Polygamy - why not?

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

You raised the issue, I addressed some pratical concerns and asked you what limits you'd place on consentual adults, and you've been stalling on that.

I raised the issue, you didn't address it and you've been stalling on that.

Seriously, it's so blatantly obvious that you're refusing to touch it that it's comical.

You're more than happy to ask difficult questions, you just don't enjoy answering them.

Hypocrite.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

I raised the issue, you didn't address it and you've been stalling on that.

How is saying while not opposed to it, I'd just like to see better evidence than what you've presented before condoning it, not touching it.

How is saying, I'd be concerned that such a legalisation could be used to condon an abusive relationship, not touching it.

How is saying, that I've pointed out that homosexual rights aren't on the statute books and forcing the homosexual rights campaign take on the baggage of an incest rights campaign, not touching it.

Seriously, it's so blatantly obvious that you're refusing to touch it that it's comical.

And the fact that you've refused to defend your own position when it's taken to it's own logical conclusion, isn't just comical, it's wearing giant shoes, a orange wig, and driving around in a tiny car with a chimp.

Hypocrite.

Right back at you pal.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

How is saying while not opposed to it, I'd just like to see better evidence than what you've presented before condoning it, not touching it.

I asked you what is missing from or false in the principle of ‘consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships’ ? How many times do I have to repeat this?

So, what is the relevance of asking for practical evidence to a question relating to a point of principle?

How is saying, I'd be concerned that such a legalisation could be used to condon an abusive relationship, not touching it.

What is the relevance of asking for the legal practicalities to a question relating to a point of principle?

How is saying, that I've pointed out that homosexual rights aren't on the statute books and forcing the homosexual rights campaign take on the baggage of an incest rights campaign, not touching it.

What is the relevance of asking for whether something is in demand, to a question relating to a point of principle?

And the fact that you've refused to defend your own position when it's taken to it's own logical conclusion, isn't just comical, it's wearing giant shoes, a orange wig, and driving around in a tiny car with a chimp.

I’ve repeatedly asked you to directly address a point of principle; that ‘consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships’ and asked what, if anything, is wrong with this principle. And you’ve failed to address it or even mention it even once.

pretty-in-pink

Actually out of interests sake, where did you find this:

consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships

And I would also like to say you did not get a "victory" over me, I amended your statement, so that it would fairly govern the possibilities of incest and polygamy, and I stand by my own feelings- that incest is wrong. If you are going to keep harrassing MyCroft to alter the statement so that it is fitting, then you should do so to. It's only fair to answer your own question. If you are for incest, then a defense for it would be nice.

As for the many snide remarks you made re the "ick" comment, well what else would you call incest? Its not natural to have a strong sexual attraction to your siblings,parents or grandparetns- nor is it natural for them to have such an attraction for you. And by creating legislation, the belief that this is another form of a normal, healthy relationship will be stated legaly. This will be taken advantage of, and so counter legislation would need to be created to try protect people.

Now you might argue that people said that gay was "ick", but it was commonly practised- despite its legal status, in fact many intelligent, sensitive, artistic people were gay- Oscar Wilde wasn't exactly hiding his light under a bushel, nor apparently was William Shakespeare,or Lord Byron.

It is quite sneaky to try tack incest onto the gay rights issue- anyone I know who is gay- or indeed bi, has been completely horrified that people are trying to use their arguments in the defense of incest- and by continualy looking for reasons "why not", you are defending incest. If you don't feel it's right, then don't defend it. If you do, then please continue with your "argument".

I'm pretty sure anyone who is, or would, practise incest are well capable of defending themselves, and would rather develop their own arguments for it.

And yet again:
Homosexual - its a sexuality
Incest - its a paraphenalia that can be homo or hetrosexual
Polygamy - its neither really, its a group of people who believe they are in love and may practise either or both sexuality. If everyone gets looked after, then I don't see a problem.

The Corinthian

naughty_girl wrote:

Actually out of interests sake, where did you find this:

consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships

It’s a variation on the general liberal principle of people having the right to equality and pursue their own form of happiness and is often cited as the principle behind many libertarian campaigns, such as that for homosexual marriage.

And I would also like to say you did not get a "victory" over me, I amended your statement, so that it would fairly govern the possibilities of incest and polygamy, and I stand by my own feelings- that incest is wrong.

TBH, I was looking for people to address it in exactly that manner. That’s why I was asking what was wrong or missing with it. You, eventually, responded.

If you are going to keep harrassing MyCroft to alter the statement so that it is fitting, then you should do so to. It's only fair to answer your own question. If you are for incest, then a defense for it would be nice.

As I’ve already said, I used the example of consensual incestuous relationships because it would both fit the principle above and it would be immediately rejected, far faster than the example of polygamy (which essentially uses the same principle).

This would highlight that there was something amiss with said principle in the first place. I’ve simply played Devil’s Advocate on the matter. Indeed, I would not favour it either.

Mycroft, however, has consistently avoided addressing this principle. The closest he’s come to it is calling it a ‘logical trap’ - which it is, but only because the principle is flawed by its open-ended simplicity. Why he would refuse to address it, I could only speculate on.

Your condition is actually the most honest one, because it highlighted that it is one of mo more than popular demand. Of course this raises disturbing questions about the consumerist nature of morality and what this would imply, but that’s another discussion.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

I asked you what is missing from or false in the principle of ‘consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships’ ? How many times do I have to repeat this?

Because a point of principle can only be argued up and to a point. I can happily say I don't a rats ass if someone does heroin, it only becomes an a real issue to me when a junkie robs me on the street. In the same way you can get someone to agree that they're pro incest and homosexual rights, up until the point where you need to apply that logic to the real world (tm) You've invariably stop short of aguing about the realities of the issue, because in truth your only interest is to watch someone like naughtygirl get their knickers in a twist.

So, what is the relevance of asking for practical evidence to a question relating to a point of principle?

Because for starts I think you and principles in general have but a passing aquaintance, but also arguing in a vacuum that incest and homosexual rights should be one and the same for those who believe in the matter, means you're ignoring the fundamental reality of the situation, and you for your argument should be asking about leprechaun goblin interacial relationships, because of your unwilliness to debate the actual issues, the conflicts and the difficulties, you just want to wave a "principle" in the air.

What is the relevance of asking for the legal practicalities to a question relating to a point of principle?

And again sooner or later you'd realise that on principle I don't object to your argument, but I then ask you to bring your point of principle to reality and does the pratical implications of your argument. But hey, you've got your principles.

What is the relevance of asking for whether something is in demand, to a question relating to a point of principle?

See above

I’ve repeatedly asked you to directly address a point of principle; that ‘consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships’ and asked what, if anything, is wrong with this principle. And you’ve failed to address it or even mention it even once.

No I have, I've not stated an objection to the point of principle, I've asked you to take the debate one further and then discuss the point of principle as could be applied to the realities of the situation. This is the humanties forum, we discuss specific cases, philosophy and how it applies to reality. You've done one of the three. Can you guess which two you've weaseled out of.

Because you've been happy to cite reality (your web links) to back up your point of principle, you just haven't been interested in grubbing up your hands and discussing the impact and reality that such cases could have in the real world.

And while doing so, I've asked you to discuss the ramifications of the point of principle you raised, and you have declined to do. You've raised a philosophical point in what was essentially a pramatic question re polygamy by gurgle, and then when challenged on the ramifications on the point you threadjacked with, you snifflely demanded that I answer the point. While declining to enter the thrust of the OP's debate.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

Because a point of principle can only be argued up and to a point.

You might actually address said principle in the first place to get to that point before saying that. Yet I note that the balance of your post is essentially little more than an attack upon me and my “passing acquaintance” with principles - nice, if cheap, touch, BTW

Nonetheless, Real World or not, whatever you’re going to argue on is ultimately going to be flawed if it’s based upon a false axiom - if your first principles are wrong, then your practicalities are going to be irrelevant. However, you seem content, or at least don’t “give a rat’s arse” to support a principle that you either know or suspect to be flawed to the point that you don’t even feel comfortable discussing it.

And again sooner or later you'd realise that on principle I don't object to your argument, but I then ask you to bring your point of principle to reality and does the pratical implications of your argument. But hey, you've got your principles.

Then address it as you’ve been continually asked. Given your continued avoidance of said, your claim that you do not object to it is not very convincing. I’ve even said that I’ve no issue addressing the practicalities once we have addressed the question of first principles.

So again, I must ask you to put up or shut up.

Shabadu

I’ve even said that I’ve no issue addressing the practicalities once we have addressed the question of first principles.

C- you aren't discussing the moral aspect or principles at all. You brought up the completely unrelated topic of incest, and have been badgering mycroft in the hopes of getting him to paint himself into a corner ever since.

Saying 'society should allow', 'here's a website', isn't laying out the reasons why you feel siblings should be allowed to marry.

Just say the words C- 'I fancy me aunty'.

Why should mycroft have to delve into the moral gordian knot you flung at us without you getting your hands dirty as well? You say he's avoiding the topic...

The Corinthian

Shabadu wrote:

You brought up the completely unrelated topic of incest, and have been badgering mycroft in the hopes of getting him to paint himself into a corner ever since.

It’s not at all unrelated. This thread was started on the premise that if we can have marriage for one type of relationship, why can’t we have another? I’ve continued to explore that.

Just say the words C- 'I fancy me aunty'.

Is that supposed to be an accusation or just superciliousness?

Why should mycroft have to delve into the moral gordian knot you flung at us without you getting your hands dirty as well? You say he's avoiding the topic...

Because you normally start with first principles before addressing the practicalities of a problem. I’ve already said I’d be happy to respond to what he said once he addresses those first principles.

pretty-in-pink

Gurgle wrote:

Just wondering what people think of legalizing polygamy.
With gay marriage almost a certainty, seems likely to be the next thing afterwards.

Just as with the gay marriages, I can't think of a single legitimate reason not to allow three people (or more) to all marry each other.

It would even have some advantages, there could be two earning money and a home-maker, more people to share housework, fewer turns as designated driver.

So, without any religious bullshìt, can anyone give a reason why not ?

This was what the OP said, he asked if Gay marriage gets allowed- why not Polygamy. The terminology didn't leave the thread open, and his query was answered. You then jacked the thread to make it about incest. It doesn't relevence- at least not in relation to this thread. Your argument style is to make fun of people, and proclaim "why not".

You seem to be getting off on your fantastic ability to keep a debate(of sorts)going. You also continue to argue your "point", and you have no real back-up to show legislation is needed, let alone that this is a common problem.

This thread is in relation to Ireland, so argue for cases in Ireland, not other countries.

By your complete lack of any *real* evidance, proof of demand and inability to create a whole new argument for why incest should be allowed- you are making an ass of yourself. It also looks like you are trying to justify some feelings or actions of your own. You have stated that two men does nothing for you, so I'm assuming you're straight and not asexual. So is the object of you desire mummy, grandmother or sister?

Address the "principle" yourself (which is one you took and ba$tardi$ed for your own purposes), because you really are only making yourself look bad, which I'm sure is not what you want.

Shabadu

The Corinthian wrote:

Is that supposed to be an accusation or just superciliousness?

Meaningless jibe to prove a cheap and peurile laugh

Because you normally start with first principles before addressing the practicalities of a problem.

{my emph}


If we're going to do what we 'normally' do...

I’ve already said I’d be happy to respond to what he said once he addresses those first principles.

You should start by giving your opinion on those principles. I'm sure you're not just saying something contraversial in the hope you'll get someone to respond emotionally, but that is what it seems like sometimes.

What if I just came along and said; "Duck fukking, let's legalise it. But everyone else has to go into the reasons why we should or shouldn't do it and the asociated moral dilemma before I tie myself down to any statement."

S'not fair! You go first, then I'm sure everyone else will comment honestly on it.

The Corinthian

Shabadu wrote:

Meaningless jibe to prove a cheap and peurile laugh

Grand so.

If we're going to do what we 'normally' do...

I’m only saying that if you’re going to deduce something, your first principles better be sound.

You should start by giving your opinion on those principles.

I did, probably a page or two back at this stage.

I'm sure you're not just saying something contraversial in the hope you'll get someone to respond emotionally, but that is what it seems like sometimes.

Yes and no. We all tend to be intellectual lemmings a lot of the time, following either convention or fashion, sometimes passionately but rarely questioning it. So a metaphorical bucket of cold water is not such a bad thing if it causes us to take pause and actually question what we have long accepted for reasons we can no longer really remember.

So yes and no is the answer. It was designed to invoke a response, but only in the same way as smelling salts do.

What if I just came along and said; "Duck fukking, let's legalise it. But everyone else has to go into the reasons why we should or shouldn't do it and the asociated moral dilemma before I tie myself down to any statement."

In fairness I don’t imagine ducks would be consensual, and if not would not fit into what I put forward.

In fairness to Mycroft all his points about consensual cannibalism, legal practicalities and the rest were perfectly reasonable, but these didn’t attempt to address the question of whether the basic principle behind it was sound as, without revision, it allowed for all of the above.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

You might actually address said principle in the first place to get to that point before saying that. Yet I note that the balance of your post is essentially little more than an attack upon me and my “passing acquaintance” with principles - nice, if cheap, touch, BTW

That implys I got a begrudged smile out of you.

Corinthian I've not addressed it is a flawed principle, and we both know, that’s why I don't want to touch it.

For starts lets look at the "adults" part in "consenting adults" and take a case study NAMBLA (I'll explain my fascination, the absolutely fantastic Seattle free paper the stranger had a brilliant article 8 years ago where a journalist, freely entered a NAMBLA meeting, and without condemnation explored their argument) Their argument is that the definition of sexually active adult is at 17 (or whatever 16-18) is too old, and that many 13,14,15,16 or whatever are sexually mature enough to enter into a sexual relationship with an older man or woman. That the line, the border was too arbitrary, and that many 13yo boys could be sexual mature enough to engage in a relationship with adults.

Now the fundamental flaw in that logic is this. The majority aren't and the exception does not make the rule. And no amount of dew eyes 13yo's in relationships with chicken hawks is going to make me re evaluate my beliefs.

You see the adults part in consenting adults in an arbitary line. Which is what we're debating, aribatary lines in acceptable behaviours. You've celeverly pocked something on the far side of acceptable for the most of us.

If there was compelling and well reasoned arguments, Psychology papers, a compelling body of evidence built over of years I may reconsider my position on the age of concent

You see I don't believe that adults or consenting adults should be allowed do as the please. Because their are ramifications that i've illusrated.*

My general philosophy in life, is "my right to swing my fist ends where your face begins"

So your "consenting adults should be allowed do as the please, is a principle that I would adhere to with two caveats;

That this right not supersede another fundamental human right

That this legislation not have the potential to legitimize the possible abuse of another human being.

Nonetheless, Real World or not, whatever you’re going to argue on is ultimately going to be flawed if it’s based upon a false axiom - if your first principles are wrong, then your practicalities are going to be irrelevant. However, you seem content, or at least don’t “give a rat’s arse” to support a principle that you either know or suspect to be flawed to the point that you don’t even feel comfortable discussing it.

And I'm discussing, I have been discussing, I just realised you were forcing me to defend a principle I hadn't actually said I defended.

I drew your point to its logical conclusion that we'd have to legislation for all conceivable forms of sexual and non-sexual human relationships.

Now as I've illustrated if we follow this point you raised to its own logical conclusion we need to start allowing some fairly extreme levels of human behaviour.

We are dealt with an arbitrary hand of social acceptance when we are born our parents environment, and we get to throw in a couple of cards as we grow up to demonstrate our and societies hand to evolve our perspective, from this we draw the lines of what we feel is socially acceptable behaviour, and what should be allowed.

For example I support gay rights to marriage because this is a demonstrable right they ask for. I don't support the rights of consensual incestuous rights because you’ve failed to show me on this thread that such a block exists and need's this right and furthermore that this right could not be used to cement the most common form of incestuous relationship that I am aware of and that's an abusive one. I've expressed an open mind. But simply I’ve applied your principle to the pragmatic reality of the situation, if legislation was there to allow a couple with your "genetic sexual attraction" what’s not to stop a dominating uncle marrying their niece under such a law. And I'm sorry but the potential abuse of such a law outweigh the potential rights of such a consensual couple, until I'm presented with evidence otherwise. Which is where your principle is forced to interact with reality and it does kind of lose wind.


Not to sound too pc, but fu*ck it I went to art college, I have too many gay friend in happy and sound relationships, and read too much to give any credence to any of the accusations of the anti gay brigade.

There needs to be arbitrary lines in the sand, and these need to be constant evaluation of these lines. And if someone made a compelling case of how this would work I'd listen to it.

The line. It’s an arbitrary one imposed on us before we are born. I can remember the divorce referendum it was the first vote I ever made, and realising that the only thing my sister and myself could do is negate my parents votes. The line of what is acceptable in society is pushed forward and backwards by shifts in religious and social dogma, and I don't see why I should or the gay rights movement should shoulder the entirely unrelated issues of incestuous couples alongside the issues that they still need to overcome.

Then address it as you’ve been continually asked. Given your continued avoidance of said, your claim that you do not object to it is not very convincing. I’ve even said that I’ve no issue addressing the practicalities once we have addressed the question of first principles.

So again, I must ask you to put up or shut up.

I have corthinian, consistently. Just not on the terms you favour.

*and yes I'm aware, marriage and gay relationships can be abusive, but until you present a significant body of evidence that the majority of incestous marriages are healthy, I'll be skeptical.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

And I'm discussing, I have been discussing, I just realised you were forcing me to defend a principle I hadn't actually said I defended.

You don’t have to defend it. But you should question it. But still have not.

Shabadu

*mycroft's head implodes*

Now look what you've done! imo he has been discussing it- but he sensibly hasn't tied himself down to anything because of the severe deficet of information, you glide over the points he has made- like a car slipping over black ice- only to brake and say, 'we didn't crash, therefore there was no ice' /jedi hand wave.

This thread is getting hilarious.

Zillah

Alrighty...I'm kinda tired, I just read through this entire thing in one sitting.

I'm not going to try and get myself involved in the tennis like discussion, I just feel the need to say a few things.

Corinthian and MyCroft, you've both been arguing long and hard. But you're both guilty of getting needlessly personal, and to be honest, scoring points. Corinthian, I must argue against your incest point, which I'll address in a moment. MyCroft, you are indeed guilty of a tendency to dodge dealing with some points directly. Now, with that out of the way, allow me to dive right into the muck with you. [...Disclaimer Established...]

[flame]

Naughty girl, dear dear naughty girl. Corinthian has shown far more patience with you than I will. You have shown yourself to be petty, arrogant and possess naught but a shred of logic. I do not care about your personal opinion, and most importantly, nor does the law. What you find to be personally reprehensible is completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law, and that is what we're dealing with here. Unless you can make a valid argument as to why certain activities are harmful to other people or society then there is no argument in terms of law. You make gross errors in logic and make arguments based on personal opinion, in general, you're not really keeping up. The sooner you realise that, the more dignity you will appear to have.

[/flame]

Oh, and large public opinion does not define what is right, minority opinion must still be respected. Also, forcing polygamous relationships to be dealt with on a case by case basis is discrimination. Their right to legal support of their (consenting no harm etc)relationship is being hindered due to their personal sexual choices. It's not sexuality, but it is solely a sexual matter.




Ok, a few more points. I would maintain that any relationship between consenting adults that does not harm anyone should be supported legally.

A heterosexual relationship should be ratified by the law because it is between consenting adults and is not inherently harmful to anyone.

A homosexual relationship should be ratified by the law because it is between consenting adults and is not inherently harmful to anyone.

A polygamous relationship should be ratified by the law because it is between consenting adults and is not inherently harmful to anyone.

An incestuous relationship should not be legally ratified because it is between consenting adults, but is inherently harmful to any potential offspring aswell as future generations.

A bestial relationship should not be ratified by the law as an animal does not possess initial human rights and therefore cannot be entitled to further rights extending from those.

Any relationship involving children should not be ratified by the law as a child is not a consenting adult, and is most often psychologically harmed by it.

*The phrase "harm to anyone" is refering to parties that have not given adult consent. A BDSM relationship could be very harmful, but the subjects would presumably have given permission. If not then its assault

Allow me to explain the incest argument. In the case of a child resulting from an incestuous union, that child is guaranteed to be more likely to suffer from dehabilitating disorders/syndromes brought on by the inclusion of two recessive genes. In successive generations the chance increases steadily. Therefore, incestuous relationships are directly harmful to the offspring, and if common, to society.

Directed at MyCroft; I believe it was you that make an argument along the lines of; if there is not a significant demand for the legal ratification of polygamous relationships, then it should not be done.

1- However small a minority group is, they still have the rights entitled to them.

2- Just because there are no marches or official protests does not mean that the government should not allow for the legal support of polygamous relationships.

Also, the fact that it is more "complicated" is irrelevant. Of course the letter of the law would be more complex, but a viable system for legally supported polygamous relationships could be assembled.

As for where to draw the line, I've mentioned it above, but I'll clarify if you like.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

You don’t have to defend it. But you should question it. But still have not.

I think I have, but tell you what sensi, why don't you point out what I'm missing to the assembled boys n girls.


I think I'm going to waiting a while for your response.

Shabadu

I wish people would stop calling mycroft MyCroft. Not many Arthur Conan Doyle readers on boards, apparently. Unless I'm thinking of a different mycroft. I mean, what's a Croft? My surname of a fictional heroine found in various forms of entertainment?[/offtopic]

Apart from that everything Zillah said makes an enormous amount of sense.

It's difficult to draw the line when legislating relationships. There are hetero and homosexual relationships that are abusive and unhealthy, as I am sure there are incestual and polygamous that are fuctioning happily.

Part of the reality of living in a system of government means that there is no way every relationship can be evaluated and deemed acceptable/ unacceptable in their own right. At the same time, it is what the majority of society 'feels' is acceptable that dictates where the line is drawn.

Sometimes it feels that society moves at a snails pace, but the majority of people are still far from a liberal outlook, hence the delay on legalising gay marriage in the states.

At the end of the day, if you legalise every possible permutation of human relationship, there will still be abuse and violence found in every type.

It is my personal opinion that you are more likely to find an incidence of abuse in an incestuous relationship. This may be because 'happy' incestuous relationships are never really exposed, thus we only percieve them in a negative light.

However, I don't see millions of siblings marching around San Francisco demanding the right to marry, so lets leave 'em at it in peace.

What seperates homosexual marriage from incestuous marriage, is that many, many, gay people are clamouring for the right to marry.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

I think I have, but tell you what sensi, why don't you point out what I'm missing to the assembled boys n girls.

See the bit in bold back here? Where have you directly addressed it exactly?

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

See the bit in bold back here? Where have you directly addressed it exactly?

here;

mycroft wrote:

So your "consenting adults should be allowed do as the please, is a principle that I would adhere to with two caveats;

That this right not supersede another fundamental human right

That this legislation not have the potential to legitimize the possible abuse of another human being.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

here;

That's a complete fudge - You’re essentially saying “this principle holds true unless it goes against conditions that I’m not going to discuss here”. We’re actually discussing a fundamental human right to begin with, so attempting to argue that it is true unless superseded by another, undefined I may add, fundamental human right (or rights) is completely circular. So it’s another non-answer (or perhaps one you hadn’t really thought out too well, I don’t know).

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

That's a complete fudge - You’re essentially saying “this principle holds true unless it goes against conditions that I’m not going to discuss here”. We’re actually discussing a fundamental human right to begin with, so attempting to argue that it is true unless superseded by another, undefined I may add, fundamental human right (or rights) is completely circular. So it’s another non-answer (or perhaps one you hadn’t really thought out too well, I don’t know).

Since when is marrying your cousin a fundamental human right Shelbyville?

I have discussed the conditions; namely

That this right not supersede another fundamental human right
and

That this legislation not have the potential to legitimize the possible abuse of another human being.

And they pointed out that we put an arrbitory limit what we define as an adult. That allowing people to do as they want is fine until you place other people in danger by giving them that right

Please point out what I'm missing from the issue;

I think what is missing from or false in the principle of ‘consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships’, is the two cavaets I mentioned.

Why dont you tell me, what I'm missing, or what you think is missing or false.

Zillah

TheCorinthian wrote:

what is missing from or false in the principle of ‘consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships’?

TheCorinthian wrote:

We’re actually discussing a fundamental human right to begin with, so attempting to argue that it is true unless superseded by another, undefined I may add, fundamental human right (or rights) is completely circular. So it’s another non-answer

1 - I presume you say "individuals" instead of adults because legally children cannot be "consenting". If not then we might have a problem.

2 - Is state legitimisation of relationships(ie marraige) considered a fundamental human right?

3 - Perhaps he was thinking about my earlier point, albeit in very vague terms. Should your definition above not be modified to...

what is missing from or false in the principle of ‘consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships as long as that relationship is not inherently harmful to any non consenting individuals’?

...?

(ps I maintain faith that you're actually still interested in this debate rather than trying to score points against mycroft)

Completely offtopic:

Shabadu wrote:

I wish people would stop calling mycroft MyCroft. Not many Arthur Conan Doyle readers on boards, apparently. Unless I'm thinking of a different mycroft. I mean, what's a Croft?

croft

The Corinthian

Zillah wrote:

1 - I presume you say "individuals" instead of adults because legally children cannot be "consenting". If not then we might have a problem.

I left the term purposely vague largely because what defines who may consent differs in different countries and cultures - even in developed countries. In the case of sexual relations, most developed countries seem to define this as 16 years of age, which is not adulthood, at least in my opinion (although this is also open to debate). Then you have developed nations who legally recognise individuals as early as 12 (Netherlands) or 13 (Korea).

2 - Is state legitimisation of relationships(ie marraige) considered a fundamental human right?

I don’t know, but quite arguably yes. The UN seems consider quite a few things to be fundamental human rights - homosexuality was defined as one in the 1990’s (AFAIR), for example. More philosophically the right to the ‘pursuit of happiness’ and equality are generally considered fundamental human rights, so there would be a fairly strong argument to say yes it is.

3 - Perhaps he was thinking about my earlier point, albeit in very vague terms. Should your definition above not be modified to...

Possibly. I don’t know.

...?

(ps I maintain faith that you're actually still interested in this debate rather than trying to score points against mycroft)

Simply put, people’s rights are limited for the greater good. Sometimes this is obvious, such as the fact that we are denied the right to drive and park our cars as we wish, but must follow the rules of the road, other times it is less so - we may not think that we are acting in a manner which is harmful to Society, and acting alone we’re not, but were enough people to act in the same fashion then the accumulative effects would be harmful to Society.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

Simply put, people’s rights are limited for the greater good. Sometimes this is obvious, such as the fact that we are denied the right to drive and park our cars as we wish, but must follow the rules of the road, other times it is less so - we may not think that we are acting in a manner which is harmful to Society, and acting alone we’re not, but were enough people to act in the same fashion then the accumulative effects would be harmful to Society.

Please explain who the above principle differs from the two cavaets I applied to the specific principle you raised.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

Please explain who the above principle differs from the two cavaets I applied to the specific principle you raised.

I did it directly, I even amended the text of the principle - you, on the other hand faffed around the topic.

For example, I could suggest that your primary condition is 'consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships as long as there is sufficent support and demand', but while you may have implied this, you never actually stated this and so I'd rather not have you accuse me of misrepresenting you again.

CerebralCortex

Gurgle wrote:

Just wondering what people think of legalizing polygamy.
With gay marriage almost a certainty, seems likely to be the next thing afterwards.

Just as with the gay marriages, I can't think of a single legitimate reason not to allow three people (or more) to all marry each other.

It would even have some advantages, there could be two earning money and a home-maker, more people to share housework, fewer turns as designated driver.

So, without any religious bullshìt, can anyone give a reason why not ?

I didn't think polygamy meant more than two people commiting to each other. I thought it had to do with one dude getting of with as many dudettes as possible to enable spread of his dna and that some scientists thought it was more healthy for the gene pool. Hey thats just what I thought.

Zillah

CerebralCortex wrote:

I didn't think polygamy meant more than two people commiting to each other. I thought it had to do with one dude getting of with as many dudettes as possible to enable spread of his dna and that some scientists thought it was more healthy for the gene pool. Hey thats just what I thought.

Dude if you're confused do some research. Here, I'll do it for you this time.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=polygamy





Corinthian, you havn't answered my question. By that I mean this one:

Me wrote:

Should your definition above not be modified to...

If "possibly, I don't know" was the response then I'm sorely disappointed.

The Corinthian

Zillah wrote:

Corinthian, you havn't answered my question.

Actually I think it possible that I did not understand it - did you mean would I modify the above principle to be conditional upon the 'greater good'?

Zillah

You said this:

"what is missing from or false in the principle of ‘consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships'"

My question is; would you not agree that a more fair, balanced and sensible way to handle it would be as follows:

"what is missing from or false in the principle of ‘consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships as long as that relationship is not inherently harmful to any non consenting individuals’?"

This new definition would disqualify incestuous relationships because as I said earlier...

Me wrote:

Allow me to explain the incest argument. In the case of a child resulting from an incestuous union, that child is guaranteed to be more likely to suffer from dehabilitating disorders/syndromes brought on by the inclusion of two recessive genes. In successive generations the chance increases steadily. Therefore, incestuous relationships are directly harmful to the offspring, and if common, to society.