Polygamy - why not?

mycroft · 14-04-2005 01:41AM

The Corinthian wrote:

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.

I start by offering an apology. I re read the threat in total, and wrote an anrgy response till I got to this

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?

I read the end and misunderstood your post. I Saw the "yes" or "no" and inferred that you wanted me to answer yes and no, only, and thought you inferred I had to answer these questions on a yes or no only answer. Which I felt the was unfairly constricting and aganist the principle of debate. And if you answer no to any of the above, well, we know what that means, don’t we? Was a fairly snide accusation.

So I'll answer them Conditional.

Should they be criminalized?
Once again I've never said that they should be criminalized.

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

No one suggests that they should not be allowed its the debate about marriage. I'm not inhibting the persuit of the relationship

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

And this is the core of the debate. "Why not" (which is the core of your argument) is not a argument it's a counter argument. I've already pointed out several unusual relationships between consentual adults, and applied that logic. However we are not arguing in a vaccum. Gay marriage is not an option in this country. Divorce scraped in less than fifteen years ago, we've still yet to achieve equality for unmarried couples. Gay marriage is not on the cards this decade. The state legislation during the last US election implied that over 10 US states were aganist Gay marriage. We've yet to achieve one, and gay activists have a fight on their hands to force this debate, do we expect them to shoulder the argument for incest and polygamy? Gay couples have several arguments for gay marriage rights. Not just "why not".

I'm not of the opinion that marriage is that important. I'd be happy for gay couples to get common marriage rights (I'd also like hetreosexual couples to get that right)

If it's a moral principle and your entire argument is "why not" I'd ask you to quanitfy what barriers you'd put between consenting adults, and why? After all you raised this point.

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

Well thats what I'm asking you, you've raised the point, and I'm genuinely interested in what you think are the ramifications.

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.

Which is why I asked the question, Either we legalisate for every possible and potential relationship, or we study each relationship on case by case basis. "Why not" is not a compelling argument.

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.

But I don't want to be rude, but you've presented an argument, and haven't felt comfortable defending the implications of your viewpoint.

Go on. Be a man.

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.

Intriguing defense of your POV of a Socratian dialogue is fascinating

as is this

Have I.Q.’s dropped sharply here all of a sudden?
being a legal expert.
why don't you grow a pair and answer it

You've called me stupid, snidely attacked the fact that I responded to you accusation I knew nothing about the law that I had some moderate knowledge, and challenged my manhood, all parts of a moderate and well realised debate by you.

I did retract it in my last post.

You quantified it. With an implication. I missed it.

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.

Yeah, cause this debate is so important to you. IMO We're debating on an internet bulletin board either to confirm your/my predjuice, and the snide abuse in your post would suggest the previous.

If you're actually interested in debating this issue fine. I suspect that you're more interesting in winding up some liberals, let me break it down to you "why not" is not an argument. Theres a body, a complex body, of relationships between consenting adults, and either we force society to legislation all, or we must legislation for some and not others, so I'm curious why you've picked incestous (not the OPs and the threads point) and as an afterthought polygmist relationships

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?

And not the two relationship types you are championing. Would you champion the above cases? They're relationships between consenting adults, what is your issue with the above? Why doens't your why not include these?

The Corinthian · 14-04-2005 09:46AM

mycroft wrote:

Well thats what I'm asking you, you've raised the point, and I'm genuinely interested in what you think are the ramifications.

I’ve given a premise and applied it to multiple instances. People here have accepted some instances and rejected others. So I’ve asked what is the logical flaw in the premise. Of the two consistently answering, one has managed to articulate ‘ick’ as a response and the other, you, is just trying to avoid answering the question by arguing that I should answer my own question.

Enough.

pretty-in-pink · 14-04-2005 04:49PM

I have explained several times why incest is morally reprehensible, please go back and read them.

The boundaries of the argument you have been spouting should be altered to state:

Any consenting adults may pursue a relationship of their choice, with the following clauses-

1a) Where such a relationship is between immediate family members, and there has been no mass demand shown for it, then they must argue their case to the state, and whichever body will be marrying them.

1b) Where mass demand has been shown for a more these relationships to potentially end in marriage, the adults in question must bring their case before the body agreeing to marry them, with the additional clause that they are to attend classes to fully educate them about any extra potential risks involved in an incestuous union

2a) Where such a relationship is between 3 or more individuals, and there has been no mass demand shown for it, then they must argue their case to the state, and whichever body will be marrying them.

2b) Where mass demand has been shown for a more these relationships to potentially end in marriage, the adults in question must bring their case before the body agreeing to marry them, with the additional clause that they are to attend classes to fully educate them about the extra strains that such a union can place on the sanctity of marriage.

In other words take it all on a case-by-case structure, unless there is a reasonable demand for legislation to be created allowing these partnerships to pursue a marriage. And given these would be unions outside of the normal boundaries of society, then they should have an expert meet with them and tell them about any extra strains and risks their union would have over a two-party, non-related union. As even non-related heterosexual couples are required to attend marriage classes, this is fair legislation as it serves to make the members within each "controversial" union aware of all the risks and strains they would face, in addition to the normal ones with what is considered to be the average couple.

The ramifications of such unions should be made clear, but if the couple/individuals are still insistent that they want to marry, then I see no major reason why not (other then the personal opinions held by the majority of the state). However as any change in legislation would have to go before the people, I don't think it would be passed-, as many people would experience moral repulsion and outrage, in the case of incest.

Can you present any argument to allow such a union, other then "why not"?

And could you also explain why you took the debate away from polygamy into a more controversial area- surely if you wished to primarily discuss the legislation regarding adult relations ships you could have started your own thread? In this thread you stole the OPs thunder, and you are jumping on the gay-marriage boat to try defend the right of incestuous et al relationships.

Gurgle · 14-04-2005 06:01PM

naughty_girl wrote:

2b) Where mass demand has been shown for a more these relationships to potentially end in marriage, the adults in question must bring their case before the body agreeing to marry them, with the additional clause that they are to attend classes to fully educate them about the extra strains that such a union can place on the sanctity of marriage.[/I]

Ha!

Whos going to be running the classes ?
The only people qualified are those in successful polygamous marriages.

Though of course, in typical Irish style, if you want a catholic hetro wedding, you have to go for several classes with the celibate (lol) unmarried (lolol) priest!

The Corinthian · 14-04-2005 09:48PM

naughty_girl wrote:

In other words take it all on a case-by-case structure, unless there is a reasonable demand for legislation to be created allowing these partnerships to pursue a marriage.

Your logic now seems to rest upon the condition mass demand, which is fair enough (unless you’re in a small minority). Then in that case you would accept incestuous or otherwise socially taboo relationships if it was common enough?

But would that make morality subject to the will of public opinion? Maybe it would. And so perhaps I have my answer. If so, thank you.

pretty-in-pink · 15-04-2005 08:50PM

By making something an everyday scenario, then it becomes less and less weird as we become desensitised. So while I still would find the thought of sexual relationships existing between immediate family members, if demand was proven, then I guess it laws regarding it would have to be passed......

The Corinthian · 16-04-2005 02:07PM

naughty_girl wrote:

By making something an everyday scenario, then it becomes less and less weird as we become desensitised. So while I still would find the thought of sexual relationships existing between immediate family members, if demand was proven, then I guess it laws regarding it would have to be passed......

By adding the criteria of popularity or demand, you are however equating morality to a consumer good. Good and evil, social and antisocial becomes a question of supply and demand. Anything can ultimately be justified if there is a sufficiently large market for it.

My own opinion on the subject is that the arguments that are generally used by politically correct liberalism are often grossly simplistic, which is why such logical traps, as the one that mycroft was loathed to address, are so easy to cite.

Of course, most people don’t really think these things through - as arguments go, the idea of letting people do their own thing sounds fine on paper, especially if it facilitates something that we, as a Society, demand in the first place. However the problem with it is that morality then becomes no more than a marketing exercise; given sufficient demand and time to accustom a population to an idea, the logical argument is already in place that will eventually be used to argue for what today is unacceptable, to make it acceptable tomorrow.

Just like we would have been horrified at the thought of homosexual marriage thirty years ago. Just as we are horrified at the thought of incestuous marriage today.

Shabadu · 16-04-2005 02:27PM

I still don't feel anyone has adressed the fact that homosexual relationships, specifically when it comes to legislating for rights, are between consenting knowledgeable adults, as opposed to the imbalance and abuse that is more common in incestuous relationships.

I seriously doubt that most incestuous relationships have the same balance of equality, even if they weren't started at an age that would count them as child abuse.

It is highly spurious to compare homosexual and incestuous relationships. While they both may be in the minority compared to the "normal" standard marriage, the proportion of healthy incestuous relationships compared to homosexual relationships is miniscule.

Also, homosexuality has been accepted as natural in many stages of cultural evolution and development of human society. The only time fraternal marriage was allowed in human history, was between members of royalty to preserve blood "purity".

The Corinthian · 16-04-2005 06:28PM

Jr.Shabadu wrote:

I still don't feel anyone has adressed the fact that homosexual relationships, specifically when it comes to legislating for rights, are between consenting knowledgeable adults, as opposed to the imbalance and abuse that is more common in incestuous relationships.

I seriously doubt that most incestuous relationships have the same balance of equality, even if they weren't started at an age that would count them as child abuse.

I take it that what you feel is your scientifically arrived opinion? That abuse occurs in cases of incest is not debatable, however the same occurs in heterosexual or homosexual (don’t drop the soap in prison boys) relationships and we do not argue for a ban there - we criminalize the cases that lack consent.

However, I specifically and repeatedly cited consensual incest throughout this argument. And like it or not, consider it ‘ick’ or not, it does occur, most commonly this is as a result of what is referred to as Genetic Sexual Attraction.

It is highly spurious to compare homosexual and incestuous relationships. While they both may be in the minority compared to the "normal" standard marriage, the proportion of healthy incestuous relationships compared to homosexual relationships is miniscule.

Really? Is this something else you feel? The problem is, however, that the ‘it’s not a healthy relationship’ argument has been a mainstay of the anti-homosexuality camp over the years, so its kind of ironic hearing it used to defend it.

Also, homosexuality has been accepted as natural in many stages of cultural evolution and development of human society. The only time fraternal marriage was allowed in human history, was between members of royalty to preserve blood "purity".

You furthermore seem to consider that because something is accepted it makes it necessarily true - yet a few decades ago when homosexuality was accepted as both unnatural and a mental disease, was that true also?

If you want to talk historically, both incest and homosexuality have been taboo in most societies throughout history. Both incest and homosexuality have also had limited acceptance in various societies throughout history and for various reasons (the practice of homosexuality in ancient Greece was largely due to misogyny, for example).

So there’s nothing spurious in the comparison as long as we’re talking about the rights of consenting individuals. The only thing that may be considered spurious is the indignation that some may feel at the comparison being made.

Shabadu · 16-04-2005 07:05PM

The Corinthian wrote:

I take it that what you feel is your scientifically arrived opinion? That abuse occurs in cases of incest is not debatable, however the same occurs in heterosexual or homosexual (don’t drop the soap in prison boys) relationships and we do not argue for a ban there - we criminalize the cases that lack consent.

You're right, it is only my opinion, I should have specified that. Apologies if it came across that I was implying it was fact.

I did specify that I was talking about consensual homosexual relationships as well.

The reason I relied on my opinion rather than fact for this arguement is that I seriously doubt there have been any accurate studies into how widespread consensual incest actually is.

While it is probably far more prevalent than commonly suggested due to social taboo, I feel you must also recognise that there is no way it's as common an occurence as homosexuality.

However, I specifically and repeatedly cited consensual incest throughout this argument. And like it or not, consider it ‘ick’ or not, it does occur, most commonly this is as a result of what is referred to as Genetic Sexual Attraction.

Yes, of course it occurs, but again I feel that it will never be as common as homosexuality. Maybe it happens in every home and I'm just not aware of it as I'm an only child, but I doubt it.

Really? Is this something else you feel? The problem is, however, that the ‘it’s not a healthy relationship’ argument has been a mainstay of the anti-homosexuality camp over the years, so its kind of ironic hearing it used to defend it.

Again, apologies for implying my opinion was fact. Listen, I don't really give a toss whether or not the anti-homosexual camp (puntastic, btw ;P) don't consider homosexuality as healthy. I am not in that camp.

The two most inspiring and happy relationships I know of are both with gay couples.

You furthermore seem to consider that because something is accepted it makes it necessarily true - yet a few decades ago when homosexuality was accepted as both unnatural and a mental disease, was that true also?

Aren't we talking about the acceptance of polygamous/ homosexual relationships?

Also, some sections of society considered homosexuality as abhorrent decades ago, but by no means all. Society in general still seems to think of it as wrong, but just because it's accepted, doesn't mean I agree with it, or think it's true.

If you want to talk historically, both incest and homosexuality have been taboo in most societies throughout history. Both incest and homosexuality have also had limited acceptance in various societies throughout history and for various reasons (the practice of homosexuality in ancient Greece was largely due to misogyny, for example).

This is true. Once again though, I must insist that I feel homosexuality was more accepted than incest.

The point about misogyny- Many of the 6th C greek males also accepted that women shared the same love and affection as the pathos between males. While people now doubt that Saphho was a lesbian in the physical sense of the word, she displayed the same (possibly misplaced) feelings of longing and affection due to the segregation of the sexes.

So there’s nothing spurious in the comparison as long as we’re talking about the rights of consenting individuals. The only thing that may be considered spurious is the indignation that some may feel at the comparison being made.

You compare homosexuality and incest. You say the way 'we' felt about homosexuality in the past mirrors the way we feel about incest today.

If they are so similar, why did our tolerance for both not develop at the same time?

Why has our taboo for homosexuality been steadily declining for years, while our taboo for incest still exists?

If they are both so prevalent, how is the perception of both so radically different?

mycroft · 16-04-2005 09:56PM

The Corinthian wrote:

However, I specifically and repeatedly cited consensual incest throughout this argument. And like it or not, consider it ‘ick’ or not, it does occur, most commonly this is as a result of what is referred to as Genetic Sexual Attraction.

So because it exists we have to legislate.

You've made this argument before.

Consentual canabilism exists should we also legalise this?

Consesntual sexual slavery exists should we also legalise this?

Why not? Is not a compelling argument to do something.

Really? Is this something else you feel? The problem is, however, that the ‘it’s not a healthy relationship’ argument has been a mainstay of the anti-homosexuality camp over the years, so its kind of ironic hearing it used to defend it.

Just because the label has been previously applied to another relationships, and not by anyone on this thread, doesn't mean you can force us to defend someone elses arguments.

So there’s nothing spurious in the comparison as long as we’re talking about the rights of consenting individuals. The only thing that may be considered spurious is the indignation that some may feel at the comparison being made.

Not really you've just proved the relationships exist. To back it up you've got one article about one instance, and alot of internet chatter. How many of instants in the article actually occured? And still you've yet to prove they want this legislation.

Many of the arguments raised by the pro incest group, echo arguments used by NAMBLA (National association of Man Boy Love of America) this is a group of paedophiles who campaign to have the age of consent in the US lowered, because they feel we become sexually active at a much earlier age. It's possible this may occur, but the potential abuse of this relaxing this the massive concern. While some 14yo boy or girl may be a confident and willingly sexual active being, the possibility that this change of the law could be used to exploit someone vunerable.

My concern that while there maybe many instants of mutual genetic sexual attraction, it's also possible that the confusion and emotions of such a meeting may be used by one partner to exploit the other. Or that an abusive sexual relationship between a younger family member and their abuser could exploit this legislation to continue the abuse over a family member they have control or power over. The majority of serial abuse cases occur within the family. Whats stopping an uncle or father or cousin or brother (reverse the gender if you think I'm sexist) using this legislation to continue the abuse by marrying a cowed sibling when they're 17. Abuse isn't about age it's about power. This is my concern.

You've cited previous date that has been used to accuse homosexuals of being sick or perverted. Such reports have be widely discredited and are now mostly ignored. Mostly being the important part, there are still "doctors" and preachers who claim they can "cure" homosexuality. Thats a battle thats not been conclusively won. Tacting on "incest" to homosexual rights, means that you potentially damage the battle for homosexual rights by also forcing activists to defend the rights and issues raised by both campaigns, when homosexuals still face an uphill battle. it's similar to NAMBLA marching in the San Fransciso gay rights march. NAMBLA became the issue not gay rights.

The wikipedia article you presented is telling btw. The site lists two referal for further info one the guardian article who mentioned and the other
http://www.geneticsexualattraction.com
lists only four other sites in its web links section (one is the guardian article) and the the other three are ancedotal articles about personal experiences. Thats not a compelling body of evidence. As said the arguments about gay relationships have been roundly and solidly defeated.

The issue is taboo. The article you show is fascinating. The fact that you're using it to taunt some liberals is kind of sick.

See you're saying we should be for this because we are for (or in my case) not opposed to gay marriage. You're saying that because these relationships exist we're hyprocritical that we don't support legislation condoning it. I'm curious to know why you championed this particular cause. The thread is originaly about polygamy, you've threadjacked it to be about incest. Why are you asking us to consider incestous relationships as warrenting legal status, and not a Dominant/submissive, or consenting canabilism?

The Corinthian · 17-04-2005 01:33PM

Jr.Shabadu wrote:

The reason I relied on my opinion rather than fact for this arguement is that I seriously doubt there have been any accurate studies into how widespread consensual incest actually is.

While it is probably far more prevalent than commonly suggested due to social taboo, I feel you must also recognise that there is no way it's as common an occurence as homosexuality.

First of all the example of consensual incest was simply one I picked because it was a taboo that the politically correct definition of a relationship being simply based on consenting individuals could be applied to. So to a degree, the relationship type is less important than what I was attempting to demonstrate.

Secondly, even if it is less common than homosexuality, this does not invalidate the point, unless of course we are suggesting that minority rights are secondary to the majority.

Aren't we talking about the acceptance of polygamous/ homosexual relationships?

We’re talking about the same arguments used to legitimise one relationship type being used to legitimise another. The original poster suggested polygamy, and I suggested the more inflammatory example of incest.

Also, some sections of society considered homosexuality as abhorrent decades ago, but by no means all. Society in general still seems to think of it as wrong, but just because it's accepted, doesn't mean I agree with it, or think it's true.

You’ll find that most of society considered homosexuality as abhorrent decades ago. It was even a criminal offence.

This is true. Once again though, I must insist that I feel homosexuality was more accepted than incest.

That could well be, however it still does not invalidate the argument.

Why has our taboo for homosexuality been steadily declining for years, while our taboo for incest still exists?

Actually, the fact that we are even discussing consensual incest would indicate that our taboo for incest been also been declining. I honestly can see it being legitimised in a similar way homosexuality has been in the next thirty or so years. That does appear to be the trend.

If they are both so prevalent, how is the perception of both so radically different?

That really is my question - what is missing from or false in the principle of consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships, given we do perceive them so differently, other than ‘ick’?

mycroft wrote:

(more sidestepping and avoidance)

And when you actually address what I proposed, I’ll respond to you. Until then, as I’ve said, you’re just wasting my time.

mycroft · 17-04-2005 01:35PM

The Corinthian wrote:

And when you actually address what I proposed, I’ll respond to you. Until then, as I’ve said, you’re just wasting my time.

Why don't you recap what you propose. Because as I see it thats your argument. If I'm missing something point it out.

The Corinthian · 17-04-2005 01:38PM

mycroft wrote:

Why don't you recap what you propose. Because as I see it thats your argument. If I'm missing something point it out.

You'll find repeated ad nauseum in my previous posts. I’m not repeating myself again for you.

mycroft · 17-04-2005 01:46PM

The Corinthian wrote:

You'll find repeated ad nauseum in my previous posts. I’m not repeating myself again for you.

As I understand it you are just asking why is incest taboo and homosexuality not taboo. And if you are for marriage rights for the former you must be for marriage rights for later. And if you're not you're a hyprocrit.

I've stated.

1. You've yet to prove that incestous relationships want this right.

2. A couple of issues with how this legalisation might be abused.

3. If you follow your own logic to it's own conclusion you should also be asking for legislation allowing consentual canabilism and sexual slavery.

You're the one who's dodging and sidestepping my issues.

The Corinthian · 17-04-2005 05:37PM

mycroft wrote:

As I understand it you are just asking why is incest taboo and homosexuality not taboo.

No. That's not what I asked; the examples are immaterial to the principle that is the subject of my discussion. Even naughty_girl figured it out. Again I suggest you go back and read what I've written.

pretty-in-pink · 17-04-2005 08:55PM

The Corinthian wrote:

No. That's not what I asked; the examples are immaterial to the principle that is the subject of my discussion. Even naughty_girl figured it out. Again I suggest you go back and read what I've written.

Oi! What's that supposed to mean? I might not be a straight- A student, but I'm not an idiot, and because I gave a direct answer to your enquiry doesn't mean I agree with the example- nor do I believe it will ever be accepted. I might be proved wrong, but in the near future I doubt that happening.

mycroft · 17-04-2005 10:36PM

You'll find repeated ad nauseum in my previous posts. I’m not repeating myself again for you.

Okay I've looked at your point and the history of this thread is You said this

The primary liberal argument in favour homosexual relationships is that it is a consenting sexual and emotional relationship between consenting individuals. Marriage is simply a legal recognition of this relationship. The same criteria may be applied to numerous types of relationships, many of which are as taboo today as homosexuality was a century ago.

Now aside from the fact that you feel you have the right to define the criteria of the debate of a thread that you've jacked. And therefore you feel the right to justify what the debate is about and the manner it can be discussed.

But equate that with your self proclaimed victory of naughty girl, lets look at it.

The Corinthian wrote:

By adding the criteria of popularity or demand, you are however equating morality to a consumer good. Good and evil, social and antisocial becomes a question of supply and demand. Anything can ultimately be justified if there is a sufficiently large market for it.

I'm not proclaiming the relationship is "evil" or "wrong" I'd like some more evidence that legisalation for it, or better examples of its existance than the shabby ones you've provided. I've also cited some very real possibilities of the legalisation being abused as a concern and you've ignored it. The majority of incest cases are abusive. And you've yet to prove otherwise.

My own opinion on the subject is that the arguments that are generally used by politically correct liberalism are often grossly simplistic, which is why such logical traps, as the one that mycroft was loathed to address, are so easy to cite.

Not really. Theres a weight of evidence from people in consentual same sex relationships. And the body of evidence against these relationships has been widely discredited. Combine this with vocal and active rights group.

And please spare me the grossly simplistic argument about the same criteria being applied to lesbianism and homosexuality during the turn of the century. We live in a far more open and socially acceptable society to the ones our parents lived in to equate our attitude to the ones of our parents or great grandparents towards homosexuality is grosslysimplistic

You've yet to present anything even remotely comparable to the body of evidence used to dispell homosexual myths that has not been mostly rejected (and by mostly I refer to anyone vaguely open minded)

Of course, most people don’t really think these things through - as arguments go, the idea of letting people do their own thing sounds fine on paper, especially if it facilitates something that we, as a Society, demand in the first place. However the problem with it is that morality then becomes no more than a marketing exercise; given sufficient demand and time to accustom a population to an idea, the logical argument is already in place that will eventually be used to argue for what today is unacceptable, to make it acceptable tomorrow.

Not really and we both agree there needs to agree to be limits. You've yet to provide an example of what limits you'd adhere to. I've said that a good yaardstick is public demand. Seeing as you don't actually want or can provide any evidence of incestous couples looking for equal rights, you may as well be arguing leprechaun and goblin marriage rights, however the argument for gay marriage can go beyond merely the simplistic POV you raised.

Just like we would have been horrified at the thought of homosexual marriage thirty years ago. Just as we are horrified at the thought of incestuous marriage today.

newsflash this isn't the 1960s and I'm not wearing flares. You can't try to make me defend a position never had

I've cited numerous reasons why I'd have reservations about incestous relationships, and you've well ignored them because "they're not relevant" while you've decided what is and isn't relevant on the thread you've jacked. You've not provided anything remotely like a defense of incestous relationships aside from the wikipedia article which I've rubbished (and you've choosen to ignore)

You've basically thread jacked this thread and when I said "incest" isn't homosexuality and asked you to discuss why it is you've accused me of arguing irrelevancy.

You don't like being on the back foot. You like pressing the argument you can't defend the argument you're pressing.

Answer my points. Go on. Grow a pair.

The Corinthian · 17-04-2005 11:52PM

Again I'd ask you to address the point I asked you to make, not the one you want to make. Or don't bother responding.

mycroft · 18-04-2005 12:17AM

The Corinthian wrote:

Again I'd ask you to address the point I asked you to make, not the one you want to make. Or don't bother responding.

Seriously corinthian. I mean you're getting kinda pathetic. Which points. I answered the questions you offered. And offered you some questions for you to defend. Which hey you wont do....For like five pages.

I mean we're dealing with a forum I've asked you to deal with the ramifications of your POV you've not bothered to do so.

You arent' even able to articulate the point you were trying to make. C'mon man this is my third post asking you to define your pov and your third post telling me I need to defend the questions you make. While you're ignoring the questions I ask of you. I still don't know what questions you're asking of me, and have consently refused to define, while i have consently set and re set the questions I ask of you

Talliesin · 18-04-2005 12:35AM

mycroft wrote:

Talliesin wrote:

It's not polygamist unless they get married. Without such a marriage it's polyamourous.

Pedant......

Well, people seem to be talking as if polyamoury isn't something that happens in the Western World or something. I'm really quite green and innocent (yes, really) but I know a few people who practice polyamourous lifestyles (and no, not just the one group).

As to incest, it does come down to genetics - even before we knew about DNA we had some understanding as to how genetic inheritance worked, possibly partially innate (look at incest taboos amongst chimps).

The Corinthian · 18-04-2005 11:23AM

mycroft wrote:

Seriously corinthian. I mean you're getting kinda pathetic. Which points. I answered the questions you offered. And offered you some questions for you to defend. Which hey you wont do....For like five pages.

Either you're actively ignoring what I’ve repeatedly asked you to address or you’re an imbecile - I’m not certain which - however you’ve not addressed it directly once. You’ve touched on it in passing several times, but only so long as you can return to those points that you’d prefer to discuss.

Repeatedly I’ve asked what is missing from or false in the principle of ‘consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships’? You’ve failed, from what I can see, to even quote this, even though I’ve repeated it ad nausium at this stage. That is all I’m asking.

So stamping your feet and calling me pathetic at this stage is kind of ironic. Seriously, address it directly or bugger off.

mycroft · 19-04-2005 01:06AM

The Corinthian wrote:

You’re actively ignoring what I’ve repeatedly asked you to address or you’re an imbecile - I’m not certain which - however you’ve not addressed it directly once. You’ve touched on it in passing several times, but only so long as you can return to those points that you’d prefer to discuss.

Repeatedly I’ve asked what is missing from or false in the principle of ‘consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships’ ? You’ve failed, from what I can see, to even quote this, even though I’ve repeated it ad nausea at this stage. That is all I’m asking.

So stamping your feet and calling me pathetic at this stage is kind of ironic. Seriously, address it directly or bugger off.

Or what? Moron? Cause hey we're onto name calling;

For starts you've thread jacked this thread to move it from polygamy to incest.

Now how does me asking you to follow your own argument to it's logical progression, should we also allow consensual slavery or cannibalism. How is this not relevant to this thread Because you dragged it off topic and asked pointed questions to anyone who challenged your assertion? So I'm asking you because you raised it what limits would you put. Because everyone else has come forward and quantified what limits they feel, and why, and you haven't, you've alluded that you have limits, you just don't see them as relevant, despite the fact that you've challenged the opinion and preconception of everyone else on this thread, you've just avoided answered the questions when they're posed to you. So would you legislate for potential cannibalistic and sexual slavery. Or any other conceivable sexual relationship?

You've cited genetic sexual attraction and compared anyone's "irrational" dislike of incest as comparable to people's irrational attitude towards homosexuality in the 50s. You've ignored by post where I critize the shabby site you use to support this "sexuality" you dismiss it as waffle. As is the argument that you are using the same logic as NAMBLA.

You've talked about incest rights should be comparable to homosexual rights and “if you're for one you need to be for the other”. I've pointed out that gay rights still have along way to go, and why should gay rights campaigns have to deal with the baggage of an incest campaign while they have their own battles to fight. You've also considered this waffle.

I've reasoned against your logic, and asked you to to follow through it's progression. You've declined to do, which means you aren't prepared to follow through on your own point. I've argued against your specific example of incest on a psychological, sociological and even on your own argument.

Here’s what I think Corinthian you're not actually interested in debate, you found a neat logic loophole re gay rights and incest and decided to play silly buggers to the liberals. When I can up with a flaw in your logic you spluttered. You found naughty girl and got to make fun of her "ick" POV, while ignoring and refusing to answer the same questions you're posing to other people. You've had your fun, I've rubbished your logic, I've rubbished the assertion of genetic sexual attraction as a seriously recognised sexual persuasion to the same degree as homosexuality, and I’ve rubbished your reasoning psychologically and sociologically

The Corinthian · 19-04-2005 01:30AM

I repeated my question again and even put it in bold for you too and you’re still refusing to address it.

If and when you do address it directly, I’ll take you seriously. Until then please refrain from any further responses as they’re wasting both of our time.

Nevyn · 19-04-2005 10:18AM

Look the sex angle has very little to do with it ffs.

It is about those you are committing to spend you life with, living together in a couple or a larger family circle.
Polygamy can in fact be very good for children, the same as children reared in large families they have access to more adults who love them,care for them and bring many positive things into thier lives.
In most cases that type of bond is formed by blood, by genetics with families getting smaller and smaller this is less likely.
As the rights of grandparents have come to the fore and other blood relatives to have interaction and visitation with children, and the decline of marriage
There are many people deeply involved with children that are not genetically linked to them but they have still have had a hand in caring and rearing them,
they need rights too.

Are those that are in your life contributing and caring to be deemed less then
family or less then a spouse in importance?

In the UK they are already looking at the rights of siblings that live together,
esp in the cases where there is a sister that has stayed at home to care for the home.

The rights of family is where this should be going and family is no longer just
a man and a woman married and thier offspring and thier blood ties.
Family is a lot more diverse then that and has and will change a lot more in
Years to come that are a lot more important then who is in whose bed.

mycroft · 19-04-2005 11:48AM

The Corinthian wrote:

I repeated my question again and even put it in bold for you too and you’re still refusing to address it.

If and when you do address it directly, I’ll take you seriously. Until then please refrain from any further responses as they’re wasting both of our time.

Pfft whatever, my issues are directly relevant and my suspicions about your motivation for raising them are confirmed by your continued refusal to answer them.

The Corinthian · 19-04-2005 12:10PM

mycroft wrote:

Pfft whatever, my issues are directly relevant and my suspicions about your motivation for raising them are confirmed by your continued refusal to answer them.

From the onset I've asked people to directly address one single point, which you've repeatedly avoided or ignored it and now are attempting to argue that I'm not answering you? Ironic.

If you really wanted to confirm your suspicions, why don't you directly address what I've been asking you for numerous pages to address - and if I failed to answer in response then perhaps your suspicions about my motivations would be confirmed. Until then, you’re just talking through your arse.

mycroft · 19-04-2005 01:03PM

The Corinthian wrote:

From the onset I've asked people to directly address one single point, which you've repeatedly avoided or ignored it and now are attempting to argue that I'm not answering you? Ironic.

If you really wanted to confirm your suspicions, why don't you directly address what I've been asking you for numerous pages to address - and if I failed to answer in response then perhaps your suspicions about my motivations would be confirmed. Until then, you’re just talking through your arse.

You've been asking everyone that question, I've been asking you the same question and you've been avoiding it.

I've pointed out that society doesn't allow every concievable form of concentual relationship. And among others I've said.

1. Why should the homosexual rights campaign be burdened with the seperate set of arguments for incestous rights.

2. You comparison between Incest and Homosexuality is random. Why not concentual canabilism.

3. That the medical arguments aganist homosexuality have been widely discredited and yet not widely accepted by the whole of society. You've presented one wikipedia article and one website to support the concept of genetic sexual attraction. Thats not a credible body of evidence to give voice to an incest rights campaign to the scale of a homosexual rights campaign.

The Corinthian · 19-04-2005 01:17PM

mycroft wrote:

You've been asking everyone that question, I've been asking you the same question and you've been avoiding it.

I'm asking you to address it directly. For pages. Address it or stop pontificating.

mycroft · 19-04-2005 01:18PM

The Corinthian wrote:

I'm asking you to address it directly. For pages. Address it or stop pontificating.

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

You brought the incest argument in a polygamy thread, so it's more than fair to ask you what limits you'd place on a society governing relationships between consenting adults.

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

Polygamy - why not?

Comments