Polygamy - why not?

The Corinthian · 08-04-2005 01:33PM

mycroft wrote:

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 just did. Pouting won’t change that.

I'm not inhibting rights, I'm asking you to show that such legislation is necessary.

That’s a fair point, but you are overusing it simply to avoid the principle issue. In essence, you’re using a “there’s no support for it, so we don’t have to discuss it” get out clause.

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

Or alleged armchair pundits who reckon they know more because of a legal module in their degree?

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.

You mean you know that you’re ultimately going to get caught out so will avoid the issue.

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.

I have never suggested there are campaigns for the legalization of either polygamy or incest (although I believe there is for the latter). I have simply argued a point of principle meant to test the logic behind libertarian arguments or the integrity of their proponents.

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.

It’s not and it’s a good point and frankly at the core of my questioning. If there are limits to people’s rights and freedoms, where are those limits? Why is one case morally all right and the other not?

So feel free to answer that ‘logical trap’ and explain why one case differs from the other.

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?

Funny you should mention that; you don’t get a lot of slaves campaigning for their rights either. Perhaps we should not legislate for them.

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.

Why not just remove the clause that says marriage requires a single male-female union? Or is this insufficient in your expert legal opinion?

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

No; according to you. You’re the one who’s been looking for signs of a campaign before accepting it, not me. And in 1905, many didn’t even believe that lesbianism existed.

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)

It is a perfectly valid argument, which you are still avoiding.

Oooohhh threaten my manhood, brilliant arguing.

Oooohhh avoid the question again, brilliant sidestepping.

So either we spend decades, getting staggered by the evolution of relationships, or we legalise all potential relationships. Which is it Corrie?

I’ve answered this above, and repeatedly in previous posts.

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.

Is that it then? Vox populi is the ultimate measure of all reason and arbitror of human rights? You would explain 1933 then.

You are still avoiding the basic principles being discussed behind a smokescreen of pseudo legislation and popularity. The question is quite simple; should alternative relationship types be given equal status and if not why? Do me a favour and answer this and stop avoiding the issue.

mycroft · 08-04-2005 01:46PM

The Corinthian wrote:

You are still avoiding the basic principles being discussed behind a smokescreen of pseudo legislation and popularity. The question is quite simple; should alternative relationship types be given equal status and if not why? Do me a favour and answer this and stop avoiding the issue.

SNIP.

This is the core of the debate.

I'm not saying alternative relationships should be denied equal rights. I'm asking you, at what point do we stop allowing alternative relationships equal rights.

You're the one announcing we should allow polygamy and incest, I've asked you to project your argument to the point wherein either we

A) set a boundary (and to your mind what is it)

legalise every imaginable relationship and potential relationship.

So which is it.

pretty-in-pink · 08-04-2005 04:02PM

Yet again corinthian you have tried to argue an imaginary point.

Neither I or mycroft have at any point stated that these groups are non-existant, or that they have no rihts. People surely have the right to express their attraction with another consenting adult regardless of gender or relationship.

My points were:

You cannot possibly compare polygamy or incest to homosexuality.

There are:
homosexuals- only same sex is attractive to you
hetrosexuals- only opposite sex is attractive to you
bisexuals- both sexes are attractive to you

There is also bestialty, attracted to animals.

Sex, or sex acts with children can be homo or hetro sexual, not another alternitive sexuality I think you'll find

Same for incest. Surely the person your doing it with is male or female? Not another alternitve sexuality

Polygamy, well its either homo,hetro or bi, so yet again not another alternitive sexuality.

Rape- same as polygamy
Bondage- same as polygamy
S+M- same as polygamy
Slavery-same as polygamy
__________________________________

Gay rights were for regocnition and the leagilisation of a biological urge to have sexual relations with a consenting member of the same sex. Going by your logic then people who practise any of the groups i mentioned should have the legal right to do so.

Polygamy may or may not hurt someone, its really complicated, as I have previously demonstrated, and so while they could potentially gain the right to make their union official, there is no law forbidding it, nor is anyone saying its evil and wrong. Just that its complicated and should be taken on a case by case value. Thats pretty fair.

Incest is not ok in my books, and I really doubt it will ever be smiled upon and welcomed into society.

I explained my reasoning behind the "ick" factor, which is pretty much my reasoning behind why child-sex abuse is "ick", even if the child wants sex.

If you are looking for validation of a relationship between any two people who are related, then you will not get it. Its not a biological urge, and does not deserve the recognition aforded to gay and bi sexual people. The very fact you are trying to say they are the same highlights your own lack of understanding of human sexuality, and how it differs from attraction.

And for all your giving out that people are question dodging, you are doing it to. Stop trying to be so P.c and "everyon regardless of what it is they want to do should have equal rights to pursue this".

Either create your own, or find arguments that both fully support and show a demand for incest, and then you can get back on your high horse. Otherwise let it drop, becasue you are unable to make a single strong point in its favor, and are constantly trying to steal the thunder of the gay rights movement, which I'm sure they wouldn't be happy about.

The Corinthian · 08-04-2005 04:46PM

mycroft wrote:

So which is it.

Ahem. That's what I'm asking you.

The Corinthian · 08-04-2005 05:19PM

naughty_girl wrote:

You cannot possibly compare polygamy or incest to homosexuality.

Up until recently homosexuality was classified as a paraphilia, along with all of the other paraphilias you mentioned. It was only recently declassified as such as a result of social acceptance meant that it was no longer considered a disorder.

So ultimately a comparison may be made, and to date the only differential is social acceptance. That would be your ‘ick’ factor.

Gay rights were for regocnition and the leagilisation of a biological urge to have sexual relations with a consenting member of the same sex.

The biological determinant to homosexuality is medically debatable.

Going by your logic then people who practise any of the groups i mentioned should have the legal right to do so.

Yes. And if they should not have those rights then give a logical reason for this.

Polygamy may or may not hurt someone, its really complicated, as I have previously demonstrated, and so while they could potentially gain the right to make their union official, there is no law forbidding it, nor is anyone saying its evil and wrong. Just that its complicated and should be taken on a case by case value. Thats pretty fair.

Should we then judge homosexual and heterosexual marriages on an equal footing too? Or would you consider polygamy to be ultimo inter pares?

Incest is not ok in my books, and I really doubt it will ever be smiled upon and welcomed into society.

Most people said that about homosexuality a century ago.

I explained my reasoning behind the "ick" factor, which is pretty much my reasoning behind why child-sex abuse is "ick", even if the child wants sex.

Only that isn’t reasoning. I understand that you are instinctively revulsed, but that is not the basis for judging such a matter.

Please try to understand that instinctive or subconscious reactions are not considered reason in logic.

And for all your giving out that people are question dodging, you are doing it to. Stop trying to be so P.c and "everyon regardless of what it is they want to do should have equal rights to pursue this".

I’m not actually PC. In the slightest. If I was, would I highlight such an obvious loophole in PC logic?

Create your own, or find arguments that both fully support and show a demand for incest, and then you can get back on your high horse. Otherwise let it drop, becasue you are unable to make a single strong point in its favor, and are constantly trying to steal the thunder of the gay rights movement, which I'm sure they wouldn't be happy about.

Now you’re telling me first not to be PC, then that I should shut up because I might upset homosexuals? Are you for real?

I’ve pointed out a very straight forward argument to which your response has been ‘ick’. I’m not saying that either homosexual or incestuous relationships are good or evil, only that if judged using the same, politically correct, criteria; it is not possible to reasonably deny one and accept the other.

Either you accept the principle of consenting individuals having the sort of sexual relationship they’re into or not.

Therefore, if one is right and the other is wrong, then there must be other criteria to the argument – which is what I have been seeking here. Otherwise you are judging the matter with all the rational of the mob. Or ‘ick’.

pretty-in-pink · 08-04-2005 05:54PM

The Corinthian wrote:

Up until recently homosexuality was classified as a paraphilia, along with all of the other paraphilias you mentioned. It was only recently declassified as such as a result of social acceptance meant that it was no longer considered a disorder.

So ultimately a comparison may be made, and to date the only differential is social acceptance. That would be your ‘ick’ factor.

The biological determinant to homosexuality is medically debatable.
Yes. And if they should not have those rights then give a logical reason for this.

Stop press, you can cure gay. OK mr smart guy

what sexuality is it that activly pursues incest? Hit me with the big guns, bring out your facts,

The Corinthian wrote:

Should we then judge homosexual and heterosexual marriages on an equal footing too? Or would you consider polygamy to be ultimo inter pares?

Strange how I remember making the argument that 2 people can only divide in 3 possible ways (well 5 if you seperate someone getting a minority share, and someone getting no share)
Now 3 people, its more complicated, there are many more ways it can end, there is one whole extra persons baggage to account for.

Like it or not 3 is more complicated then 2. Im not saying that it wouldnt work, but i am saying its differant, and given the potential amount of complexities, then handling the legally documented termination and/or creation of such a (i.e. marriage,divorce) of such a complex relationship, should be individually taken care of to ensure all parties are happy with the arangment.

The Corinthian wrote:

Most people said that about homosexuality a century ago.

because a guy being attracted to naother guy is SOOOOOO the same thing as him being attracted to say his kid sister. incest can be homo, hetro or bi sexual. There is no such sexuality as "i only get turned on by blood relatives". Its men, women or both. With the exception of bestiality.

The Corinthian wrote:

Only that isn’t reasoning. I understand that you are instinctively revulsed, but that is not the basis for judging such a matter.

Why not? Give me a resonable argument as to why public opinion cannot dictate something as contraversial as being ATTRACTED to your family?

Incest is not a sexuality, nor shall it ever be. It cannot be defended using the same arguments as for sexuality. Incest is attraction- your sexuality says "girl", your attraction says "sister". Going by your logic then "blonde" is a sexuality, as is "ginger" or "auburn" or "brown" or "black"-

Why are you so keen to defend incest?heck you're as good as promoting it! Does the thought of two sisters, or a brother and sister, or two brothers going hard at it get you going? Do you want to reach out, grab your nearsest female relation at the thought of incest and ram your cock into her?
Or do you just want to be different and look like you're enlightened?

The Corinthian wrote:

I’m not actually PC. In the slightest. If I was, would I highlight such an obvious loophole in PC logic?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. You are acting exactly like one of those crazy overly PC idiots who want everything to be legal, becuase heaven forbid that someone feel like their dirty little secrets be shunned. Good gosh no, can't have that.

Loophole my eye. You are trying to stir up a fight so that you can look like mr.anything goes. And its not a loophole in "PC", there are no "PC" loopholes. If something is un-pc, its un-pc. If its pc, then its pc. Thats that.

The Corinthian wrote:

Now you’re telling me first not to be PC, then that I should shut up because I might upset homosexuals? Are you for real?

No, I'm not saying that, Im saying that its a totally seperate issue, and to support the any possible acceptance of incest, you need to create your own arguments. The "well people used to think homosexuality was gross" and "incest is an alternitve sexuality" arguments are somwhat boring, not to mention highly incorrect. Change the record, or admit defeat, because we're still waiting for justification for incest being allowed or incest being a whole new alternative sexuality.

The Corinthian wrote:

I’ve pointed out a very straight forward argument to which your response has been ‘ick’. I’m not saying that either homosexual or incestuous relationships are good or evil, only that if judged using the same, politically correct, criteria; it is not possible to reasonably deny one and accept the other.

Either you accept the principle of consenting individuals having the sort of sexual relationship they’re into or not.

Therefore, if one is right and the other is wrong, then there must be other criteria to the argument – which is what I have been seeking here. Otherwise you are judging the matter with all the rational of the mob. Or ‘ick’.

Prove it, I want to see your grounds that incest should be allowed.

The Corinthian · 09-04-2005 10:09AM

naughty_girl wrote:

Stop press, you can cure gay.

I’m sorry, but what parallel universe were we in when I supposedly said that? Feel free to quote from what I’ve said.

OK mr smart guy
what sexuality is it that activly pursues incest? Hit me with the big guns, bring out your facts,

I already did. You even quoted them.

Like it or not 3 is more complicated then 2. Im not saying that it wouldnt work, but i am saying its differant, and given the potential amount of complexities, then handling the legally documented termination and/or creation of such a (i.e. marriage,divorce) of such a complex relationship, should be individually taken care of to ensure all parties are happy with the arangment.

Well you are saying it wouldn’t work, really. You’re repeadelly pointing out how

because a guy being attracted to naother guy is SOOOOOO the same thing as him being attracted to say his kid sister.

Who said anything about his kid sister? Typically you would be talking about what is called Genetic Sexual Attraction, a paraphilia sometimes experienced in siblings or other relatives that were separated during childhood. Here's an article on one case.

Why not? Give me a resonable argument as to why public opinion cannot dictate something as contraversial as being ATTRACTED to your family?

I did, repeatedly. Here it is again - Consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships. It’s a perfectly reasonable argument.

On the basis of that statement it is not wrong. Your counterargument has been essentially ‘ick’. Try harder.

Why are you so keen to defend incest?heck you're as good as promoting it! Does the thought of two sisters, or a brother and sister, or two brothers going hard at it get you going? Do you want to reach out, grab your nearsest female relation at the thought of incest and ram your cock into her?
Or do you just want to be different and look like you're enlightened?

Actually I’m not really promoting incest.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. You are acting exactly like one of those crazy overly PC idiots who want everything to be legal, becuase heaven forbid that someone feel like their dirty little secrets be shunned. Good gosh no, can't have that.

Loophole my eye. You are trying to stir up a fight so that you can look like mr.anything goes. And its not a loophole in "PC", there are no "PC" loopholes. If something is un-pc, its un-pc. If its pc, then its pc. Thats that.

If you’re having difficulty with the complexities of logic that is not really my problem, however my interest is in the rational often used by the politically correct. This rational (which I’ve repeated several times) is generally used at the core of most libertarian values; consenting adults, we are told, should be not only left to their own devices but treated equally.

Yet, when one gives an unpopular application of the rational, such as polygamy or, in particular, consensual incest, you will get a lot of lemmings (such as yourself), who would ordinarily support the rational, decry it as abhorrent. In the case of the politically correct, they practically short circuit as they realize the logical trap of this scenario. Yet the same logic applies, and in theory there should be no distinction made between a sexual relationship between two men or two brothers. It is after all their own business what they, as consenting individuals, get up to in private.

But that’s “different”, you will say. Certainly, but how? ‘Ick’ or your instinctive revulsion is not actually an argument - indeed, if you were to say ‘ick’ of homosexuality you’d most likely be branded a homophobe. So you will either have to find a logical argument as to why this case of consenting individuals should have their rights curtailed or revisit the initial premise of consenting intervals having the right to alternative relationships in the first place.

In short, work it out and think for yourself.

pretty-in-pink · 09-04-2005 03:52PM

you said that

The Corinthian wrote:

The biological determinant to homosexuality is medically debatable

If something is not part of your biological make-up, then there is the potential to cure it.

I apparently have to make my point about Polygamy, annd so here it is:
I am not saying polygamy can't work, but I am saying that it is complicated as there are more people involved, more possibilites for things (good or bad) to happen, and so in the legal joining or disbanding of such a relationship then it should be individually dealt with as there are far more possibllites,circumstances etc. To give all people involved in this a fair chance to share their side and get their entitlrments, a case-by-case scenario would be the most feasible.

The Corinthian wrote:

If you’re having difficulty with the complexities of logic that is not really my problem, however my interest is in the rational often used by the politically correct. This rational (which I’ve repeated several times) is generally used at the core of most libertarian values; consenting adults, we are told, should be not only left to their own devices but treated equally.

Nobody is saying that they should be locked up, Nobody is saying its not a relationship, Nobody is saying they should ignore their desires. All that is being said is that Incest- especially when you are aware you are commiting it- is unsavory. HOw could someone knowingly sleep with a close relative, and get full satisfaction from it.

The Corinthian wrote:

Yet, when one gives an unpopular application of the rational, such as polygamy or, in particular, consensual incest, you will get a lot of lemmings (such as yourself), who would ordinarily support the rational, decry it as abhorrent. In the case of the politically correct, they practically short circuit as they realize the logical trap of this scenario. Yet the same logic applies, and in theory there should be no distinction made between a sexual relationship between two men or two brothers. It is after all their own business what they, as consenting individuals, get up to in private.

Actaully, I find the uber-PCness of society frustrating, there are reasons people feel something is fundamenataly wrong,
not just because they find the thoguht of two men or two women having carnal knowledge of eachother, which is a seperate issue
but rather the thought of people who are directly related having carnal knowledge of eachother, even with knowledge of their blood-ties.

It does happen that there is a draw between relatives, like a sense that picks up on the blood-bond, however if the people are unaware of their connection, they read this draw as a deep spiritual connection, and pursue this right through until there are conjugal relations between them It is understood that if these people have fallen irrevocably in love that it is hard to break ties once you discover the less savory side of your connection. I think that the problem with incest between consenting individuals (because its not just adults who engage in sexual experimentation) lies with the group of those who practis eincest with someine who they had prior knowledge of being related to.
[/Quote]

The Corinthian wrote:

But that’s “different”, you will say. Certainly, but how? ‘Ick’ or your instinctive revulsion is not actually an argument - indeed, if you were to say ‘ick’ of homosexuality you’d most likely be branded a homophobe. So you will either have to find a logical argument as to why this case of consenting individuals should have their rights curtailed or revisit the initial premise of consenting intervals having the right to alternative relationships in the first place.

In short, work it out and think for yourself.

The "ick" factor that has become embedded in the debate is the sense of moral outrage people feel, with the case of homosexuality, it is generaly perpretrated by men who do not wish to see other men engaging in any sexual relations with eachother. I think you will find the general attitude to lesbianism is somewhat different...............

There are very few people, outside of the so called "bible-bashers", who will claim that being homosexual is a choice. It is a desire,an urge that you have no control over, to pursue relations with someone of the same sex as you. You need not be attracted to every member of the gender you wish to have relations with(not every guy/girl will do it for you),
There is no more of a choice in being bi or homosexual then there is in being hetrosxual.

You can feel attracted to a member of your family, indeed it is them who give you your guidelines for choosing a partner. However the difference between having a member of your family being eerily close to your "type", and therfore attractive, and actually wanting to pursue a relationship with this person is what bothers people. Everyone has, at some point, had a somewhat iunfortunate attraction to someone- be it incestous, or your friends partner,or someone who you know will get you into trouble.- and can sympathise with the difficulty in finding that "Hey, I want a girl/guy just like my sibling/parent. S/he has all the physical properties I desire, and they have a great personality. I trust them ,they are kinda wild and sexy/safe and sweet/etc." However is this the attraction to the TYPE or the PERSON?

I will not deny that I can see the factors that might make incest attractive, but I will say that to allow such a couple to marry can cause problems.

Also, Incest is the acted of sexual intercourse between two members of the same family- brother,mother,sister,father,grandparents. That also includes half siblings. It does not extend past that family circle.
A male can be charged as an adult with incest from age 14, and a female from age 17. Consent is not an issue- rather it means both parties get charged. So it is a crime to pursue a sexual relationship in the nuclear family, and I dont think that will be changed. They are looking at making the laws stricter actually.

If you are not refering to sexual relationships between the nuclear family, its not incest. My source is
here

You yet have to state the relevence of incest to homosexuality, infact the closest thing to relevence was stated by me- which was that incest can be homsexual.

People do deserve to have rights, but the law is also there to protect. And so the legal documenation to support B+D, S+M, Rape etc will remain in favor of lack of consent unless proved otherwise. You want to change it, you're going to create a very screwed up country. We have come a long way in the last 15 years (from the recognition of rape inside marriage, to the decriminilisation of homosexuality,to this everything goes society). The law is as it is, so that people can get help if they are in a non-mainstream group (incest, B+D, S+M, slavery,rape group etc) and they are being forced againnst their willto stay, it is there to protect them if they ever get the strength to leave, sadly they need proof to show this, so the law is fair and its about time you learned about why it is as it is, insterad of deciding everyone is trying to keep these minority groups down charges are only pressed and the law is only enforced when it is requested to be,

what more do you want?

Zombrex · 10-04-2005 12:57AM

I am confused, and couldn't really find an answer in the posts (it is 1am though)

What does polygamy (multiple wives or husbands) have to do with incest (sexual intercourse with a blood relation)???

Gurgle · 10-04-2005 11:55AM

Wicknight wrote:

I am confused, and couldn't really find an answer in the posts (it is 1am though)
What does polygamy (multiple wives or husbands) have to do with incest (sexual intercourse with a blood relation)???

I have no idea.

The Corinthian · 10-04-2005 12:18PM

naughty_girl wrote:

If something is not part of your biological make-up, then there is the potential to cure it.

Just because something is not originally part of our biological makeup does not imply it requires a cure. Additionally, accusing me of claiming to be able to provide a cure is quite a fanciful leap from what I suggested, even if it implied that a cure was possible or desirable.

All that is being said is that Incest- especially when you are aware you are commiting it- is unsavory. HOw could someone knowingly sleep with a close relative, and get full satisfaction from it.

I understand that it is unsavoury, that’s why I picked the example.

The "ick" factor that has become embedded in the debate is the sense of moral outrage people feel, with the case of homosexuality, it is generaly perpretrated by men who do not wish to see other men engaging in any sexual relations with eachother. I think you will find the general attitude to lesbianism is somewhat different...............

What kind of argument is that? The ‘ick’ factor is the measure of write and wrong? Perhaps, but by that basis your assertion that incest will never be legalized could be drastically wrong in thirty years time as people’s attitudes change (or are you too young to remember what attitudes towards homosexuality were twenty five years ago?).

There is no more of a choice in being bi or homosexual then there is in being hetrosxual.

Fair enough; let’s take it as read that regardless of the nurture versus nature debate on homosexuality, that this is the case.

You yet have to state the relevence of incest to homosexuality, infact the closest thing to relevence was stated by me- which was that incest can be homsexual.

You’ll note the relevance was put in bold so that you would not miss it in my last post.

People do deserve to have rights, but the law is also there to protect. And so the legal documenation to support B+D, S+M, Rape etc will remain in favor of lack of consent unless proved otherwise. You want to change it, you're going to create a very screwed up country. We have come a long way in the last 15 years (from the recognition of rape inside marriage, to the decriminilisation of homosexuality,to this everything goes society). The law is as it is, so that people can get help if they are in a non-mainstream group (incest, B+D, S+M, slavery,rape group etc) and they are being forced againnst their willto stay, it is there to protect them if they ever get the strength to leave, sadly they need proof to show this, so the law is fair and its about time you learned about why it is as it is,

But everything you are saying about what you call non-mainstream groups was said about homosexuality twenty or thirty years ago. Homosexuality was decriminalised, not on the basis that it was natural or mainstream, but because it was consenting individuals doing what they wanted to do in private. You have repeatedly failed to address this issue and why it is applied differently in the two cases.

Also, given the logical principle I presented discussed consenting individuals, so rape and slavery would not apply. I’ve no idea where you come up with those.

insterad of deciding everyone is trying to keep these minority groups down charges are only pressed and the law is only enforced when it is requested to be,

what more do you want?

Actually, I remember hearing that said around the time that homosexuality was decriminalized. No one had been prosecuted in ages, so by your logic should we have just continued to turn a blind eye?

Wicknight wrote:

I am confused, and couldn't really find an answer in the posts (it is 1am though)

Read the thread. However, the relevant bit is in bold in my last post.

paulinimus · 10-04-2005 12:33PM

"I hate Illinois Nazis!"

Me too - Burn that whole city down again - Chicago that is

mycroft · 10-04-2005 03:30PM

The Corinthian wrote:

Ahem. That's what I'm asking you.

No it's now what I'm asking you.

You've not built a case for equal rights for polygamist and incestous relationships on their own. You've piggybacked that right onto the campaign for homosexual rights. Saying if we allow or want to allow homosexual couples these rights then you must allow these two relationships, because they are between consenting adults as well.

You've not demostrated that theres a pressing need, in fact you've not demostrated they want this, so you may as well be demanding equal rights for leprauchan and gnome couples.

So you've gone and said that we must, if we are pro homosexual marriage, we must allow other consenting adults equal rights.

Since this is your argument I'm asking you are their any limits that you'd put on relationships between consenting adults.

And I posed these to you

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?

So either we legalise all concievable relationships between consenting adults, to follow your logic, or we set some boundaries and change the laws, when a compelling argument to change the law comes up.

Now you've talked about slavery and oppression of homosexual relationships. Fair enough, but we live in far more liberal times. While I argee people in an openly polygamous relationship, or incestous relationship would face some social condemnation. It's comparable to the predjuice some gay couples still face, and if they truly wanted this legislation they'd come out and demand it. Ditto slavery, you cited slavery legislation and how slaves didn't create emancipation legisaltion, they have over the course of human history, risen up, escaped, which is the only way they can emmacipate themselves until "civilised" society caught up with the practice.

You've not come up with a credible argument for legislation allowing this. You've just come up with a clever little logical paradox that allows you to smugly watch some liberals get their knickers in a twist.

The Corinthian · 10-04-2005 04:34PM

mycroft wrote:

No it's now what I'm asking you.

No. You don’t squirm out of my question that easily. I’ve stated a logical principle, I’ve asked others to disprove it, asking me to disprove it is doing your job.

You've not built a case for equal rights for polygamist and incestous relationships on their own. You've piggybacked that right onto the campaign for homosexual rights. Saying if we allow or want to allow homosexual couples these rights then you must allow these two relationships, because they are between consenting adults as well.

That’s the logic. And as I asked you, if this logic needs to be amended, speak now of forever avoid the issue.

You've not demostrated that theres a pressing need, in fact you've not demostrated they want this, so you may as well be demanding equal rights for leprauchan and gnome couples.

Irrelevant to the stated principle, unless you would like to address it directly.

Since this is your argument I'm asking you are their any limits that you'd put on relationships between consenting adults.

I’ve not placed any limits, that’s why I’ve repeatedly asked you for them.

You've not come up with a credible argument for legislation allowing this. You've just come up with a clever little logical paradox that allows you to smugly watch some liberals get their knickers in a twist.

Not to mention refuse to address it under the pretext that they consider it a logical trap.

mycroft · 10-04-2005 05:03PM

The Corinthian wrote:

No. You don’t squirm out of my question that easily. I’ve stated a logical principle, I’ve asked others to disprove it, asking me to disprove it is doing your job.

I've presented several cases which are a progression of your own logic, and asked you should we create legislation also allowing for these, which is a continuation of your own issue

That’s the logic. And as I asked you, if this logic needs to be amended, speak now of forever avoid the issue.

As I said. This is your argument, I'm just following your own argument along its natural progression.

Irrelevant to the stated principle, unless you would like to address it directly.

No it is, you're talking about hypotheticals you've not demostrated a need for the legislation in any real sense.

I’ve not placed any limits, that’s why I’ve repeatedly asked you for them.

So you don't think the government should place any limits governing the relationship between two consenting adults?

This is your logic. That because we potentially allow gay couples to marry, we must grant this right to polygamous and incestous couples. I've looked at your logic, and presented you with three examples of consenting adults engaging in extreme behaviour and asking you, by your own logic should we also create legalisation governing these. And you're trying to wriggle out of it.

Sangre · 10-04-2005 05:04PM

Consenting adults isn't really that strong an arguement, should we allow murder/suicide pacts?
Anyway if pushed for a reason to not allow the relations
Polygamy - legal complexities surrounding marriages
Incest - health risks even if small

Although I haven't read the full thread or really thought about the topics, just giving a possible answer to Corinithian's question.

simu · 10-04-2005 10:34PM

Why not do away with marriage altogether?

There could be legally-binding contracts for situations like buying property with another person or adopting and parenting a child.

And people could stop being so obsessed with boring wedding ceremonies etc!

utopian · 10-04-2005 11:43PM

This thread should stand as a monument to our failure to communicate.
A virtual Tower of Babel.

Zombrex · 10-04-2005 11:51PM

The Corinthian wrote:

Read the thread. However, the relevant bit is in bold in my last post.

So basically what you are saying is concenting adults should be allowed do anything, be it polygamy or incest. Fair enough. Bit of a broad statement though.

pretty-in-pink · 11-04-2005 12:31AM

oh T_C, you wont answer anyones questions, at all. You're boring me now.....One last time I'll play with you.

I think that with the exception of polygamy, which could be written into the law, the other examples you gave should, or could be made legal.

People are not persecuted over the previously mentioned acts- unless complaint is made. I dont think that what they do should be made legal unless they can counteract any problems that might arise from the lack of protection by law.

For example, around the time homosexuality was decriminilised, reape became more then penetration of the vagina by a penis or foreign object with consent is withheld, to the penetration of the anus, the mouth or the vagina by a penis or foreign object with consent is withheld. I think there is also a provision for men who have been forced to penetrate another person.

And there is also consensual B+D, slavery, S+M etc, so by creating legaly recognised unions of this sort there must also be laws placed to protect people if these unions are forced or if they fail.

So I'd much prefer to wait and see if a demand arises for the other unions you mentioned (and FYI, stating B+D (do you know what that is, its a new term to me, so I'm assuming most people are unaware of what it is) etc is as valid a point as incest- although they are all off topic)

To answer the original poster, Polygamy may happen, I dont see why not. But I reckon that the actual individual unions between 3 or more people will be dealt with individually. The law will no prohhibit it, but each case will be tackled as they come. Im pretty sure regular marriage is going this way to. But I think a significant demand will need to be shown, as it has been with gay marriage.

mycroft · 11-04-2005 09:36AM

simu wrote:

Why not do away with marriage altogether?

There could be legally-binding contracts for situations like buying property with another person or adopting and parenting a child.

And people could stop being so obsessed with boring wedding ceremonies etc!

And we could wriggle outa giving wedding presents.

The Corinthian · 11-04-2005 11:17AM

mycroft wrote:

So you don't think the government should place any limits governing the relationship between two consenting adults?

Now that you mention it I do think the government should place limits, but we’re not actually discussing here what I believe or claim to believe. All I’ve done is put forward the principle argument for the legalisation and legitimisation of homosexuality and asked why are other cases logically different with respect to this principle.

This is your logic. That because we potentially allow gay couples to marry, we must grant this right to polygamous and incestous couples. I've looked at your logic, and presented you with three examples of consenting adults engaging in extreme behaviour and asking you, by your own logic should we also create legalisation governing these. And you're trying to wriggle out of it.

The point I’ve made is philosophical, a question on morality and how we define it. You’ve repeatedly shied away from addressing that. The question is not whether it is easy or even practical to legislate for such extreme relationship types or whether they’re popular in the first place, but whether based upon the basis that rights have been accepted in the past the same criteria should apply.

My asking whether incestuous of polygamous relationships should be given equal status is not a question of practicality, as you repeatedly attempt to return to, but one of philosophical principle.

Sangre wrote:

Consenting adults isn't really that strong an arguement, should we allow murder/suicide pacts?

Unless someone wants to amend the principle I put forward, then yes. Only no one seems to want to do that.

Polygamy - legal complexities surrounding marriages
Incest - health risks even if small

Legal complexities and health risks exist in heterosexual relationships too. So there has to be another reason that one is right and the other is wrong other than ‘ick’.

simu wrote:

Why not do away with marriage altogether?

Wouldn’t solve the obvious issue of these relationship types in the first place.

Wicknight wrote:

So basically what you are saying is concenting adults should be allowed do anything, be it polygamy or incest. Fair enough. Bit of a broad statement though.

Absolutely. That is my point - yet no one seems willing to address it directly.

Essentially all I’ve done is said; “Consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships - Discuss.”

And apparently mycroft feels that consenting adults (technically individuals rather than adults) should be allowed to do anything, as long as there is political demand and it is legally practical. And while this is a complete sidestep, at least it is better than naughty_girl’s suggestion that consenting adults should be allowed to do anything, as long as it’s not ‘ick’.

If the principle is too broad, then people should address it.

naughty_girl wrote:

oh T_C, you wont answer anyones questions, at all. You're boring me now.....One last time I'll play with you.

I’ve actually responded repeatedly. TBH, I’ve come to the conclusion that mycroft is sidestepping the issue and you just don’t seem able to grasp it. So play or not as you see fit.

I think that with the exception of polygamy, which could be written into the law, the other examples you gave should, or could be made legal.

This makes no sense in English unless you changed your mind halfway through the sentence.

People are not persecuted over the previously mentioned acts- unless complaint is made. I dont think that what they do should be made legal unless they can counteract any problems that might arise from the lack of protection by law.

I’ve already responded to this vis-a-vi the out of sight, out of mind approach to homosexuality up to its decriminalisation.

For example, around the time homosexuality was decriminilised, reape became more then penetration of the vagina by a penis or foreign object with consent is withheld, to the penetration of the anus, the mouth or the vagina by a penis or foreign object with consent is withheld. I think there is also a provision for men who have been forced to penetrate another person.

What has rape or sexual assault got to do with homosexuality?

And there is also consensual B+D, slavery, S+M etc, so by creating legaly recognised unions of this sort there must also be laws placed to protect people if these unions are forced or if they fail.

What, as I’ve repeatedly stated, has this got to do with consensual individuals?

So I'd much prefer to wait and see if a demand arises for the other unions you mentioned (and FYI, stating B+D (do you know what that is, its a new term to me, so I'm assuming most people are unaware of what it is) etc is as valid a point as incest- although they are all off topic)

This is your personal opinion, which is all well and good, but not actually an argument.

mycroft · 11-04-2005 11:34AM

The Corinthian wrote:

Now that you mention it I do think the government should place limits, but we’re not actually discussing here what I believe or claim to believe. All I’ve done is put forward the principle argument for the legalisation and legitimisation of homosexuality and asked why are other cases logically different with respect to this principle.

Some mighty fine wriggling there. The argument for homosexual relationships as legally recognised relationships, is that homosexuals (some of them at least) want this right.

You're now taking the fact that a group of people want something, and using this argument to twist this into well if "you do that, you have to do this"

If a group of polygamists, or incestous relation rights group came forward and made a compelling argument about why they feel they need this legislation I'd look at it.

I'm mildly curious though, what are your limits?

The point I’ve made is philosophical, a question on morality and how we define it. You’ve repeatedly shied away from addressing that. The question is not whether it is easy or even practical to legislate for such extreme relationship types or whether they’re popular in the first place, but whether based upon the basis that rights have been accepted in the past the same criteria should apply.

Nah I look at it as you finding some clever loophole and trying it out to see if you can get some liberals morally outraged.

See it is an interesting philosophical point and I'd be happy to debate it with you, I've taken your point and extending it's logic, and you've failed to address your own point. which means;

A) You hadn't though it through fully.

or

You weren't interesting in really debating the issue.

And apparently mycroft feels that consenting adults (technically individuals rather than adults) should be allowed to do anything, as long as there is political demand and it is legally practical. And while this is a complete sidestep, at least it is better than naughty_girl’s suggestion that consenting adults should be allowed to do anything, as long as it’s not ‘ick’.

um and where did I say that? I've asked you to follow through on your own logic and to study the implications of your own argument. I've never said that I feel "that consenting adults (technically individuals rather than adults) should be allowed to do anything, as long as there is political demand and it is legally practical" I've come up with an argument that polygamy isn't legally pratical. I've never said that consenting adults should be allowed to do anything, thats an implication following on from your argument.

Please show me where I said "consenting adults should be allowed to do anything"

I’ve actually responded repeatedly. TBH, I’ve come to the conclusion that mycroft is sidestepping the issue and you just don’t seem able to grasp it. So play or not as you see fit.

No you raised the argument, you just have to follow through on it.

simu · 11-04-2005 02:23PM

The Corinthian wrote:

Wouldn’t solve the obvious issue of these relationship types in the first place.

OK, you'd have to legalise incest as well. Then, you have a situation where any adult can do whatever they want to any other adult(s) once they each give consent. Having recognition from the state wouldn't be an issue anymore.

The Corinthian · 11-04-2005 03:36PM

mycroft wrote:

Some mighty fine wriggling there. The argument for homosexual relationships as legally recognised relationships, is that homosexuals (some of them at least) want this right.

You're now taking the fact that a group of people want something, and using this argument to twist this into well if "you do that, you have to do this"

Then are you suggesting that the principle that I put forward should be amended to read that consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships, as long as they seek this right?

If a group of polygamists, or incestous relation rights group came forward and made a compelling argument about why they feel they need this legislation I'd look at it.

In fairness, if they came forward and said they wanted to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, that’s the only argument they would need to make, unless you’ve left out some other criteria.

I'm mildly curious though, what are your limits?

When you answer my question I’ll tell you. Given that you’ve only gone so far as to say you would ‘look’ at their case, means you haven’t.

Nah I look at it as you finding some clever loophole and trying it out to see if you can get some liberals morally outraged.

It’s not terribly difficult to find if you’re paying attention. Nonetheless, does that mean that you cannot address it? Because you don’t appear to have done so.

See it is an interesting philosophical point and I'd be happy to debate it with you, I've taken your point and extending it's logic, and you've failed to address your own point. which means;

A) You hadn't though it through fully.

or

You weren't interesting in really debating the issue.

I’d be more than happy to debate it if someone addresses it directly. So far you’ve been at pains to avoid doing so on the pretext that it would be a logical trap.

Please show me where I said "consenting adults should be allowed to do anything"

My apologies, but I made that assumption after your repeated refulal to actually address the issue.

No you raised the argument, you just have to follow through on it.

If I did that this would rapidly become a monologue, given you have yet to address the issue.

simu wrote:

OK, you'd have to legalise incest as well. Then, you have a situation where any adult can do whatever they want to any other adult(s) once they each give consent. Having recognition from the state wouldn't be an issue anymore.

That’s not actually true, as simply abolishing marriage would not mean that homosexuality would be automatically decriminalised in Saudi Arabia or incest would be in Ireland.

Unless you ascribe to the out of sight, out of mind school.

simu · 11-04-2005 03:55PM

The Corinthian wrote:

That’s not actually true, as simply abolishing marriage would not mean that homosexuality would be automatically decriminalised in Saudi Arabia or incest would be in Ireland.

Unless you ascribe to the out of sight, out of mind school.

No, but it would mean that once insectuous relationships were legalised here or homosexual ones in S.A. or any other sort of relationship hitherto illegal in any other country, they would be on an equal footing with heterosexual, two-person ones. Instead of having three categories as we do at the moment - illegal, legal but not given state recognition in the form of marriage, legal plus given state recognition in the form of marriage - all relationship-types would fit into the first or second categories.

mycroft · 12-04-2005 12:23AM

The Corinthian wrote:

Then are you suggesting that the principle that I put forward should be amended to read that consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships, as long as they seek this right?

I'm not saying they should be treated unequally or rights surpressed. I am saying that humanity has a habit of creating new relationships, faster than we can legalisation for them, and people seeking that right is a good yardstick (but not necessarily the only yardstick) for amending legislation.

Are you suggesting that governments decide what relationships should be legally enshrined without consulation with the people?

In fairness, if they came forward and said they wanted to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, that’s the only argument they would need to make, unless you’ve left out some other criteria.

When you answer my question I’ll tell you. Given that you’ve only gone so far as to say you would ‘look’ at their case, means you haven’t.

Not once again. You've stated that if you're for same sex relationships you must allow incestous and polgyamist relationships. I've then looked at your logic, and followed it on it's natural progression, and asked you to consider the ramifications of your point of view.

It’s not terribly difficult to find if you’re paying attention. Nonetheless, does that mean that you cannot address it? Because you don’t appear to have done so.

No I've asked you to look at your logic, and consider the implications of your argument. You've declined to do so.

I’d be more than happy to debate it if someone addresses it directly. So far you’ve been at pains to avoid doing so on the pretext that it would be a logical trap.

No I've asked you to consider the natural progression of your argument.
My apologies, but I made that assumption after your repeated refusal to actually address the issue, that you were trying to duck the issue, the issue you raisedAsking me to defend the implications of your debate, while you don't seem inclinded to do so, isn't really fair, or in the spirit of debate.

If I did that this would rapidly become a monologue, given you have yet to address the issue.

You've yet to address the issues I've raised about your position. Lets recap

You come out and say;

"You have to allow polgamous and incestous relationships because if you allow homosexuality you have to allow these as well."

I went hang on, and raised some legal ramifications for polygamy.

You then posed four questions for me.

I've gone "hang on a second, this is your argument. Lets see you defend the ramifications of your argument before I have to. You've brought this argument onto the table, before I have to defend the ramifications of your argument, you have to consider the implications of your argument, and defend the ramifications of your own POV, before I have to.

And seeing as you said

The Corinthian wrote:

And again how does this change the basic principle of allowing consenting individuals to pursue the form of relationship they wish to have?

and

The Corinthian wrote:

Now that you mention it I do think the government should place limits

You've argued that if governments allow X the should also allow W and Z, but not X* (*where "X" is an unknown factor)

but we’re not actually discussing here what I believe or claim to believe

and

The point I’ve made is philosophical, a question on morality and how we define it

Philosophical and Morality are subjective, a personal code, often adapted from a religion. Your personal beliefs are interesting and relevant.

myrcoft wrote:

Please show me where I said "consenting adults should be allowed to do anything"

Oh btw please provide evidence, or retract that statement.

pretty-in-pink · 12-04-2005 01:48AM

So now its a philosophical or moral question? Defend your point, we have all been defending ours.

And yet again I need to point out to you that my point againnst incest was that it is moraly reprehensible. Which would be my argument in a debate, and since you have stated you asked a moral question.......Should you actually wish to engage in a proper debte, you'll need to start coming up with some points to support your argument.

I have also addressed polygamy by saying that it could well be legislised, who knows, should a demand be created for it, I see no reason for it to be supressed. However, due to the sheer amount of potential complications in each marriage and seperation, each case would most likely, and in order to ensure a fair deal for all parties it should be, dealt with as each case arises.

You have also been asked both by mycoft and myself what are your limits and personal opinions on the issues you mentioned and indeed any issues going beyond the scope of those issues.

And in answer to your question, homsexuality was illegel, ergo anal sex would have been illegal, and when homosexuality became decriminilised, the laws regarding sex crimes were changed so that if someone was forced to engage in oral or anal sex they could now pursue the crime. Previous to this I'm not sure what they did, maybe chased it up on account of being homosexual, so maybe if say incest was to be decriminilised- which I do really doubt, although I vaguely know a brother/sister couple- then the age at which someone could be charged with sex crimes may be dropped, currently it stands at 14 for a boy and 17 for a girl.

The other acts mentioned can be consensual, so contining your strain of "consensual adults should be allowed to pursue any sexual or romantic situation they like", these acts also deserve a look in, how are they so different from incest? After all it could all be consenting adults.

The Corinthian · 12-04-2005 02:17AM

mycroft wrote:

I'm not saying they should be treated unequally or rights surpressed. I am saying that humanity has a habit of creating new relationships, faster than we can legalisation for them, and people seeking that right is a good yardstick (but not necessarily the only yardstick) for amending legislation.

Are you suggesting that governments decide what relationships should be legally enshrined without consulation with the people?

I’m not suggesting anything. I am merely applying the politically correct logic that is typically used to morally justify numerous situations to unpopular scenarios and asking people whether this means that the principle needs caveats that I did not supply or that it is fundamentally flawed.

And no one, least of all you, has actually tackle this directly - it’s actually comical at this stage.

Not once again. You've stated that if you're for same sex relationships you must allow incestous and polgyamist relationships. I've then looked at your logic, and followed it on it's natural progression, and asked you to consider the ramifications of your point of view.

Of course I’ve considered the ramifications - that is why I’m questioning the principle and asking people whether it considers the ramifications.

No I've asked you to look at your logic, and consider the implications of your argument. You've declined to do so.

Of course I’ve considered the implications of my argument. Given that the natural end of allowing consenting individuals to be allowed to have sexual relationships which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships will result in such taboo cases, then there must be either criteria missing from the principle or the principle is fundamentally flawed - this is what I’m asking you.

No I've asked you to consider the natural progression of your argument.
My apologies, but I made that assumption after your repeated refusal to actually address the issue, that you were trying to duck the issue, the issue you raisedAsking me to defend the implications of your debate, while you don't seem inclinded to do so, isn't really fair, or in the spirit of debate.

Have I.Q.’s dropped sharply here all of a sudden? What are you looking for? A monologue? That I start a debate on this principle and then just debate against myself because you don’t feel comfortable with the logical trap and have decided to avoid it yourself? Try addressing the principle for once yourself rather than blubbering that I’m being nasty.

I've gone "hang on a second, this is your argument. Lets see you defend the ramifications of your argument before I have to. You've brought this argument onto the table, before I have to defend the ramifications of your argument, you have to consider the implications of your argument, and defend the ramifications of your own POV, before I have to.

I did. The principle I put forward. The one you avoid. Repeatedly. Address it. Just once. Go on. Be a man.

Philosophical and Morality are subjective, a personal code, often adapted from a religion. Your personal beliefs are interesting and relevant.

Not at all, I could well be arguing something that is directly opposed to what I personally believe. Indeed, my personal opinion would not be the same as the principle that has sparked this debate. So if I state that something is a personal opinion, it is irrelevant to the argument I’ve making - I’m sure you can understand the ability to divorce personal opinion from argument, being a legal expert.

Oh btw please provide evidence, or retract that statement.

I did retract it in my last post.

Now are you going to address the limitations, flaws or otherwise of the principle that is at the core of what I’ve said? Are you going to address it directly rather than find another way to avoid it?

If not feel free not to respond as at this stage you’re actually wasting my time.

The Corinthian · 12-04-2005 02:34AM

naughty_girl wrote:

So now its a philosophical or moral question? Defend your point, we have all been defending ours.

Defend it from what? You’re not even addressing it.

And yet again I need to point out to you that my point againnst incest was that it is moraly reprehensible. Which would be my argument in a debate, and since you have stated you asked a moral question.......Should you actually wish to engage in a proper debte, you'll need to start coming up with some points to support your argument.

Why is it morally reprehensible? Other than ‘ick’?

This is the essentially what I’m asking - what’s missing from the principle I stated that’s allowing such ‘ick’ scenarios?

You have also been asked both by mycoft and myself what are your limits and personal opinions on the issues you mentioned and indeed any issues going beyond the scope of those issues.

And I’ve said that I’m not discussing my personal opinion. I put forward a philosophical principle that is often cited by others and asked people to address it. Is it flawed or incomplete? If so how?

And in answer to your question, homsexuality was illegel, ergo anal sex would have been illegal, and when homosexuality became decriminilised, the laws regarding sex crimes were changed so that if someone was forced to engage in oral or anal sex they could now pursue the crime. Previous to this I'm not sure what they did, maybe chased it up on account of being homosexual, so maybe if say incest was to be decriminilised- which I do really doubt, although I vaguely know a brother/sister couple- then the age at which someone could be charged with sex crimes may be dropped, currently it stands at 14 for a boy and 17 for a girl.

Your grammar is very difficult to follow, but it seems that you’re saying that cases of homosexual rape were pursued using the laws prohibiting homosexuality and now they’re no longer needed as they’re covered by the law against rape.

If this is not the case, please explain yourself. If it is, it’s probably the dumbest thing I’ve seen in a while.

The other acts mentioned can be consensual, so contining your strain of "consensual adults should be allowed to pursue any sexual or romantic situation they like", these acts also deserve a look in, how are they so different from incest? After all it could all be consenting adults.

I’m sorry, that makes no sense. What are you trying to say?

Polygamy - why not?

Comments