Polygamy - why not?

pretty-in-pink · 07-04-2005 10:53AM

Ok, womans POV for a minute:

Argument Point:

1) Home-Maker = Servant?
Well in a two person relationship both partners generally want to work, and once the kids are old enough to go to school, then the mother/father, but generally mother returns to the work place. In a three-way or more relationship, how do you address this? Have a constant stay at home parent?

Have you all completely missed out on the "I have nobody to talk to during the day. Then you come home and want your dinner on the table?Its too hard to do everything around the home" argument? And what if you did have one party stay home 24/7, and then one of the other women got pregnant, and had the materity leave? An extra mouth, and less income? What if its the man who stays home, and both women have kids at around the same time*, no wage coming in, 2+ extra mouths to feed/people to look after?

I think no matter what way you cut it, having someone in a 3+ person relationship stay at home, and everyone else working will lead to more resentment then ever happens in a "normal" relationship**. Even in a mmf relationship, if one of the guys stays home, thats like a smack at their masculinity surely? Most guys don't like women earning more then them, so I think that their reception to being a house-hubby while the other guy+the woman have jobs would be bad. The woman stays home, it becomes sexist. Like it or not, its a VERY VERY VERY complex issue, and there are so many probabilites (remember that from maths, well guess what, this is the kind of stuff its used for!)

* women who are living in very close quarters tend to have similar, if not identical, biological clocks. They will run on the same fertility cycle after a period of time. Therfore having 2 women pregnant at around the same time, and due at around the same time is very possible.

** A 2 person relationship where there are two people involved. Due to laws governing adoption, its unlikely that this would be an issue that would affect gay/lesbian people.

2) Gay marriage is like polygamy
No, not really. In the respect there are 2 same sex parties in the relationship, maybe. But does that mean that they are going to engage in sexual activites together? Does that mean the fancy eachother. If they do, then the relationship would not be homosexual, nor would it be hetrosexual, rather it would be Bisexual. I think the fact you are throwing around gay rights as a "don't be a fascist pig" beating stick is an insult to homosexuals, and it highlights your ignorance of how human emotions work.

3)Children
Well sure you can prove who the kids mother/father is. How is that good for the child though? It does complicate matters, like it or not. While in a mf marriage -state+church approved, common law, or state, the ASSUMPTION is that the male is the father. Now in a mmf relationship, either male could be, and neogotiating hcild support, visitation rights etc becomes more complex. The solution to paternity also causes confusion, and going on the argument that biology does not determine fatherhood, but rather the way you feel about the child, father vrs daddy, who pays in the collapse of the union? Father or Daddy?

4) Human Emotion (I'm adding this)
People get jealous and resentful of their partner fancying somebody, now in a 3+ relationship, you are going to love/fancy someone more then the other. This will cause the same jealous feelings, but on a more destructive level. Even in a non-consenting 3+ relationship. Take for example the case of Cameron Hooker, Janice Hooker and Colleen...something, it was called "the girl in the box case". The hookers kidnapped colleen , used mind control to brainwash her, she was held as a slave for 7 years. She did not want any sexual relations with either husband or wife, but fear of the wife and the wifes worry that her husband was more attracted to/in love with the slave he abused regularily made the relationship between the two women really bad. So if even in a state where the 1 woman knows that the 2 woman doesn't want to be ther, paranonia and jealousy arise, imagine how it would be in a fully consenting adult 3+ situation.

We are not bulit to share our partner, not anymore. The reasons it used to happen waere survival of the fittest, and to have more people to protect the TRIBE, not town, city, etc- TRIBE. It was a long time ago.

5) Incest
Direct family is illegal, non-direct (diluted by marriage etc) isn't. The royals did it for centuries, it does lead to horrible consequences for health, it still happens- and its not big or smart. Also if its accepted for the first few cases within a family, how long before its encouraged? Like it was said, sure as hell makes inherritence easier, and you keep the family name going. No messy loss of land etc if it falls through. Heck. Lets legilise everything that backward countries/states do!

Places where polygamy is the norm are also places where females have no rights, and men can do whatever they want. STDs are through the roof, and incest is a common occourance. If ya wan tto have 6 wives who follow your every demand, who are your property, who can't say "No", who you can kick the **** out of if you want, then by all means move there, but don't try to convince people over here that a stap backward is a step forward. If people actually want a multi-partner relationship, fine, but don't keep saying anyone who sees and states the bad points are fascists. I wouldnt want it, I feel it would cause a lot of problems.

The Corinthian · 07-04-2005 11:43AM

mycroft wrote:

But I'm not saying that about homosexuals, you create a thread about homosexuals and we'll see.

I know you’re not saying it about homosexuals. I just said that. I was merely noting a double standard, that’s all.

But I'm not defending incestous marriage . Or attacking it.

Indeed. You’re ignoring it; even though it has been part of this thread since page 1, probably becuse it fais to fit into your arguments.

waving me in the direction of google is not a respond.

It beats spoon-feeding you. Telling someone to STFW is a perfectly acceptable response on an Internet bulletin board.

Like? That twice you've asked me to do your research for you.

My research? I’m asking you to bother reading what I’ve written before responding to it - that is research you should have done for your responses.

Where do say that? In fact I suggest that he's not been in a long term relationship.

And how was his personal attitudes relevant? Other than as a pretext to dismiss anything he might say?

First you ask me to do your research for you (twice) and konw you misquote me.

I you repeat it enough times maybe it’ll be believed.

I ignored your consenusal incestous relationship subpoint becausse it semed like a another expample of your nitpciking for pointless point scoring on another poster.

That’s a handy way to avoid a point. Pity I made it long before you entered this thread, so it’s hardly likely is it?

Not really you or any other person has yet to provide me with justification that such an accurance is worth legislating for. Its like regiciede. No one has provided me with evidence that such a crime is worth creating seperate legislation governing this beyond standard homcidde laws.

Who said there has to be a separate law for any of these unions?

I can claim a law degree from the same night spot anyone claim they met a "barrister" at. You've yet to create a serious counterattack.

Met? Dinner with an old friend of fifteen years, who is a practicing barrister, hardly qualifies as ‘met’ in a 'night spot'. You're remarkably presumtous

As for a counterattack, you have yet to address the issue of right to marriage of either polygamous or incestuous relationships when compared with the similar rights being sought by homosexuals. Flick back to page 1 of this thread (that’s the research you should have done, not me) and you’ll see what I wrote on the topic.

Here I’ll make it easy for you. Answer and qualify for consenting heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous and incestuous (I’m sure there are a few other type one could come up with) relationships:

Should they be criminalized?

Should they be allowed to peruse the relationship they have consented to?

Should their relationship be given equal status to other types of sexual relationships in Society?

Should they be able to have a legally recognised (not a contract) union?

So if you answer yes to all of the above, why have you been going through hoops to ignore or nitpick (essentailly saying that in in practice you are opposed to saying yes on one ore more of the above question)?

And if you answer no to any of the above, well, we know what that means, don’t we?

mycroft · 07-04-2005 11:45AM

Gurgle wrote:

Read my posts.

I didd thats where I got this;

gurgle wrote:

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.

Yes, I used a colloquilism for a mistress. I'm sure you can read anything you want into it.

Or concubine. I mean c'mon, "infidelility is less likely to happen if he's getting laid twice as much at home" You've a totally naive perspective on relationships, why infidelility occurs, and how a relationship works and doesn't work.

Have you any idea how many times you've contradicted yourself on this thread ?

No. Care to show me?

Never said they were.
Abstract discussion.

So we're speculating on a hypothesis here. You've yet to come with a better reason to defend polygamy other than "desgninated drivers" and "bit on the side" Thats your campaign. You've not come up with a coherant or reasonable argument for this legislation, yet you've attacked some measured criticism why it's not pratical, not necessary and not in demand.

Home-maker = servant?
mycroft = mysoginist!

Third parter equals "bit on the side" And I'm a mysoginist? You've in your mind assumed the relationship will be a man and two women. And I can't see anywhere in your posts which contracts that statement. you've suggested that the third person in the relationship is their to satisfy the husbands needs. Which means you've not grasped what I've said about potential combinations of partners, and display a rather fine mysoginist streak of your own. I described the third party as a "servant" drawing from your ideals about how this whole relationship would work.

The question was; if 3 people all wanted to be married to each other, why shouldn't they be allowed?

Show me three people who want to do this.

Animals and children are not consenting adults.
This is not about legalising relationships.

Your steak didn't have a say on whether you eat it or not. A child is under your stewardship until its of the age of consent.

Marriage is a legal contract between two people of opposite gender which allows them many advantages in terms of property ownership, tax allowances and inheritance.
Thats what this discussion is about - not drugs, child abuse, bestiality, the BNP, or even the KKK. Its not even about allowing relationships. I think you'll find very few people who care if you approve of their relationships.

And I think very few people in polygamist relationships are after the legislation you're after.

Frank Grimes · 07-04-2005 11:47AM

naughty_girl wrote:

Places where polygamy is the norm are also places where females have no rights.

That is not true, there are countries where polygamy is legal and women do have rights (one example is Malaysia), maybe you should ease up on the mass generalisations there.

Gurgle · 07-04-2005 12:34PM

mycroft wrote:

You've yet to come with a better reason to defend polygamy other than "desgninated drivers" and "bit on the side"

Those aren't defences, they are potential advantages.
I'm not trying to defend polygamy.
Its just that its viewed now as homosexuality was a few decades ago. Times are changing. Equal rights for all, even if you don't approve.

mycroft wrote:

Your steak didn't have a say on whether you eat it or not.

I have never had improper sexual relations with food. I don't want to marry it either.

Victor · 07-04-2005 01:08PM

Gurgle wrote:

If you're Dad's bit on the side married your parents and lived in the same house, you would know your half-siblings pretty well.

From the "traditional" point of view thats an awfully complicated sentence. :d

mycroft · 07-04-2005 01:12PM

The Corinthian wrote:

Who said there has to be a separate law for any of these unions?

I'm moderately certain that the change in law is going to require a lil more than tipexing out 2 and adding 2+

Met? Dinner with an old friend of fifteen years, who is a practicing barrister, hardly qualifies as ‘met’ in a 'night spot'. You're remarkably presumtous

Presumtous? Moi?

the corinthan wrote:

Where did you get your law degree

the corinthan wrote:

family law in ireland is a mess

I mean I could throw your quote back at you, and point out that part of my degree included a section on Irish law.

Here I’ll make it easy for you. Answer and qualify for consenting heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous and incestuous (I’m sure there are a few other type one could come up with) relationships:

Should they be criminalized?

Should they be allowed to peruse the relationship they have consented to?

Should their relationship be given equal status to other types of sexual relationships in Society?

Should they be able to have a legally recognised (not a contract) union?

So if you answer yes to all of the above, why have you been going through hoops to ignore or nitpick (essentailly saying that in in practice you are opposed to saying yes on one ore more of the above question)?

And if you answer no to any of the above, well, we know what that means, don’t we?

You mean make it easy for you.

Let me ask you this. Should a government creat legislation allowing every potential concievable relationship between consenting adults?

Or should a government remove all legislation governing relationships between consenting adults?

gurgle wrote:

Those aren't defences, they are potential advantages.
I'm not trying to defend polygamy.
Its just that its viewed now as homosexuality was a few decades ago. Times are changing. Equal rights for all, even if you don't approve.

So you can't provide an example of why this legislation is necessary. You can't provide evidence that this is a direct step up from homosexual marriage.

So you've got nothing.

The Corinthian · 07-04-2005 02:00PM

mycroft wrote:

I'm moderately certain that the change in law is going to require a lil more than tipexing out 2 and adding 2+

Not really, complex matters of family law already exist for non-standard cases such as the rights of adoptive or step parents. In many cases laws would not require any change, with the exception of the law that excludes all but a monogamous heterosexual combination from marriage.

Indeed, it reminds me of the arguments opposing divorce a decade ago, that it would have resulted in a litigious nightmare. In reality the bulk of laws were already in place as a result of the existence of tried and tested separation laws. The principle thing that the introduction of legislation on divorce did was the right to remarry.

I mean I could throw your quote back at you, and point out that part of my degree included a section on Irish law.

Gee wiz, so did mine, but I don’t pretend to be a lawyer and that is why I brought forward the opinion of one.

You mean make it easy for you.

Trying to squirm out of a direct set of questions I see.

Let me ask you this. Should a government creat legislation allowing every potential concievable relationship between consenting adults?

If you accept the principle that consenting individuals should be allowed to pursue whatever relationship they wish with each other and be treated equally to others then the answer is yes. Just because the legal practicalities may be complicated (which is arguable as most of the issues are already covered in family law) would not invalidate this right or principle.

So I asked you in heat set of questions, applied equally to different relationship types, which is at the core of this issue, and you ignored it. Then you have the balls to try and pose me a question (which I’ve answered). Why don’t you try growing a bigger set and answer those questions I posed you?

Or should a government remove all legislation governing relationships between consenting adults?

No one has ever suggested this. What is your logic here?

So you can't provide an example of why this legislation is necessary. You can't provide evidence that this is a direct step up from homosexual marriage.

Evidence? What evidence do you need for a point of principle? Try logic - which I put forward in my first post in this thread and have repeated again and again.

The logic is pretty straightforward, should you be bothered to address it. Yet you repeatedly avoid doing so, obfuscating the matter with dubious practicalities or simply avoiding responses.

Evidently, given you repeatedly refuse to address the issue, you consider all relationship types equal, but apparently some less equal than others. You would support the right to marriage (albeit that your opinion of marriage is not great to begin with, which is fair enough) for heterosexual and homosexual couples, but for polygamous relationships you’re at pains to give reasons why it would never work and as for consenting incestuous couples, the fact that you try to avoid the issue to begin with would lead me to believe that you would not favour that type of relationship in the first place.

Of course, you’re entirely welcome to that position, but then you cannot claim to support the right of consenting individuals to be allowed to pursue whatever relationship they wish with each other and be treated equally to others without being called a hypocrite.

Gurgle · 07-04-2005 02:30PM

Victor wrote:

From the "traditional" point of view thats an awfully complicated sentence. :d

Thank you.

pretty-in-pink · 07-04-2005 04:18PM

The Corinthian-

I suspect you're coming across as a bit of an idiot.....you are constantly comparing polygamy (which isn't a big issue at the moment anyway) to homosexual and incestous relationships.

Ok, incestous? Ick first of all, and second of all it was not originaly included, but it got added. I don't think anyone not directly involved in it will condone it, or even approve. That does not mae someone fascist/bigoted- but sensible. That ick feeling is there for a reason.......

Sticking to the OPs question, see below

Assuming all relationship types are consenting, then here are some simple maths:

2 people: Well there are 3 possible ways this can end:

1- Jack,say, gets most/all goods etc at end of marriage
2- Its an equal divide between Jack and Jose
3- Jose gets most/all goods at end of marrriage

And some not-so-simple maths
3 people: Well there are many possible ways this can end:

1- Mark gets most/all goods etc at end of marriage,Maire and Sally get nearly nothing
2- Its an equal divide between Mark and Maire, but Sally gets nearly nothing
3- Maire gets most/all goods at end of marrriage, Sally and Mark get nearly nothing
4- Sally gets most/all goods etc at end of marriage,Maire and Sally get nearly nothing
5- Its an equal divide between Sally and Maire, but Mark gets nearly nothing
6- Its an equal divide between Sally and Mark, but Maire gets nearly nothing
7- Its an equal divide between all three parties- 1/3 each. All leave.
8- Its an equal divide between all three parties- 1/3 each. Maire leaves.
9- Its an equal divide between all three parties- 1/3 each. Sally leave.
10- Its an equal divide between all three parties- 1/3 each. Mark leave.
11- Its an equal divide - 50/50. Sally leaves.
12- Its an equal divide - 50/50. Maire leaves.
13- Its an equal divide - 50/50. Mark leaves.

etc etc etc

And what if in any of the cases where 2 stay, if they break up- what way do the work out the bounty? they could end up with far less then their original entitlement.

And repeatedly claiming that gay rights are equal on every level to polygamy rights? No, they aren't -they are different situations, so stop trying to steal the gay rights thunder and make your own.

I also admit that I made some generilisations, so I will instead say: Most countries with polygamy give their women no/very few rights. Particularily the muslims.

Frank Grimes · 07-04-2005 04:25PM

naughty_girl wrote:

I also admit that I made some generilisations, so I will instead say: Most countries with polygamy give their women no/very few rights. Particularily the muslims.

Do you have anything to back that up with or is that just your opinion?

pretty-in-pink · 07-04-2005 04:35PM

Frank Grimes wrote:

Do you have anything to back that up with or is that just your opinion?

I can back it up, I have read and seen journals of women who were treated awfully by their male relations. Some of the women married in to the religon, some were born into it. The government may state that they protect the right sof women and girls, but basic things, like leaving an abusive marrriage, or withholding sex from yor partner, and in some regions the use of contraception - despite the fact having children may kill you, is illegal. If you leave the marriage, you have to leave the children. THere are stil arranged marriages, and any spirit the women may show is beaten out of them They are reared to be slaves essentially- do everything around the house, be nice, help out with any building, tend to the farm and children, and still have sex with your husband whenever and however he likes.

The westernised muslims have had to relax this stranglehold, but in places like Yeman its still very much in place. Its a total violation of human rights, and while I accept that those awful dress yokes they have to wear are religous, they are still indicators of subjection. I reckon big changes need to be made. Its the 21 century not the 19 century.

simu · 07-04-2005 04:39PM

Polygamy in a secular state would be quite different from whatever versions of it are found in Islamic countries... no one's suggesting forbidding contraception/allowing for arranged marriage/legalising rape within marriage here.

Frank Grimes · 07-04-2005 04:42PM

naughty_girl wrote:

I can back it up, I have read and seen journals of women who were treated awfully by their male relations.

Ok, so you're just making mass generalisations then.

The Corinthian · 07-04-2005 04:48PM

naughty_girl wrote:

I suspect you're coming across as a bit of an idiot.....you are constantly comparing polygamy (which isn't a big issue at the moment anyway) to homosexual and incestous relationships.

Ok, incestous? Ick first of all, and second of all it was not originaly included, but it got added. I don't think anyone not directly involved in it will condone it, or even approve. That does not mae someone fascist/bigoted- but sensible. That ick feeling is there for a reason.......

Yet a century ago, less TBH, homosexuality would have been considered with he same level of ickyness and its prohibition was often condoned as sensible - after all, they were mentally sick and were regularly committed to asylums for treatment.

Yet today we popularly accept this alternative sexuality as a valid relationship between consenting individuals. So, how exactly does that differ with consensual incest, polygamy or practically any other form of sexual relationship that consenting individuals can have?

Apparently your answer to this is ‘ick’.

And with this underwhelming monosyllabic argument you think I come across as a bit of an idiot? Nice try, but no cigar.

pretty-in-pink · 07-04-2005 04:49PM

Maybe not, but it is still cited as an example of a culture where polygamy "works" and so i feel that it needed to be pointed out that it doesn't actually work through love or respect but through fear and ignorance. I think if anyone tried to implement that kind of polygamy they'd be ostracised, although its not that long ago married woman in Ireland could not legaly pursue rape, and needed a lot of evidance of battery- which was often impossible as they rarely had the freedom,time or means to getto a hospital/police station to report it.(yet again based on real experiences of real people)

And no, by reading an actual lived account of people who went through it, and know many many others still going through it, its not generilising. Its fact. Why so keen to deny that the kind of situation these women found themselves in is rare?

I care less what non-related adults do to eachother, heck if they are related and fancy a quickie- whatever its their business. But I find the thought of sleeping with a relative really gross. What do you actually think of doing it? or seeing it done? Are you really suggesting that shagging your sister/brother/father/uncle/mother/aunt/grandparent etc is the same as shagging a same sex partner?

simu · 07-04-2005 04:57PM

naughty_girl wrote:

Maybe not, but it is still cited as an example of a culture where polygamy "works" and so i feel that it needed to be pointed out that it doesn't actually work through love or respect but through fear and ignorance.

It wouldn't have to be like that. In fact, if you did introduce polygamy, I imgaine it would be used more to avoid paying tax rather than for groups of people who are all having sex with each other.

The Corinthian · 07-04-2005 05:02PM

naughty_girl wrote:

I care less what non-related adults do to eachother, heck if they are related and fancy a quickie- whatever its their business. But I find the thought of sleeping with a relative really gross. What do you actually think of doing it? or seeing it done? Are you really suggesting that shagging your sister/brother/father/uncle/mother/aunt/grandparent etc is the same as shagging a same sex partner?

As a heterosexual male I don’t find the sight of two men engaging in amorous activity particularly appealing either. Should this mean that I should, on the basis of what I personally consider ‘ick’ impose my morality on homosexuals?

So simply because you find it gross or ick is not a good enough reason to differentiate between the two - a common hypocrisy in modern liberalism.

pretty-in-pink · 07-04-2005 05:04PM

Perhaps it would be here, but not there, and I was pointing out that in the case of muslims (both muslims and mormans were used as examples of cultures that engage in polygamy) it is not a happy case, and so to argue in favour of polygamy- its best not to use them as an example. U know nothing about mormans, so I can't comment there

pretty-in-pink · 07-04-2005 05:06PM

The Corinthian wrote:

As a heterosexual male I don’t find the sight of two men engaging in amorous activity particularly appealing either. Should this mean that I should, on the basis of what I personally consider ‘ick’ impose my morality on homosexuals?

So simply because you find it gross or ick is not a good enough reason to differentiate between the two - a common hypocrisy in modern liberalism.

Answer the question I asked........are you saying incest and homosexuality are essentially the same thing? Also, I think there are plenty of thing I find gross, but don't think they should be illegal, like eating fish, or going down on a girl.

The Corinthian · 07-04-2005 05:20PM

naughty_girl wrote:

Answer the question I asked........are you saying incest and homosexuality are essentially the same thing?

It's an alternative sexuality, as different to homosexuality as heterosexuality. And as I've repeatedly pointed out that if you accept the principle of one alternative sexuality as a valid relationship between consenting individuals, then you cannot arbitrarily refuse to accept another on the basis of that it makes you feel ‘ick’. Otherwise we probably should criminalize homosexuality again.

pretty-in-pink · 07-04-2005 05:25PM

and like iv sadi I have no problems with what people want to do, but i don't think being PC is a reason to legilise incest. if 7 people want2get hitched, fine but it's complicated.

The Corinthian · 07-04-2005 05:26PM

naughty_girl wrote:

U know nothing about mormans, so I can't comment there

I love the logic of this statement. It reminds me of my grandmother, who will comment "I'm cold. You go put on a jumper."

The Corinthian · 07-04-2005 05:28PM

naughty_girl wrote:

and like iv sadi I have no problems with what people want to do, but i don't think being PC is a reason to legilise incest.

Then ask yourself, why (given that we're discussing the same principle in both cases) is it all right in one case and not in the other?

You'll have to try harder than 'ick', BTW.

pretty-in-pink · 07-04-2005 05:40PM

typo, my mistake. I know nothing about mormans, and I apologise to simu in cas eof any misunderstanding.

Ick- ok, lets see.

I find the thought of close blood relatives, who have grown up together, engaging in fellatio,cunnilingus,and fornication on a regualar basis with a possible view to copulation, or even fellatio, cunnilingus and/or fornication on a once-off basis both morally, and biologicaly reprehensible and throughly disgusting.
In the case of distant relatives and accidental incest fellatio, cunnilingus and/or fornication does not seem as bad. If no children occour of the relationship, i see no major bad point in it. I still think the legalisation of incest, and allowing children to be borne of such situations is not only highly ridicolous, and dangerous as the possiblilities of having a genetic disease are now doubled, it is also highly unfair to the aforementioned offspring.

However try explaining to a child why other kids make fun of them, becuase you decided to copulate wit a direct, known blood relative. Daddy is your unlce darling, he and mummy played together like you and little Suzzy do know. Daddy is mummys big brother, he used to look after her, can you be a big boy and look after Suzzy for me?

Good enough for u?

Also in an incestous relationship, copulation is highly probable. if its a mf combo, then biology allows for it. In a homosexual relationship Children cannot occour- nor can they be adopted. Children are cruel, but I think they might get over the two mummies/daddies thing faster then the "your parents are related thing". Hence I have a different stand on them, as one relationship has the potential to be far more damaging then the other.

The Corinthian · 07-04-2005 06:21PM

naughty_girl wrote:

I find the thought of close blood relatives, who have grown up together, engaging in fellatio,cunnilingus,and fornication on a regualar basis with a possible view to copulation, or even fellatio, cunnilingus and/or fornication on a once-off basis both morally, and biologicaly reprehensible and throughly disgusting.

Or ‘ick’.

In the case of distant relatives and accidental incest fellatio, cunnilingus and/or fornication does not seem as bad. If no children occour of the relationship, i see no major bad point in it. I still think the legalisation of incest, and allowing children to be borne of such situations is not only highly ridicolous, and dangerous as the possiblilities of having a genetic disease are now doubled, it is also highly unfair to the aforementioned offspring.

Medical and genetic reasons are a very valid point. However you ignore that either homosexual or heterosexual behaviour is not devoid of medical issues and that the genetic dangers of inbreeding that are cited are generally based on those encountered in Biblical tribal communities rather than in large technologically advanced populations.

Indeed, you cite the probability of genetic disease doubling, yet do you actually know what diseases these are or where you get your figure of them doubling? If not, then essentially this just is more ‘ick’.

However try explaining to a child why other kids make fun of them, becuase you decided to copulate wit a direct, known blood relative. Daddy is your unlce darling, he and mummy played together like you and little Suzzy do know. Daddy is mummys big brother, he used to look after her, can you be a big boy and look after Suzzy for me?

Confusion in how family relationships are presented or schoolyard teasing would not be unlike what would happen to the offspring of a homosexual or any non-standard (heterosexual) couple - but we get to that later in your post.

Also in an incestous relationship, copulation is highly probable. if its a mf combo, then biology allows for it.

I take it you mean conception. It’s possible, as is birth control.

In a homosexual relationship Children cannot occour- nor can they be adopted.

They can occur. Other than children from previous heterosexual relationships, artificial insemination has been used for years by lesbian couples as a means of having children. Added to that, homosexual adoption will most likely become legalised within the next twenty years, given it is the logical next step (or a few steps) of granting equal status to homosexual relationships.

Children are cruel, but I think they might get over the two mummies/daddies thing faster then the "your parents are related thing". Hence I have a different stand on them, as one relationship has the potential to be far more damaging then the other.

So you would rule out one form of consenting relationship because of schoolyard politics? Seriously?

pretty-in-pink · 07-04-2005 07:47PM

Can you honestly say that the thought of going down on your mother/father/sister/brother/cousing/uncle etc is not really disgusting? Or having them do it to you, or having sex with them? You asked for an expansion on "ick", and I gave you one

The Corinthian wrote:

Medical and genetic reasons are a very valid point. However you ignore that either homosexual or heterosexual behaviour is not devoid of medical issues and that the genetic dangers of inbreeding that are cited are generally based on those encountered in Biblical tribal communities rather than in large technologically advanced populations.

Indeed, you cite the probability of genetic disease doubling, yet do you actually know what diseases these are or where you get your figure of them doubling? If not, then essentially this just is more ‘ick’.

Well if there is a particular disese in a family, and it is paseed on geneticaly, surely two parents with the same genes double the chances of this disease being passed on. In a non-incestous union, there would be some dilution of the contaminated blood line (and yes I'm aware both parents could have diseases regrdless of relation to eachother), meaning a normal chance of the child contracting/developing the disease

The Corinthian wrote:

Confusion in how family relationships are presented or schoolyard teasing would not be unlike what would happen to the offspring of a homosexual or any non-standard (heterosexual) couple - but we get to that later in your post.

I am aware of this, however as homosexuality becomes more common place, then it becomes less of a stigma. "My parents are related" is still a major stigma, infact its used as an insult.("your parents are related")

The Corinthian wrote:

I take it you mean conception. It’s possible, as is birth control.

Birth contol can fail, its not 100% effective, only abstinence is 100% effective. Hence even with use on contraception, conception can occour.

The Corinthian wrote:

They can occur. Other than children from previous heterosexual relationships, artificial insemination has been used for years by lesbian couples as a means of having children. Added to that, homosexual adoption will most likely become legalised within the next twenty years, given it is the logical next step (or a few steps) of granting equal status to homosexual relationships.

In Ireland? Are you sure, I'd like to see proof please......

I know it happens in other countries, but it has to be planned. It does not have to be planed in a MF incestous situation, as explained above.

The Corinthian wrote:

So you would rule out one form of consenting relationship because of schoolyard politics? Seriously?

Nope, just saying, think of the kids. How it would affect them. Not the adults who are getting laid and so problems with what other people think matter less, they have eachother.

Nasty_Girl · 07-04-2005 08:19PM

The only thing that would worry me about ploygamy is that some people would just do it because other people do it or they saw it tv and all be trying to keep up with their friends and the number of spouses a person has becomes a status symbol. I know thats just a really extreme case but you never know what the world'll be like in the next 20 years.

The STD thing crossed my mind briefly but sure we'll all end up with AIDS one way or another and then global warming will kill us all
the end.

mycroft · 08-04-2005 01:10AM

The Corinthian wrote:

Not really, complex matters of family law already exist for non-standard cases such as the rights of adoptive or step parents. In many cases laws would not require any change, with the exception of the law that excludes all but a monogamous heterosexual combination from marriage.

Indeed, it reminds me of the arguments opposing divorce a decade ago, that it would have resulted in a litigious nightmare. In reality the bulk of laws were already in place as a result of the existence of tried and tested separation laws. The principle thing that the introduction of legislation on divorce did was the right to remarry.

Yes and the people making those arguments where the anti divorce side introducing a scattergun assasult on every level.Comparing me to Justin Barrett is unfair and unjust and you can't prove it. I'm not inhibting rights, I'm asking you to show that such legislation is necessary. The fact is polygamist relationship cube the issues, not x3. What if one couple want to take sole custody of all children, including children not born of one partner? What if one partner wants vistation rights to children they've no biological links to .

Gee wiz, so did mine, but I don’t pretend to be a lawyer and that is why I brought forward the opinion of one.

The alledged opinion of an alledged barrister, for starts need I remind you of the difference between alledged barristers barristers and alledged solicitors.

Trying to squirm out of a direct set of questions I see.

No a set of questions, designed to push me in a position, specifically designed by your own admission to catch me in a logical trap. A set of questions devoid of the nuance of the debate.

If you accept the principle that consenting individuals should be allowed to pursue whatever relationship they wish with each other and be treated equally to others then the answer is yes. Just because the legal practicalities may be complicated (which is arguable as most of the issues are already covered in family law) would not invalidate this right or principle.

Okay. So lets look at this. You propose that the we legalise polygamy and incest, because consenting individuals choose to persue this relationship. And this is the same as homosexual relationships.

Lets start by saying neither you, or gurgle have presented any evidence that there is a group campaigning for this, and that current legislation oppresses them in a manner that denies their human rights to a degree they object to. Because consenting adults want to engage in this we should legislate this. Despite you being unable to provide evidence that this is common occurance. And the people being "oppressed" according to you, object to this.

So lets say I pose this question; "a group of star trek fans want to swear allegiance to star fleet prime directives, and voluntarily and willing and prepared to create legal documentation that if they breach said directives they will allow the rest of the group to preform trepanny and insert fire ants in their skulls. " Do we create legislation governing this?

But hey thats glib.

How about if two consenting adults agree to engage in cannablism, (as in what recently occured in germany) should we draw up legislation governing that? Or hey what if I owe you an open ended debt (wink) and agreed to enter into a indetured servant (slavery) contract with you. Should we draw up legislation governing that? Or what if in a S&M relationship one partner agrees to become the partner's slave, and forgo all human rights, including allowly themselves to be traded, or used as a prostitute, should we draw up legislation to govern that? Or how about a religious cult? If a religious cult members as consenting adults, agreed to adhere to the rulings of their cult leader. Should we develop legislation to govern that?

You see frankly if we follow you argument to a logical point of view, if we should allow any relationship, we're just going to have to allow a bunch of civil servants to sit in a room and devise any and every potential relationship between consenting adults.

And seeing as you said

the corthinian wrote:

What about lesbianism in 1905 shall we deny it exists

We know, according to you, they'd fail.

So either, we develop legislation on a case by case basis, review it when a body of people want it reviewed (as in gay marriage), or you try to justify the handful of cases I mentioned above, should not be legislated for. Because I can thing of one or more cases for the defense of each of the points I raised above(aside from the star trek fire ants point), where as you've failed to provide a single example of incestous or polygamist relationships who want legislation.

Oh and before you accuse me of dragging this thread OT you're the one who brought incest into a thread about polygamy (see I can read the post history)

So I asked you in heat set of questions, applied equally to different relationship types, which is at the core of this issue, and you ignored it. Then you have the balls to try and pose me a question (which I’ve answered). Why don’t you try growing a bigger set and answer those questions I posed you?

Oooohhh threaten my manhood, brilliant arguing.

No one has ever suggested this. What is your logic here?

Because even by your own point of view (denial of lesbianism in 1905) we can't possibly legislate for ever concievable version of relationships between adults. So either we spend decades, getting staggered by the evolution of relationships, or we legalise all potential relationships. Which is it Corrie?

Evidence? What evidence do you need for a point of principle? Try logic - which I put forward in my first post in this thread and have repeated again and again.

Yeah and my point is, whats the point of creating legislation that people don't ask for. As for point of principle, see my above argument, lets see how far you are going to take this point of principle.

The logic is pretty straightforward, should you be bothered to address it. Yet you repeatedly avoid doing so, obfuscating the matter with dubious practicalities or simply avoiding responses.

Evidently, given you repeatedly refuse to address the issue, you consider all relationship types equal, but apparently some less equal than others. You would support the right to marriage (albeit that your opinion of marriage is not great to begin with, which is fair enough) for heterosexual and homosexual couples, but for polygamous relationships you’re at pains to give reasons why it would never work and as for consenting incestuous couples, the fact that you try to avoid the issue to begin with would lead me to believe that you would not favour that type of relationship in the first place.

Of course, you’re entirely welcome to that position, but then you cannot claim to support the right of consenting individuals to be allowed to pursue whatever relationship they wish with each other and be treated equally to others without being called a hypocrite.

No and I've created a body of evidence that suggest that if you want to open the floodgates of relationships because you've decided that the two specific cases you've decided to champion, you should be prepared follow your logic to it's conclusion. You've declined to understand the floodgates that this position will open.

Just going out and saying "hey we're going to have gay marriage why not legalise polygamy and incest" and then flinging a bunch of counter arguments aganist anyone who goes, "they're not the same" while not defending in any real sense your position. This Exposes you as just an argumentive individual. You've not created a coherant, positive position for your argument, you've just created an entire argument which is based on myself on others reasonable issues with your POV. You've not created a credible defense or coherant argument for your POV, just a series of counter attacks. Thats not a convincing argument for your point of view. The pro Homosexual marriage campaign (which is a different issue) has a group, a vocal group, demanding this right. If you want to argue a defense of polygamy and incest, why don't you cite examples and argument why such legislation is necessary. Or comparible.

Empaciation, gay rights, Equal rights, woman's rights, have occured because people demand them. Thats the principle of democracy. You've yet to prove we need your argument. You've just created a straw man argument. You've yet to create a postive argument for your point of view, and you've yet to defend the logical progression of argument.

The Corinthian · 08-04-2005 01:30PM

naughty_girl wrote:

Can you honestly say that the thought of going down on your mother/father/sister/brother/cousing/uncle etc is not really disgusting? Or having them do it to you, or having sex with them? You asked for an expansion on "ick", and I gave you one

I wasn’t asking for a definition of ‘ick’ I was asking for a rational which was a little more thought out than ‘ick’.

Well if there is a particular disese in a family, and it is paseed on geneticaly, surely two parents with the same genes double the chances of this disease being passed on. In a non-incestous union, there would be some dilution of the contaminated blood line (and yes I'm aware both parents could have diseases regrdless of relation to eachother), meaning a normal chance of the child contracting/developing the disease

True, but what if there isn’t a congenital disease in the family? Perhaps we should simply stop anyone with a congenital disease from reproducing.

I am aware of this, however as homosexuality becomes more common place, then it becomes less of a stigma. "My parents are related" is still a major stigma, infact its used as an insult.("your parents are related")

Yet the same could be said of homosexuality fifty years, or less, ago. Should we have maintained the criminality for the same reasons?

Birth contol can fail, its not 100% effective, only abstinence is 100% effective. Hence even with use on contraception, conception can occour.

Sterilization and abortion are pretty effective, you’ll find.

In Ireland? Are you sure, I'd like to see proof please......

Are you suggesting that lesbian couples in Ireland are somehow different to those in the UK?

I know it happens in other countries, but it has to be planned. It does not have to be planed in a MF incestous situation, as explained above.

Actually, artificial insemination is limited to heterosexual couples in Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania and Sweden, but in Estonia, Slovenia and Spain single women have access to state insemination services. In Austria, Ireland and Serbia insemination is available privately.

Also “It is rather unsure of how to deal with the gay couple and their rights but legally there is nothing stopping a lesbian couple consulting a clinic for artificial insemination which is happening currently (although the couples are being referred to clinics in the U.K. for treatment)”

http://queer.ie/api/about.html

Nope, just saying, think of the kids. How it would affect them. Not the adults who are getting laid and so problems with what other people think matter less, they have eachother.

The same can be said of the children of any background that would be considered different, including the children of immigrants. By your logic we probably should not allow immigrants into the country because their children would be teased.

All of which assumes that they have kids.

Polygamy - why not?

Comments