AFTER GAY MARRIAGE ; POLYGAMY WOULD BE THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP?

Erinfan

I apologize in advance if my question offends someone in one way or another.

Now that gay marriage is legal in most so-called “civilized countries “ what will be our attitude toward people who believe that they are entitled also ,to contract marriage with multiple persons (polygamy) or with closed parents (incest) or with animals (zoophily) ?

nozzferrahhtoo

I see them as entirely separate subjects. As such I do not see the legalizing of any of of them as "following logically" from any other.

Manach

Once the social contract that has been the traditional underpinning of Marriage has been removed from pressure from the social advocacy groups, then further changes would be easier to implement. The same tactics deployed in the former case being re-deployed in the latter : with the logical premise, the proposition that once such a change as Gay marriage being legislated for then the related proposition of Polygamy is the next step in their evolution of society.

28064212

Once we legalised marriage, gay marriage was inevitable. We should go back and ban marriage so it can never happen.

Slippery slope arguments only make sense if there aren't valid differences between the cases. It's absolutely trivial to demonstrate the massive differences between gay marriage and the cases you've mentioned. You may as well have asked if the next logical step is "to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside"

nozzferrahhtoo

They are massively different subjects. Each with their own set of merits and demerits. I do not see any one as being a logical following of any other.

It would be like saying you can not legalize alcohol without legalizing all the other drugs as well. Yet we can. And we did.

clairefontaine

Sure why not. Also brother sister marriage, marry your cat too if you like.

The Corinthian

I presume that the principle for marriage (and certainly for relationships) presently being argued is that it is a recognised (sexual) union between consenting individuals? If this is incorrect, please let me know.

On that basis, consenting incestuous relationships or unions qualify. As to consenting polygamous (or other polyamorous) relationships. Zoophilia would not as animals cannot consent legally. Same with paedophilia (unless we decide to lower the age of consent). All that is required however for the first two, is sufficient political and legal pressure to legitimise them; which is another story.

Of course, one could use the genetic argument for incestuous relationships (polygamy is unaffected), but if you do, then you would have to ban many existing relationships that also come with even higher probabilities of genetic defects in offspring.

So I'm not entirely sure, on this basis, why these are "massively different subjects". Should (sexual) relationships not be recognised between consenting individuals? Or maybe just the ones that are politically acceptable?

clairefontaine

Someone remind me why we have state marriage in the first place?

HoggyRS

Theres nothing logical about that being the next step.

clairefontaine

HoggyRS wrote: »

Theres nothing logical about that being the next step.

Gay divorce will be the logical next step.

There are billions to be made in this legislation between wedding planners and lawyers.

Gosh if I had 10k to invest, it would be in gay marriage/divorce.

Absolam

clairefontaine wrote: »

Someone remind me why we have state marriage in the first place?

So that we have an alternative to religious marriage? Or do you mean why do we have any marriage at all?

Zombrex

Erinfan wrote: »

I apologize in advance if my question offends someone in one way or another.

Now that gay marriage is legal in most so-called “civilized countries “ what will be our attitude toward people who believe that they are entitled also ,to contract marriage with multiple persons (polygamy) or with closed parents (incest) or with animals (zoophily) ?

We will probably argue those things on their merits and decide based on that.

The reason gay marriage is acceptable is because there is no valid reason why the gender of the person you are marrying is any reason to refuse for society to recognise your marriage. A gay marriage is just like a straight marriage, which we already allow.

A polygamous marriage is not just like a straight/gay marriage. The fact that there are more than 2 involved fundamentally changes the nature of the arrangement (where as gender doesn't).

As such polygamy must be argued on that basis. Personally I think polygamy is too complicate and removed from marriage to be regulated (who is next of kin, who gets the house when you die, who decided to turn off the life support machine). If a group of people want to consent to a polygamous marriage I wouldn't object if they can find out a way to make it workable.

Incest and beastality are different, er, beasts all together since the objections to them are based on notions of harmful sexual contact. Again they would have again argued based on merit (or lack of)

It always amuses me that some religious people (not saying you) take the view that now that we have abandoned God's notion of marriage all these things are going to happen.

Was the only reason they werent marrying their dogs was because God told them not to :pac:

Speisekarte

28064212 wrote: »

Once we legalised marriage, gay marriage was inevitable. We should go back and ban marriage so it can never happen.

Slippery slope arguments only make sense if there aren't valid differences between the cases. It's absolutely trivial to demonstrate the massive differences between gay marriage and the cases you've mentioned. You may as well have asked if the next logical step is "to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside"

THe OP has a definite argument, the basic premise applied to the morality of gay marriage is why not allow two people to marry based simply on their gender. You could apply a similar argument to incestual marriage.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Someone remind me why we have state marriage in the first place?

Originally, marriage was a recognized socio-economic union between a man and a woman, in a sexual relationship, whereby the man would be contracted to provide and protect the woman and the woman would be contracted to provide children exclusively for the man. This union would be rubber-stamped in the community through the authority of religion.

With the gradual removal of religion from the equation and now gay marriage, it's become more a recognized socio-economic union between two consenting individuals, in a sexual relationship - the formal recognition of a relationship between two consenting individuals.

It's changed to accommodate the social acceptance of non-standard relationship types - the key here is really that it's about sexual relationships between two consenting individuals, which is the basic logic that has normalized homosexual relationships within society in the last forty years or so. Thing is you can apply this same principle to many other non-standard relationship types.

clairefontaine wrote: »

Gay divorce will be the logical next step.

If divorce is available, then the moment that marriage is legislated for, then divorce also becomes an option - so it's not a 'next step', it's just part of the current one.

If you mean that it'll take a few years before we start seeing gay divorces, then that's already happening in the US. There's ultimately no logical reason to presume that homosexuals are any better or worse than heterosexuals where it comes to being idiots in love.

HoggyRS wrote: »

Theres nothing logical about that being the next step.

Why not? There's been a few pronouncements that deny that one opens the door on the other, but very little argument to back that up.

If we accept that sexual relationships between two consenting individuals are acceptable, then consensual polygamous, polyamorous or incestuous all qualify. Who are we to deny them their happiness just because we're not into it?

The genetic argument, against incest, is not valid because reproduction is no longer core to marriage, let alone relationships. It also ignores that we happily let people who have, often serious, congenital genetic defects have sexual relationships or even marry.

Indeed, what is our eugenic tolerance, if that is a valid reason for us to deny consenting adults from having a relationship? 80% chance? 50%? 20%? Even 5%? If the last of these, any woman over the age of 40 would have to have her right to a sexual relationship denied - those are the odds of her giving birth to a Down Syndrome child, after all.

Of course, the main argument against such relationship types being 'the next step' is a Realpolitik one. Unless there is sufficient demand and political lobbying to reverse the current social attitudes against them, it won't happen.

However, this aside, there is no rational reason to suggest that they do not naturally lead from the social changes that have culminated in gay barrages and the normalization of homosexuality as a sexual orientation in society. Unsubstantiated denials of this just sound like they come from people who don't like the comparison or are uncomfortable with where the logic leads.

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

A polygamous marriage is not just like a straight/gay marriage. The fact that there are more than 2 involved fundamentally changes the nature of the arrangement (where as gender doesn't).

How does it fundamentally change anything?

As such polygamy must be argued on that basis. Personally I think polygamy is too complicate and removed from marriage to be regulated (who is next of kin, who gets the house when you die, who decided to turn off the life support machine). If a group of people want to consent to a polygamous marriage I wouldn't object if they can find out a way to make it workable.

Oh, so it is ok, as long as it can be legislated for. So the argument doesn't really change. Actually, what argument - what are the first principles you're basing any of this on?

Incest and beastality are different, er, beasts all together since the objections to them are based on notions of harmful sexual contact. Again they would have again argued based on merit (or lack of)

Zoophilia fails the test as it is not consensual because animals cannot consent according to law.

Incest, does not fail that test, if consensual. As for it being 'harmful', so was homosexuality forty years ago. Unless you want to argue in favour of eugenics here.

Ash.J.Williams

and he's......gone

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

How does it fundamentally change anything?

In a polygamous marriage there are more than two people involved and recognised by the State in the marriage.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Oh, so it is ok, as long as it can be legislated for.

It is ok as long as the problems that the fundamental change present can be over come in a workable fashion. That would require a new set of rules to deal with the fundamental differences, as such the "slippery slope" argument doesn't hold.

I have no moral objection to polygamy. The issue is that the introduction of a 3rd (or 4th or 5th ..) person into a legal relationship designed around there being 2 people cannot simply happen the way gay marriage can. Gay marriage didn't change what the marriage was. Polygamy would.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So the argument doesn't really change.

Depends on what "the argument" is. The argument against gay marriage was that the same sex nature of the couple wishing to get married fundamentally altered the nature of marriage. That, I hope everyone agrees, is nonsense. The gender of the couple doesn't change marriage at all, other than causing disgust to some outside of the marriage.

The argument for allowing gay marriage cannot be applied to polygamy

The Corinthian wrote: »

Zoophilia fails the test as it is not consensual because animals cannot consent according to law.

Incest, does not fail that test, if consensual.

The primary objections to incest wasn't that it wasn't consensual (though that is sometimes present in the argument that parents can abuse their parental power to make children believe they are consenting). But you are some what missing the point. If someone wants to argue for incestual marriage the argument is incest isn't X Y Z (the reasons we don't have incest), not we have homosexual marriage why not incestual marriage.

All these things, rightly or wrongly, that have arguments against them that are not anything to do with homosexual marriage. As such I can't see how the slippery slope argument even applies. These things will be argued on their own merit.

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

In a polygamous marriage there are more than two people involved and recognised by the State in the marriage.

How is that any more fundamental than the two people being of the same gender?

It is ok as long as the problems that the fundamental change present can be over come in a workable fashion. That would require a new set of rules to deal with the fundamental differences, as such the "slippery slope" argument doesn't hold.

Incorrect. The "slippery slope" argument (if you want to call it that, although I certainly do not see it as such) still applies. There is no reason on principle that such relationships and/or unions should not be acceptable or legal - all you're objecting on is on the basis of administration.

Gay marriage didn't change what the marriage was. Polygamy would.

Gay marriage changed the tradition raison d'etre of marriage, from one where reproduction was central, to one where it effectively was optional. Just because you disagreed with this, doesn't mean it didn't change it - so the same applies to both.

But you are some what missing the point. If someone wants to argue for incestual marriage the argument is incest isn't X Y Z (the reasons we don't have incest), not we have homosexual marriage why not incestual marriage.

Of course I'm missing the point, because you're not actually making one; you're just vaguely saying incest is different because of X Y Z, avoiding any identification of X Y Z (excellent way to avoid a rebuttal).

Could you actually address what's been raised by me, rather than gloss over it without actually addressing any of it? I asked what first principles are you operating from? I clearly stated that the present logic in society is that any relationship between consenting individuals is valid, and marriage is the legal recognition of that relationship.

You you disagree with this and if so on what basis? If not, should all forms of consensual relationships not deserve equal recognition?

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

How is that any more fundamental than the two people being of the same gender?

The gender of the people doesn't effect anything.

Say you are killed in a car accident and the doctors want your organs so they go to your wife and say "Can we have his organs" and your wife as your legally recognised next of kin mulls it over and says "Ok"

Her gender has nothing to do with that arrangement. The scenario would be exactly the same if your "wife" was a man.

Now imagine you have two wives. The doctors go to your two wives and say "Can we have his organs" and one wife says "Sure" and the other wife says "Nope". How does that work?

It is a fundamentally different arrangement.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Incorrect. The "slippery slope" argument (if you want to call it that, although I certainly do not see it as such) still applies. There is no reason on principle that such relationships and/or unions should not be acceptable or legal - all you're objecting on is on the basis of administration.

It could be argued that, say in the case above, a polygmous marriage is unworkable.

This isn't the place to argue whether that is or isn't the case. The point is that any discussion about polygmy would involve a debate on those merits. It isn't possible to say there is no reason "in principle" why this couldn't be brought in.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Gay marriage changed the tradition raison d'etre of marriage, from one where reproduction was central, to one where it effectively was optional.

Reproduction hasn't been the raison d'etre for marriage for hundreds of years.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course I'm missing the point, because you're not actually making one; you're just vaguely saying incest is different because of X Y Z, avoiding any identification of X Y Z (excellent way to avoid a rebuttal).

Could you actually address what's been raised by me, rather than gloss over it without actually addressing any of it? I asked what first principles are you operating from? I clearly stated that the present logic in society is that any relationship between consenting individuals is valid, and marriage is the legal recognition of that relationship.

The arguments against incest (which I'm not interested in debating the merits of) have traditionally been that incest is genetically risky to children produced in such relationships and a skepticism to the idea that both parties can enter it consensually, ie that a family member will be forced or manipulated into such a relationship without objecting through an abuse of the already present family relationship

Can you explain how either of those objections are nullified by the allowing of gay marriage?

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

The gender of the people doesn't effect anything.

Certainly affected the traditional definition of marriage that included reproduction. And if not, I really can't see how number of people or their genetic relationship to each other affects anything any more.

Say you are killed in a car accident and the doctors want your organs so they go to your wife and say "Can we have his organs" and your wife as your legally recognised next of kin mulls it over and says "Ok"

You keep on hiding behind administrative issues to justify why one type or relationship or union should be accepted and the other not.

The question here is not whether we need to legislate for such unions, but if we should in the first place, and you are repeatedly avoiding this.

It could be argued that, say in the case above, a polygmous marriage is unworkable.

It could, in which case the person doing so would not be the brightest penny in the purse - given that there are numerous countries, where polygamy (both polygyny and polyandry) even that have already managed to legislate for it - so clearly we would be far too dumb to do this.

It isn't possible to say there is no reason "in principle" why this couldn't be brought in.

It is possible, and I've done so. You're just avoiding it like the plague; and I suspect I know why.

Reproduction hasn't been the raison d'etre for marriage for hundreds of years.

It's certainly been an argument used as recently as the present debate on homosexual marriage, so I think you need to back up this claim.

The arguments against incest (which I'm not interested in debating the merits of)

Oh, so consensual incest is just different because you say so and you're not terribly interested in saying why? Thanks for doing us the favour of making a half-hearted attempt to do so.

have traditionally been that incest is genetically risky to children produced in such relationships and a skepticism to the idea that both parties can enter it consensually, ie that a family member will be forced or manipulated into such a relationship without objecting through an abuse of the already present family relationship

I've rebutted the genetic argument (incidentally, I thought reproduction was no longer a factor in marriage, but I suppose it is when it suits). Then of course there is the presumption that it must be forced or manipulated; they don't need recognition, but therapy. Sounds familiar, TBH.

I think also it would not take long to find examples where there is little evidence of manipulation or coercion in consensual incense (example 1, example 2).

Can you explain how either of those objections are nullified by the allowing of gay marriage?

No, their nullified because they're terribly weak objections.

Oh, lest I forget, you never addressed what's been raised by me, rather than gloss over it without actually doing so? I asked what first principles are you operating from? I clearly stated that the present logic in society is that any relationship between consenting individuals is valid, and marriage is the legal recognition of that relationship.

You you disagree with this and if so on what basis? If not, should all forms of consensual relationships not deserve equal recognition?

Guyanachronism

Posters would do well to remember that polygamous marriages predates gay marriage. It's an accepted practice in many Islamic countries and amongst religious groups in the US. The issue is whether those unions should be given state recognition in countries where it is not an established tradition and the benefits and protections that come with that. There are benefits to marriage for the state in terms of societal protection of individuals but I am sceptical of whether those protections function when there are more than 2 people invovled.

The main issue people will have with polygamous marriages is that it isn't a union of equals, so I would be ok with polyamorus marriage assuming the institution is adjusted to make suitable arrangements for the protection for the individuals invovled. It raises difficult questions about responsibility for children in the event of death, divorce etc. as well as the potential for abuse such as marriage of convenience for immigration purposes.

biko

I will agree to polygami when a wife can have 5 husbands.

Speisekarte

Zombrex wrote: »

The gender of the people doesn't effect anything.

Say you are killed in a car accident and the doctors want your organs so they go to your wife and say "Can we have his organs" and your wife as your legally recognised next of kin mulls it over and says "Ok"

Her gender has nothing to do with that arrangement. The scenario would be exactly the same if your "wife" was a man.

Now imagine you have two wives. The doctors go to your two wives and say "Can we have his organs" and one wife says "Sure" and the other wife says "Nope". How does that work?

It is a fundamentally different arrangement.



It could be argued that, say in the case above, a polygmous marriage is unworkable.

This isn't the place to argue whether that is or isn't the case. The point is that any discussion about polygmy would involve a debate on those merits. It isn't possible to say there is no reason "in principle" why this couldn't be brought in.


Reproduction hasn't been the raison d'etre for marriage for hundreds of years.



The arguments against incest (which I'm not interested in debating the merits of) have traditionally been that incest is genetically risky to children produced in such relationships and a skepticism to the idea that both parties can enter it consensually, ie that a family member will be forced or manipulated into such a relationship without objecting through an abuse of the already present family relationship

Can you explain how either of those objections are nullified by the allowing of gay marriage?

In one sentence you say that reproduction hasn't been the raison d'être for marriage for hundreds of years and then in another you say incest shouldn't be allowed based on possible reproductive abnormalities.

Manach

biko wrote: »

I will agree to polygami when a wife can have 5 husbands.

Having 5 sets of in-laws might be deemed a human rights violation on cruelty grounds.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

Certainly affected the traditional definition of marriage that included reproduction.

Reproduction ability hasn't been a requirement for marriage for hundred of years. Sterlie couples get married all the time.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You keep on hiding behind administrative issues to justify why one type or relationship or union should be accepted and the other not.

Of course, "administrative issues" is the primary objection to polygamy. :rolleyes:

The current set up of marriage is based on only two people being in the relationship. The gender of those two people is irrelevant to any arrangement in that set up. As is the inability to have children.

Or to put it another way, nothing in the arrangement of our current set up for marriage has to change to allow gay marriage.

On the other hand if we allowed polygamy a whole host of things would have to be worked out, changed, argued over etc etc.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The question here is not whether we need to legislate for such unions, but if we should in the first place, and you are repeatedly avoiding this.

No, the question here is whether allowing gay marriage puts us on a slippery slope to polygamy and incest.

It doesn't because the argument for gay marriage do not nullify the arguments against those things.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It could, in which case the person doing so would not be the brightest penny in the purse - given that there are numerous countries, where polygamy (both polygyny and polyandry) even that have already managed to legislate for it - so clearly we would be far too dumb to do this.

No one has argued they cannot be legislated for TC. Many would argue that the legislation would be unworkable based on the principles we consider important for marriage. For example the next of kin example I gave you which you seem to have ignored.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It is possible, and I've done so. You're just avoiding it like the plague; and I suspect I know why.

I have already given you an example of how that isn't the case. The concepts of next of kin would have to be altered to allow polygamy.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's certainly been an argument used as recently as the present debate on homosexual marriage, so I think you need to back up this claim.

Silly people argue stupid things. The reality is that no western country has held the ability to reproduce as a requirement for marriage for hundreds of years. Therefore the idea that introducing gay marriage where couples could not naturally reproduce changes the current set up of marriage is a stupid argument.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Oh, so consensual incest is just different because you say so and you're not terribly interested in saying why? Thanks for doing us the favour of making a half-hearted attempt to do so.

I've no idea what that refers to. I've already given two objections to incest that have nothing to do with gay marriage.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've rebutted the genetic argument

I don't care. This discussion is not about the merits of incest. It is about whether the principle of gay marriage nullifies the arguments against incest.

Considering they don't have anything to do with either other, and in fact you have already started arguing against the specific objections to incest, they clearly don't.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, their nullified because they're terribly weak objections.

If the arguments against incest can be discussed on their own merits and found to be weak objections no longer worth considered then by definition it isn't a slippery slope argument from gay marriage

But you know it is always easier when you argue my point for me TC.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If not, should all forms of consensual relationships not deserve equal recognition?

What the hell are you talking about? Why would all forms of consensual relationships be given the same recognition?

Me getting married is not the same as me going into business with someone. Me having sex with someone is not the same as me becoming their employee. All should be allowed, but not under the same classification and legal framework. You seem to have take a fairly basic ethical principle, what consenting adults do among themselves is fine, and tried to abstracted that to the most ridiculous generality.

I suspect you are only doing that to be argumentative. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Speisekarte wrote: »

In one sentence you say that reproduction hasn't been the raison d'être for marriage for hundreds of years and then in another you say incest shouldn't be allowed based on possible reproductive abnormalities.

Well that isn't actually what I said, I said an argument against incest is that it shouldn't be allowed based on possible reproductive abnormalities. I have little opinion on the merits of that argument because I don't know enough about it.

But again what does not needing to produce children to get married have to do with producing children with genetic abnormalities.

You appreciate I hope there is a HUGE F((KING DIFFERENCE between saying you don't have to produce children in a marriage to saying you cannot produce children in a marriage? :rolleyes:

Erinfan

The Corinthian wrote: »

I presume that the principle for marriage (and certainly for relationships) presently being argued is that it is a recognised (sexual) union between consenting individuals? If this is incorrect, please let me know.

I totally agree with you

On that basis, consenting incestuous relationships or unions qualify. As to consenting polygamous (or other polyamorous) relationships. Zoophilia would not as animals cannot consent legally.

We do not ask the consent of animals before slaughter them for our feeding needs

Same with paedophilia (unless we decide to lower the age of consent). All that is required however for the first two, is sufficient political and legal pressure to legitimise them; which is another story.

Thank you Mr Corinthia for that is exactly what I think the Gay marriage has been lagalise under the pressure of Gay lobby as the pope François straight it plainly.

Of course, one could use the genetic argument for incestuous relationships (polygamy is unaffected), but if you do, then you would have to ban many existing relationships that also come with even higher probabilities of genetic defects in offspring.

Thumb up

So I'm not entirely sure, on this basis, why these are "massively different subjects". Should (sexual) relationships not be recognised between consenting individuals? Or maybe just the ones that are politically acceptable?

A very great post

Speisekarte

Zombrex wrote: »

Well that isn't actually what I said, I said an argument against incest is that it shouldn't be allowed based on possible reproductive abnormalities. I have little opinion on the merits of that argument because I don't know enough about it.

But again what does not needing to produce children to get married have to do with producing children with genetic abnormalities.

You appreciate I hope there is a HUGE F((KING DIFFERENCE between saying you don't have to produce children in a marriage to saying you cannot produce children in a marriage? :rolleyes:

I assume you also abject to women over 40 having children?

The point is, reproduction isn't a necessity of marriage as you pointed out yourself, so why ban incestuous marriage between consenting adults?

Erinfan

biko wrote: »

I will agree to polygami when a wife can have 5 husbands.

A marriage involving one woman and multiple men is polyandrie and this union exists in some parts of Africa and Oceania.

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

Reproduction ability hasn't been a requirement for marriage for hundred of years. Sterlie couples get married all the time.

So a raison d'etre is now a requirement? The definition of marriage was up until recently religious; it saw it as a union between a man and a woman, for the purposes of starting a family, but did not impose the ability to do so as a requirement. Maybe you should read up on it.

Of course, "administrative issues" is the primary objection to polygamy. :rolleyes:

Great rebuttal. Try using reason next time.

The current set up of marriage is based on only two people being in the relationship. The gender of those two people is irrelevant to any arrangement in that set up. As is the inability to have children.

The current set up of marriage is the recognised union in a relationship. If you accept the principle of consenting adults deciding upon what type of relationship they want, then how many, or their genetic relationship, is irrelevant.

Or to put it another way, nothing in the arrangement of our current set up for marriage has to change to allow gay marriage.

I never said it does; only that it had to change from an earlier definition to do so, because that earlier definition specifically spoke of a man and a woman.

No, the question here is whether allowing gay marriage puts us on a slippery slope to polygamy and incest.

Potentially it can, but it ultimately will be decided by Realpolitik, as I pointed out earlier. Having to legislate isn't a real barrier to it - to suggest it is, is ridiculous.

No one has argued they cannot be legislated for TC. Many would argue that the legislation would be unworkable based on the principles we consider important for marriage. For example the next of kin example I gave you which you seem to have ignored.

I didn't; I and others have pointed out that many countries have legislated for it and so it is ridiculous to suggest that we are incapable of doing so in our own way - not that you explain why it would be unworkable, of course.

Silly people argue stupid things.

This is your idea of backing up an argument?

I've no idea what that refers to. I've already given two objections to incest that have nothing to do with gay marriage.

Both of which were flawed.

I don't care. This discussion is not about the merits of incest. It is about whether the principle of gay marriage nullifies the arguments against incest.

Well then; the principle that legitimises gay marriage nullifies the arguments against consensual incest.

Considering they don't have anything to do with either other, and in fact you have already started arguing against the specific objections to incest, they clearly don't.

The only reason I touched on specific objections to incest is to head off the claims that it's "different because..." It was a valid topic for you earlier for some reason.

Me getting married is not the same as me going into business with someone. Me having sex with someone is not the same as me becoming their employee. All should be allowed, but not under the same classification and legal framework.

LOL. Would you apply this to gay marriage then - not under the same classification and legal framework as heterosexual marriage?

You seem to have take a fairly basic ethical principle, what consenting adults do among themselves is fine, and tried to abstracted that to the most ridiculous generality.

I've not, I've not even extrapolated it that far. If two or more people are in a relationship that they value and feel deserves recognition and legal protection, it's not much of a stretch that they would seek equal rights in marriage. You disagree?

biko wrote: »

I will agree to polygami when a wife can have 5 husbands.

Polygamy is a general term and can include either multiple husbands or wives. I think it covers group marriage too.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

The definition of marriage was up until recently religious;

Don't care. We are not talking about what marriage was "up until recently" (ie the last few hundred years). We are talking about what marriage is now.

Modern marriage does not exist primarily to facilitate reproduction, as reflected in there being nor requirement to be able to produce children in order to enter into a marriage.

If you want to argue about what marriage was like in Roman times you are in the wrong thread. The point is that current modern marriage was not changed to facilitate gay marriage. It would be significantly changed to allow polygamy. Such a change would have to be argued on its own merits. The idea that we will slide from gay marriage to polygamy is utter nonsense and shows a shocking lack of understanding of the issues involved.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The current set up of marriage is the recognised union in a relationship. If you accept the principle of consenting adults deciding upon what type of relationship they want, then how many, or their genetic relationship, is irrelevant.

Don't be silly. There are lots of different types of relationships between consenting adults recognised by the State and the consenting adults involved do not decide on a case to case basis what legal classification those relationships take.

I cannot decide that in my specific case between my boss and myself that our employee contract with have the State recognise next of kin status.

Marriage as it stands legally has a number of fundamental principles (such as next of kin which you keep ignoring) that would not function in a polygamous system, and as such the conceptual framework of marriage would have to be altered.

You can argue that it should be altered, but there is no case that gay marriage slides towards that altering.

Can you even name one functioning principle of marriage that altered by the inclusion of homosexual couples?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Potentially it can, but it ultimately will be decided by Realpolitik, as I pointed out earlier. Having to legislate isn't a real barrier to it - to suggest it is, is ridiculous.

Why do you keep talking about barriers. Who the f**k is talking about barriers

You are having another one of these only in your head conversations TC

The Corinthian wrote: »

I didn't; I and others have pointed out that many countries have legislated for it and so it is ridiculous to suggest that we are incapable of doing so in our own way - not that you explain why it would be unworkable, of course.

What countries keep our system of next of kin inside a polygamous marriage framework :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote: »

Both of which were flawed.

It is utterly irrelevant to the conversation how flawed they are. Again you have another one of these only-in-your-head debates.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well then; the principle that legitimises gay marriage nullifies the arguments against consensual incest.

Really. Which principle that legitimises gay marriage nullifies genetic abnormalities or the thread of family pressure used to force perceived consent.

Be specific.

The Corinthian wrote: »

LOL. Would you apply this to gay marriage then - not under the same classification and legal framework as heterosexual marriage?

No because the setup between a gay and straight marriage is identical. Hence why we have gay marriage. Hence why it isn't a slippery slope to polygamy (which isn't identical in numerous and significant ways) or incest (which has specific features that present objection not present in any other form of marriage)

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've not, I've not even extrapolated it that far.

You have said that my position should be that all consenting relationships should be treated the same and the paramaters decided by those in the relationship. You think that is not "that far" :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote: »

If two or more people are in a relationship that they value and feel deserves recognition and legal protection, it's not much of a stretch that they would seek equal rights in marriage. You disagree?

Not at all. They can seek anything they like. If someone wants to marry the Effle Tower they are free to argue why our current marriage systems should be significantly changed to allow this and that will be debated on the merits of the argument for it and changed in order to facilitate it

Zombrex

Speisekarte wrote: »

The point is, reproduction isn't a necessity of marriage as you pointed out yourself, so why ban incestuous marriage between consenting adults?

I've no idea. Maybe ask someone who is proposing banning incestual marriages between consenting adults.

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

Don't care. We are not talking about what marriage was "up until recently" (ie the last few hundred years). We are talking about what marriage is now.

You're the one who brought up changes to the idea of marriage (or conceptual framework of marriage, as you're now calling it), so I'm just giving past examples of this by referencing what that conceptual framework of marriage used to be.

Don't be silly. There are lots of different types of relationships between consenting adults recognised by the State and the consenting adults involved do not decide on a case to case basis what legal classification those relationships take.

Straw man - I never said they did.

Marriage as it stands legally has a number of fundamental principles (such as next of kin which you keep ignoring) that would not function in a polygamous system, and as such the conceptual framework of marriage would have to be altered.

Why do you still insist that I am ignoring the question of next of kin? I've already said that such issues are happily handled in other countries with polygamous systems.

You can argue that it should be altered, but there is no case that gay marriage slides towards that altering.

Well, if you're willing to change the conceptual framework of marriage for one group, does this not argue that you can for others?

Why do you keep talking about barriers. Who the f**k is talking about barriers

You; you're the one who keeps on using legislation to suggest that such marriages should not become reality.

You are having another one of these only in your head conversations TC

I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to become personal in this discussion. You appear to do this whenever I cut through your strawman arguments and obfuscations, as a means to distract from them.

You rely on ':rolleyes:' responses a bit too much, TBH.

What countries keep our system of next of kin inside a polygamous marriage framework :rolleyes:

So, it's impossible for us to change ours to suit both the practicalities of such unions and maintain what we consider fair in the West? After all, if they managed to solve the issues of next of kin to their satisfaction, why can't we? You've decided apparently that it's "unworkable", without ever saying why.

Really. Which principle that legitimises gay marriage nullifies genetic abnormalities or the thread of family pressure used to force perceived consent.

First you tell us that "this discussion is not about the merits of incest", ruling the rebuttal against the eugenics argument as irrelevant, now you bring it back in.

As for the principle in question, the same one I stated in my first post in this thread.

You have said that my position should be that all consenting relationships should be treated the same and the paramaters decided by those in the relationship. You think that is not "that far" :rolleyes:

Which do you oppose? That all consenting relationships should be treated the same? Or that they have a right to seek legal recognition of their relationship?

Not at all. They can seek anything they like. If someone wants to marry the Effle Tower they are free to argue why our current marriage systems should be significantly changed to allow this and that will be debated on the merits of the argument for it

Then there's really no argument here if you accept that.

Thing is that this is not how we saw relationships and marriage only a few decades ago. Changing how we defined first relationships and then marriage, allowed us to introduce homosexual marriage (indeed, to normalize homosexual relationships), but it does also allow in principle all these other non-standard relationships, which will naturally seek to legitimize themselves and their relationships in society.

This does not mean it will happen, or at least happen for a very, very long time, as to enact social and political change, you need political will and influence. However, it is a logical consequence of how our 'conceptual framework' of relationships has changed from the narrow, religiously dictated one of a few decades ago to the more humanistic, open one of today.

OldNotWIse

Erinfan wrote: »

I apologize in advance if my question offends someone in one way or another.

Now that gay marriage is legal in most so-called “civilized countries “ what will be our attitude toward people who believe that they are entitled also ,to contract marriage with multiple persons (polygamy) or with closed parents (incest) or with animals (zoophily) ?

Gay marriage has as much to do with polygamy as straight marriage.

ps a disclaimer saying "apologies in advance" doesn't mean you wont offend someone.

Speisekarte

Zombrex wrote: »

I've no idea. Maybe ask someone who is proposing banning incestual marriages between consenting adults.

I was under the impression you were against incestuous marriage, my mistake. I'm happy to see your progressive attidude to incestuous marriage.

Gbear

Marriage should be a private contract between any number of consenting individuals. It's not the state's place to "safeguard our morals" or whatever other nonsense you'd care to bring to the table.

It's up to the people signing the contract that it makes sense and suits their needs.

HurtLocker

Gay marriage should be legalized. Hell it should be enshrined in the constitution full stop. We've enough rubbish in that the right of two consenting in love adults to live there life without state discrimination trumps easily. Waffling on made up consequences as reasons the reconsider is laughable.

You may as well right the following into law.
"Sorry lads we know that ye gays should be allowed the right to marry but we take the view you being given rights will spur others into getting rights. We are not homophobic or nothing its just well you know.... we cant have that."

OldNotWIse wrote: »

ps a disclaimer saying "apologies in advance" doesn't mean you wont offend someone.

Im pretty sure it means it preempts the offence and apologies in advance so poster dont derail the thread to get recognition that the thread offends them

paulmorro

HurtLocker wrote: »

Im pretty sure it means it preempts the offence and apologies in advance so poster dont derail the thread to get recognition that the thread offends them

Yeah but it also makes a mockery of the apology which is clearly disingenuous. The OP wants to insult.

Erinfan

OldNotWIse wrote: »

ps a disclaimer saying "apologies in advance" doesn't mean you wont offend someone.

I am often impressed by the hyper sensitivity of supporters of gay civil rights on the issue of equal rights with other social minorities groups.

OldNotWIse

HurtLocker wrote: »

Gay marriage should be legalized. Hell it should be enshrined in the constitution full stop. We've enough rubbish in that the right of two consenting in love adults to live there life without state discrimination trumps easily. Waffling on made up consequences as reasons the reconsider is laughable.

You may as well right the following into law.
"Sorry lads we know that ye gays should be allowed the right to marry but we take the view you being given rights will spur others into getting rights. We are not homophobic or nothing its just well you know.... we cant have that."



Im pretty sure it means it preempts the offence and apologies in advance so poster dont derail the thread to get recognition that the thread offends them

The only de-railment I see is picking on a relevant post simply to have a go at someone.

The Corinthian

HurtLocker wrote: »

Gay marriage should be legalized. Hell it should be enshrined in the constitution full stop. We've enough rubbish in that the right of two consenting in love adults to live there life without state discrimination trumps easily. Waffling on made up consequences as reasons the reconsider is laughable.

You may as well right the following into law.
"Sorry lads we know that ye gays should be allowed the right to marry but we take the view you being given rights will spur others into getting rights. We are not homophobic or nothing its just well you know.... we cant have that."

That's a bit hysterical, with respects.

If you abide by the principle of 'the right of two (or more) consenting in love adults to live there life without state discrimination', then you can't really put your head in the sand when it has consequences that were not originally considered. Homosexuality just happened to be first at fulfilling those right, and thus set an example to all other groups who wish to follow non-standard relationships.

Indeed, if we all abided by the principle of 'the right of two (or more) consenting in love adults to live there life without state discrimination' then none of these other relationship types should really bother us and if they do, it's only because of our own irrational response to them and puts into question whether we even believe in that principle in the first place.

And while I can understand the negative reaction that lumping all non-standard relationships together may engender, especially as many of them are still taboo, one should not silence rational and dispassionate analysis because one does not like being reminded of how they were once perceived themselves - it sounds like a guy who's just gained citizenship in a country, then the first thing he does is join the local anti-immigration party (which, btw, is surprisingly commonplace).

Erinfan

The merits of this discussion is to make finger point to supporters of gay marriage (which in France is called abusivly 'marriage for all') all the ethical issues that arose opponents of Gay marriage ( in good faith ) on the opportunity to legislate on an extremely complex subject.
Just in France if one takes literally the name of the law that was passed; the marriage is open to everyone. Hitherto African immigrants in France could legally bring his second spouse without using subterfuge as identifying their second wife as a maid.

As The Corinthian straited at the start of this discussion everything is a balance of power in a democracy, the day the Muslim immigrant (the Pakistanis in the UK, the Turkish in Germany, North Africans in France or Arabic in U.S.) will be numerous enough to constitute a political force there will be an impact on the laws of those countries.

Erinfan

The Corinthian wrote: »

---

Homosexuality just happened to be first at fulfilling those right, and thus set an example to all other groups who wish to follow non-standard relationships.

---

And while I can understand the negative reaction that lumping all non-standard relationships together may engender, especially as many of them are still taboo, one should not silence rational and dispassionate analysis because one does not like being reminded of how they were once perceived themselves - it sounds like a guy who's just gained citizenship in a country, then the first thing he does is join the local anti-immigration party (which, btw, is surprisingly commonplace).

Thank you for this relevant answer that helps dissolve some of my trouble since I can not understand why a group (the homosexuals) who are at the vanguard of the struggle for the rights of minorities can go against the rights of others to love the way they desire.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2356977/Iraqi-farmer-92-father-16-marries-second-time--woman-70-YEARS-younger-him.html#

http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,1754465091001_2120441,00.html?iid=tabvidrecirc

In U.S for instance ,most homosexuals are liberal minded persons who support abortion, euthanasia ,the rights of immigrants and oppose death penalty and restrict the possession of fire arms ;my question is why they oppose the polygamie and incestuous marriage ?

clairefontaine

Erinfan wrote: »

Thank you for this relevant answer that helps dissolve some of my trouble since I can not understand why a group (the homosexuals) who are at the vanguard of the struggle for the rights of minorities can go against the rights of others to love the way they desire

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2356977/Iraqi-farmer-92-father-16-marries-second-time--woman-70-YEARS-younger-him.html#

In U.S for instance ,most homosexuals are liberal minded persons who support abortion, euthanasia ,the rights of immigrants and oppose death penalty and restrict the possession of fire arms ;my question is why they oppose the polygamie and incestuous marriage ?

What? You haven't been introduced to liberal hypocrisy?

Guyanachronism

Erinfan wrote: »

Thank you for this relevant answer that helps dissolve some of my trouble since I can not understand why a group (the homosexuals) who are at the vanguard of the struggle for the rights of minorities can go against the rights of others to love the way they desire

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2356977/Iraqi-farmer-92-father-16-marries-second-time--woman-70-YEARS-younger-him.html#

In U.S for instance ,most homosexuals are liberal minded persons who support abortion, euthanasia ,the rights of immigrants and oppose death penalty and restrict the possession of fire arms ;my question is why they oppose the polygamie and incestuous marriage ?

Wonderful straw man there, how do you know what "most homosexuals" support. You know there are republican voting homosexuals as well who don't see supporting gay marriage as contradicting their other opinions.

I think your link highlights the main issue with incestous marriages. Gay marriage is between equals, incestous and polygamous marriages usually have a power imbalance that raises questions about bodily integrity. Gay marriage also brings state/social benefits, a married person is less likely to become a state burden etc. While polygamous marriages attempting to fit into current civil marriage arrangement would create an excessive state burden when it comes to the entitlements of the married.

It's also wrong to equate gay marriage as leading to polygamy because polygamy has existed prior to gay marriage. Polygamists might like to point to gay marriage as justifying calls for civil recognition of polygamous unions but they don' equate when cosidering the burdens of polygamous marriage on the state, the fact that polygamous marriages from relgious tradition make women property and the history of cultism in the US that goes with polygamy.

I am fine with them living in polygamous arrangement but not extending state benefits to them. I would support polyamorous, where rather than one patriarchial figure and his numerous wives, all those in the relationship would have a duty of care and support to each other, an arrangement that ensures equality. The inheritance and child protection rules would also have to be clearly identified.

I would decriminalise incest between siblings/cousins but not inter-generational family arrangements. Too much of a power imbalance, a parent could effectively groom their child from birth to be their future husband/wife.

The important thing to take away from this post is polygamy exists, in America and the middle east. It predates formal recognition of gay marriage. Polygamous arrangements isn't between equals, inter-generational incestous relationships under mine bodily integrity. Polygamy would be an excessive state burden if they were to be accepted under current protection extended to married couples by the state.

aloyisious

Erinfan wrote: »

I am often impressed by the hyper sensitivity of supporters of gay civil rights on the issue of equal rights with other social minorities groups.

I'm forever telling my like-kind that = is an unlimited gift but some people have closed eyes.

Gotham

Erinfan wrote: »

contract marriage with multiple persons (polygamy)

Sounds fine to me.

Erinfan wrote: »

or with closed parents (incest)

This can have actual health affects, it would be fine if they don't have kids but that's impossible to police. This is the only grey area I see.

Erinfan wrote: »

or with animals (zoophily) ?

Animals cannot consent, so... no.

The Corinthian

Guyanachronism wrote: »

Wonderful straw man there, how do you know what "most homosexuals" support. You know there are republican voting homosexuals as well who don't see supporting gay marriage as contradicting their other opinions.

All you're saying is that not all homosexuals support gay marriage, which he never said. Are you suggesting that a majority of homosexuals do not support gay marriage?

I think your link highlights the main issue with incestous marriages. Gay marriage is between equals, incestous and polygamous marriages usually have a power imbalance that raises questions about bodily integrity.

I think you're making quite a few sweeping generalizations about incestuous and polygamous relationships there. Of the former, the most common occurrence is where relatives have been largely separated throughout their childhood and only really meet as adults, so I don't really see any propensity for power imbalances there - at least no more than with any other relationship.

Polygamous relationships also are not limited to the stereotype of geriatric Arabs or Mormons marrying teenagers; it includes fraternal polyandry (that no one seems to be concerned about, because it's not women who are 'exploited') that appear to be very much consensual and other versions, some of which have sought some recognition in the West - indeed ménage à trois have been around for a very long time.

Gay marriage also brings state/social benefits, a married person is less likely to become a state burden etc. While polygamous marriages attempting to fit into current civil marriage arrangement would create an excessive state burden when it comes to the entitlements of the married.

By that logic, we shouldn't let any poor people get married.

It's also wrong to equate gay marriage as leading to polygamy because polygamy has existed prior to gay marriage.

Sorry, but this isn't actually the case; not that it would make much difference even if it was.

the fact that polygamous marriages from relgious tradition make women property and the history of cultism in the US that goes with polygamy.

Which is a nonsensical argument based upon cultural stereotypes. Women remain disadvantaged and exploited in many monogamous marriages around the World, yet I hardly hear this being cited as a reason not to recognise monogamous marriage in the West. The problem is with the status of women in such countries, not the type of marriage they have.

I am fine with them living in polygamous arrangement but not extending state benefits to them. I would support polyamorous, where rather than one patriarchial figure and his numerous wives, all those in the relationship with have a duty of care and support to each other, an arrangement the ensures equality. The inheritance and child protection rules would also have to be clearly identified.

Would you support one matriarchal figure with numerous husbands? Only those relationships that have equal numbers of each gender, or would you apply a quota system? And you'll tolerate polygamous arrangement but not extending state benefits to them?

What I find amusing about this approach is that it echoes many of the opinions we've heard in the past where it comes to gay marriage - especially the last one. And that's just polygamy. There appears to be a bizarre hypocrisy at play.

I would decriminalise incest between siblings/cousins but not inter-generational family arrangements. Too much of a power imbalance, a parent could effectively groom their child from birth to be their future husband/wife.

And what if they haven't? As I said, such relationships tend to form in adulthood, between relatives that had little contact previously. There may still be a power imbalance based on age then, but if so, should we limit the right to marry for all, based on age differences?

The important thing to take away from this post is polygamy exists, in America and the middle east. It predates formal recognition of gay marriage. Polygamous arrangements isn't between equals, inter-generational incestous relationships under mine bodily integrity and would be an excessive state burden if we they were to be accepting under current protection extended to married couples by the state.

The important thing to take away from all this is that much of what you've said is either incorrect or at least very dubious and open to debate.

The Corinthian

Gotham wrote: »

This can have actual health affects, it would be fine if they don't have kids but that's impossible to police. This is the only grey area I see.

I agree, but then again we seem to have no problem allowing couples to marry who have serious heritable issues.

I remember a barrister friend of mine telling me about a case whereby a couple, both receiving disability benefits, both suffering from the same genetic issue that has something like a 90% chance of being passed on to their offspring, were suing the health board because they'd either threatened or had cut off additional payments for their offspring (who inherited this condition). They had their rights upheld.

There's no logical reason we should not treat an incestuous couples differently to the above couple. Allow both to have families or, in the public interest, deny both.

Guyanachronism

The Corinthian wrote: »

All you're saying is that not all homosexuals support gay marriage, which he never said. Are you suggesting that a majority of homosexuals do not support gay marriage?

I think you're making quite a few sweeping generalizations about incestuous and polygamous relationships there. Of the former, the most common occurrence is where relatives have been largely separated throughout their childhood and only really meet as adults, so I don't really see any propensity for power imbalances there - at least no more than with any other relationship.

Polygamous relationships also are not limited to the stereotype of geriatric Arabs or Mormons marrying teenagers; it includes fraternal polyandry (that no one seems to be concerned about, because it's not women who are 'exploited') that appear to be very much consensual and other versions, some of which have sought some recognition in the West - indeed ménage à trois have been around for a very long time.

By that logic, we shouldn't let any poor people get married.

Sorry, but this isn't actually the case; not that it would make much difference even if it was.

Which is a nonsensical argument based upon cultural stereotypes. Women remain disadvantaged and exploited in many monogamous marriages around the World, yet I hardly hear this being cited as a reason not to recognise monogamous marriage in the West. The problem is with the status of women in such countries, not the type of marriage they have.

Would you support one matriarchal figure with numerous husbands? Only those relationships that have equal numbers of each gender, or would you apply a quota system? And you'll tolerate polygamous arrangement but not extending state benefits to them?

What I find amusing about this approach is that it echoes many of the opinions we've heard in the past where it comes to gay marriage - especially the last one. And that's just polygamy. There appears to be a bizarre hypocrisy at play.

And what if they haven't? As I said, such relationships tend to form in adulthood, between relatives that had little contact previously. There may still be a power imbalance based on age then, but if so, should we limit the right to marry for all, based on age differences?

The important thing to take away from all this is that much of what you've said is either incorrect or at least very dubious and open to debate.

No, read my post, my point was that LGBT people have a diversity of opinions on matters. Just because they support gay marriage (and not all do) doesn't mean you can infer that they support or should support other issues that some posters might identify as "liberal".

I am making generalisations? You could say healthy incestous relationships develop where they meet later in life. You can't generalise that it's "the most common occurence". The poster I responded to linked an article where that clearly wasn't the case. I also don't support polandry you're using a straw man again there, I oppose inequal relationship being recognised in law.

I already said that I am ok with polyamorous, a relationship of equals (kind of worrying that you would link to BrusselsJournal with its far right connections).

The UK recently reformed family reunficiation laws, where now somebody residing in the UK can only bring in their spouse if they earn more than £18,500 p/a how do you feel about that? Are you aware of marriges of convenience where someobdy with right of residency in a country marries just to allow another to enter the country. It's a very concrete example of potential for abuse if we allow polygamous marriage. But even poor people marrying brings social benefits, two people living together in one residence is cheaper as well as partners caring for each other in the event of illness, so the state supports that. But those benefits would be impossible to recreate when one Husband/wife is responsible for a dozen or so husband/wives, particular if he is social welfare dependent and the state would be burdened with supplying them enough welfare and suitable housing for that individual to support his numerous partners. It wouldn't work in a polyagmous arrangement.

Just because women are exploited in relationship somewher else in the world doesn't make it acceptable to recognise relationship that could be exploitative here. It was a difficult battle to recognise the equality of both partners in a relationship, why should we risk reversing that? Those who lobby for the recognition of polygamous marriage in the US come from religions who believe women are inferior to men. It exists in mulim traditions that believe the same. Again if they accept the relationship as polyamorous rather than polygamous, it would be more acceptable.

My dog has four legs and a tail, so does an elephant is my dog an elephant? The arguments pro/con for gay marriage and pro/con polygamy are similar because they deal with marriage and human relationships but they aren't the same. Arguments oppossed to gay marriage had no basis in reality, in terms of individual or societal harm, while it had benefits. Polygamy has numerous potential societal and individual harms but no apparent benefits. Can you name benefits beyond principle?

The power imbalance in inter-generational incestous relationships comes not from age but from the societal roles. Fathers/Mother are authority figures. There is an asymetry of power and influence.

How would you ensure that the relationships were free from coercion?

The Corinthian

Guyanachronism wrote: »

No, read my post, my point was that LGBT people have a diversity of opinions on matters. Just because they support gay marriage (and not all do) doesn't mean you can infer that they support or should support other issues that some posters might identify as "liberal".

Well, on what principle do they support gay marriage then, or gay relationships for that matter?

From what I can see, almost all of your objections are based on incorrect assumptions, cultural generalizations and basically displaying much the same level of tolerance as any religious zealot.

There's often not a lot of difference between liberals and conservatives, it seems.

I am making generalisations? You could say healthy incestous relationships develop where they meet later in life. You can't generalise that it's "the most common occurence".

Actually, I can; it's called genetic sexual attraction.

Even if this were not so common in such cases, what are you suggesting? Because there is abuse in some such relationships, then all such relationships should be banned? In that case, if we accept your generalization, we might as well just ban all relationships, including hetro and homosexual ones.

The poster I responded to linked an article where that clearly wasn't the case. I also don't support polandry you're using a straw man again there, I oppose inequal relationship being recognised in law.

And you were presuming an unequal relationship based upon your own narrow view of polygamy in third World countries, where monogamous marriages are just as often, just as unequal. In short, your view is based upon cultural bigotry, not reason.

I already said that I am ok with polyamorous, a relationship of equals (kind of worrying that you would link to BrusselsJournal with its far right connections).

I linked to it because it came up on Google when I looked for a supporting article. Here's another one - I'm clearly not as clued in on what I should be reading or not, based on labels, but I hope it's acceptable.

The UK recently reformed family reunficiation laws, where now somebody residing in the UK can only bring in their spouse if they earn more than £18,500 p/a how do you feel about that? Are you aware of marriges of convenience where someobdy with right of residency in a country marries just to allow another to enter the country. It's a very concrete example of potential for abuse if we allow polygamous marriage.

Yes, lets ban all marriage then as it can all be abused.

It wouldn't work in a polyamorous arrangement.

Why not? Are you assuming that at least two would be breadwinners here?

The power imbalance in inter-generational incestous relationships comes not from age but from the societal roles. Fathers/Mother are authority figures. There is an asymetry of power and influence.

You've clearly little experience of couples where one party is over 20 years older than another. If you did, you'd quickly realize that these dynamics are in play there too.

How would you ensure that the relationships were free from coercion?

Same way as we insure all relationships are free from coercion.