that; beforehand it would most certainly be a concern.

Polygamous. This is an interesting case as the Abrahamic religions most certainly HAD polygamous relationships (look at Job) and IIRC, Islam still has them today. Not to mention elsewhere in the world it is legal. Even today it is not impossible to end up married to multiple partners through legal loopholes/fake identities. However, even if the Pope himself were to legalize it I'm certain a bunch of housewifes would make it very clear to their husbands that sleeping around is a surefire way to get divorced.

The real issue here is that, should the people involved ever actually REACH the alter, it's likely that they actually do love each other or it is involving people who would gladly abuse the system and likely do what they're doing anyways. It's not likely someone is going to engage in incest simply because it became legal to marry a family member when they wouldn't have before. Likewise religions do not apply to every marriage. You can claim that the Bible forbids incest all you want, but why should an Atheist have to give up his desire to marry his sister because of that?

So... My answer? I don't think a definite answer can actually be reached without going 'Ew! Incest! That's just wrong!/Ew! Multiple husbands/wives! That's just wrong!' without much backup.

[Rapier]

I'm glad this topic is not about whether incest and polygamy are morally right or not, because otherwise I wouldn't have an argument.

Since the legalization necessitates public approval and it doesn't, it should stay illegal. A law needs public approval to work, in a democracy. This is how our legal system works in the west. I've yet to see any jurisprudence where an insignificant number of people's wishes are enough to change the law.

It is this simple. Your friends who wish to "fuck with their little sisters" can stay below the carpet where they rightfully belong, Chiki.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Rapier

[Integrity]

It is this simple. Your friends who wish to "fuck with their little sisters" can stay below the carpet where they rightfully belong, Chiki.

two posts and this is already getting personal, christ alive

keep your goddamn tempers in check, kids.

[Draco]

No? There's kind of a reason neither are legal.

Polygamous is a no because marriage is supposed to be a contract into having one partner. I'm not real big on the idea myself but it's the way it should be. Do you know how much partners will freak out when they find out you've been cheating on them? It's just weird. I've heard of Mormons or w/a it is but I don't know much about them.

Incest has been tabooed for centuries and centuries, and for good reason. Inbred kids have problems of their own iirc. It's just wrong too, even if you're not reproducing.


But for the most part it's just morally wrong. I say no.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Draco

[Rapier]

two posts and this is already getting personal, christ alive

keep your goddamn tempers in check, kids.

Ok, my bad. I meant to say that few people just don't have much power to change the law.

Anyway, regarding polygamy, I just remembered: We'll need to revamp the legislations about such contracts, because our current system is legally incapable of accepting such relationships. I'm waiting for suggestions about how it will be done.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Rapier

[Espinosa]

It does appear like there's no difference whatsoever between gay and incestuous relationships. We (or some of the cultures living today) have come to a point where we accept the former but not the latter, while the reasons to accept or reject one and the other are essentially the same. The legalisation of still unrecognised perversities cannot happen until you have significant support in the general public, and the general public can be easily influenced to think or feel something when subjected to persistent means of propaganda.

So it's mostly a question of when/if the people possessing power over information decide to make a change in people's beliefs to make this possible. It may well happen. People in power are there because of talents, and talents have a tendency to come at expense of some perversity, often a taboo. Not wanting to hide that desire manifesting into a certain lifestyle or behaviour, an effort could be made to persuade others that what was previously considered depraved is in fact just another norm.

And from there the plan is fairly simple and one doesn't need to be Goebbels to think of what feelings and ideas to appeal to. Firstly, appeal to emotions - provide examples of incestuous teenagers who are bullied by their peers, locals, condemned by religious authorities (who are seemingly continuously declining in public approval) and often kicked out of their homes. The manipulation should be convincing and preferably even artistic to get people all teary-eyed. Constantly refer to artists and famous people who are incestuous.

As for the ideological part, well, everything that's worked for the gay plight can be copy n pasted here with surprising topicality:

- It's consensual

- They can't help it

- It's none of your business

- No significant health risks

- Even if the child is indeed more likely to be born a cripple, who told you they were actually having sex? Most just hug and dry hump and masturbate

- Why are so unhealthily interested in what they do in the first place? You don't happen to be incestuous yourself, do you?

- Everyone knows incestuous people; diligent workers and loyal friends, mentally stable

- Are we - "normal people" - such good people ourselves?

- But hey, there's nothing even wrong with it

- Monkeys also do it

- It was totally fine in this and that ancient civilisation

- Remember how "we" discriminated black people / women years ago? Our humanity requires additional open-mindedness and justice now

- And who are the opponents? Obscurantists still living in the Dark Ages, discredited appropriately

- It's about love. What kind of sad fuck are you to argue that love shouldn't win?

Doesn't require much imagination. Put special emphasis on the fact that this change is associated with this age and this generation, it is its major contribution to everything good and noble, and in any age not being a contemporary to your contemporaries in beliefs leaves you a pariah.

Basically, if there's the demand, it's too easy to carry out the desired change in attitude.

[-Cynthia-]

It may be important to note that there are different types of incest- you would probably find more opposition to parent/child incest (due to power issues etc.) as opposed to sibling incest.

[Rapier]

Child relations will not happen because they are counted as abuse by law (I think people would be arrested just for voicing they want parent/child incestuous relations, to be honest). Nevermind the fact that children are not mature enough to consent to these relationships... Same about zoophilia (if one accepts that the same argument for gay marriage applies to people and animals relationships), it is animal abuse.

[Chiki]

I'm glad this topic is not about whether incest and polygamy are morally right or not, because otherwise I wouldn't have an argument.

Since the legalization necessitates public approval and it doesn't, it should stay illegal. A law needs public approval to work, in a democracy. This is how our legal system works in the west. I've yet to see any jurisprudence where an insignificant number of people's wishes are enough to change the law.

It is this simple. Your friends who wish to "fuck with their little sisters" can stay below the carpet where they rightfully belong, Chiki.

Your argument is this: a law should only be put in place if it is supported by a majority, therefore incestuous marriages and such shouldn't be allowed. Is that right? Can you really think of no counterexamples to this?

[Zerosabers]

Polygamous is a no because marriage is supposed to be a contract into having one partner. I'm not real big on the idea myself but it's the way it should be. Do you know how much partners will freak out when they find out you've been cheating on them? It's just weird. I've heard of Mormons or w/a it is but I don't know much about them.

What does sneaking around and cheating have to do with polygamy? Polygamy isn't Jill sneaking out behind Bill's back to have sex with someone else.

[Draco]

I guess?

I hardly know what I'm talking about anyway.

[Rapier]

Your argument is this: a law should only be put in place if it is supported by a majority, therefore incestuous marriages and such shouldn't be allowed. Is that right? Can you really think of no counterexamples to this?

Ok, I'll try to draw the line (which I tried in that topic) once more.

You're speaking about what -should- be. There should be a jurisprudence that changes the law to better fit minorities that wish for incestuous and polygamic relationships. The meaning of marriage should extend to them (nevermind that, in order to do so, we'll need to change the meaning of marriage completely, since it is about two consenting people).

I'm speaking about how it is, how we see and operate the law. If a majority is against changing the law, it won't change. If only a minority supports changing the law to better accomodate their needs, it won't change. So, I deduce from this, that incestuous and polygamic relationships won't be legalized so soon. Everything clear from that point?

But as Espinosa (not the thinker) said, nothing stops political groups from promoting polygamic and incestuous relationship, gaining supporters and changing the law. It is part of the cultural war. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with logic. It's about operating the democratic gears and working with our jurisprudence (how we operate the law, in other terms).

The legalisation of still unrecognised perversities cannot happen until you have significant support in the general public, and the general public can be easily influenced to think or feel something when subjected to persistent means of propaganda.

This quote, in particular, fits with what I'm trying to say.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Rapier

[Eail]

Polygamous is a no because marriage is supposed to be a contract into having one partner.

Sorta like how until a lil more than a week ago, marriage was supposed to be between one man and one woman?

Quite frankly I say let people do what they want so long as it's not some really jacked up thing like parent and child incest, as Cynthia said, that's just a power dynamic that makes things very sketchy all around. Brother/Sister, Cousins, go do whatever you like.

Same with the polygamy argument, if you're part of a group that considers that cool, by all means go ahead and give it a shot.

[Rapier]

Same with the polygamy argument, if you're part of a group that considers that cool, by all means go ahead and give it a shot.

I swear, if someone tells me how it would work legally without making the whole law a mess (which is my main concern about polygamy), I'm going to cede in that point.

[Eail]

What exactly is the law snafu you're concerned about in regards to polygamy? Is it something like inheritance from the father after he dies and has three different sets of children by different women? I can give it a shot explaining how it might work if I know what the main thing is.

[Rapier]

Kind of. Inheritance, spouse pensions, all this kind of jazz that already makes two couples relationships hard to deal with legally, but secure marriage as an institution, so they are necessary. I'd like to see how it would turn out in a polygamic relationship.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Rapier

[Draco]

Sorta like how until a lil more than a week ago, marriage was supposed to be between one man and one woman?

Maybe? I'm cool with the idea of gay marriages if it makes them happy though.

I guess same for polygamous? It's their business, not mine.

Not cool with incest though.

[Eail]

(I'm using Father as a general idea but most of these could have a Woman in the main role as well)

Inheritance would likely have to be explicitly dealt with through a will and a very solid lawyer, enough so that there won't be any major difficulties with that after the father has passed. It's likely going to be very difficult to pull that off mind you, on a personal level, but I'd at least make some sort of outline a legal requirement.

Spouse pensions is a slightly dirty one, so far as the idea I've got for it. What you do is register a head of house, be it the woman with multiple husbands, or the man with multiple wives (if we start crossing these things to the point where everyone has multiples, it honest to god just doesn't work statistically.) With the assigned head of house, they declare the number of spouses that they have, along with current economic standing, pensions are dealt out accordingly at the time when necessary, and assuming the head of house is still alive, it becomes their responsibility to oversee the distribution of such.

Mind you that's really dirty in the sense that someone that doesn't have the best intentions for their spouses in mind could do some sketchy shit with it, but unless we're somehow assigning a government overseer to each family, it's sort of the best idea I've got for that one.

I'm certainly not a lawyer or a politician, but that's how I'd handle it at least, could use some fine tuning.

[Topazd]

Debates pertaining to moral issues are very exhausting in general, so I won't go at length about that. Admittedly I do have siblings and am a bit disturbed by such relationships.

But if we assume the legislature (whichever it may be) will be absolutely secular, I've no doubt both of these will be legalized in some form or another in the future. The ever more prominent sense of morality seems to revolve around consent, and incest and polygamy both can easily fit within that frame - with a few concessions. Other than the potential issues with abuse/inbreeding, I don't see many obstacles in the legislation's way, and they'll be worked around in some manner.

Were it up to me, I'd be in no hurry to change the status quo, but it will almost undoubtedly go through one sooner or later.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Topazd

[Chiki]

I'm speaking about how it is, how we see and operate the law. If a majority is against changing the law, it won't change. If only a minority supports changing the law to better accomodate their needs, it won't change. So, I deduce from this, that incestuous and polygamic relationships won't be legalized so soon. Everything clear from that point?

Since this thread is all about "should," this is actually not relevant. I don't really care if the majority is against changing the law, because it's still true that the law should be changed.

What will you do when polygamous marriages get legalized in Western countries?

[Eail]

Since this thread is all about "should," this is actually not relevant. I don't really care if the majority is against changing the law, because it's still true that the law should be changed.

What will you do when polygamous marriages get legalized in Western countries?

Still be single?

[Cowboy Karimov]

Yes, I believe that incest and polygamy should be legalized. I do not believe that the (American) government has any right to dictate what happens in the bedroom, regardless of moral or otherwise reasons.

[Rapier]

Since this thread is all about "should," this is actually not relevant. I don't really care if the majority is against changing the law, because it's still true that the law should be changed.

What will you do when polygamous marriages get legalized in Western countries?

Ok, but don't you think limiting the debate to what "should" be done blinds us to the practical facet of legalizing incest/polygamy, which (legalizing) seems to be your concern?

If it happens, I'll run away from Civil Law like the devil runs from the cross. It'll be too messy for my mind. =P And I guess that is all? I mean, I think I'll be already dead when polygamy is legalized because it takes time to convince people that certain taboos aren't bad, but who knows.

Why do you care, anyway? I only know very few people who want polygamy and sibling incest to be legalized...

Edited July 4, 2015 by Rapier

[Chiki]

Ok, but don't you think limiting the debate to what "should" be done blinds us to the practical facet of legalizing incest/polygamy, which (legalizing) seems to be your concern?

If it happens, I'll run away from Civil Law like the devil runs from the cross. It'll be too messy for my mind. =P And I guess that is all? I mean, I think I'll be already dead when polygamy is legalized because it takes time to convince people that certain taboos aren't bad, but who knows.

Why do you care, anyway? I only know very few people who want polygamy and sibling incest to be legalized...

And what are the practical consequences of legalizing them?

I care because I'm in search for the truth. What is right and what is not? I'm an only child, so I could never want to engage in sibling incest, and I personally find polygamy gross. But that doesn't mean polygamy and incest are unethical. I'm just being logical, unlike you right now.