Normal Marriage V. Same-Sex Marriage V. Polygamy V. Incest

TctclMvPhase

TctclMvPhase

CAGiversary!
Feedback
104 (100%)
My question is how people feel about these various types of unions and why. Are there people out there who agree with same-sex marriage but disagree with plural marriage?

I personally don't see a problem with any of them, but that is more of a product of my belief that marriage is a religious matter and thus as long as someone's respective religion doesn't refuse to create the union then I don't object to it. I can understand the scientific reason behind objecting to incestuous procreation but I cant really see the reason to prevent the legal union.

Also, I apologize for the implied value judgement behind the label "Normal Marriage" but I couldnt think of a PC way to delineate between marriage between a man and a woman and same-sex marriage.
 
Incest from a scientific standpoint is harmful. That's pretty much the only thing I can't condone. From a legal standpoint, I think that polygamy would get awfully messy.
 
As long as the participating parties are adults I generally couldn't care less what anyone does.

Most cultures feel incest between parents and children or siblings is inappropriate and I share that personal feeling, but there are differing views on cousins and other things that may or may not be considered incest depending on the culture.

Polygamy should not be criminal or illegal as long as all parties agree to the arrangement.

Now, all that being said, I think marriage is becoming outdated and irrelevant. People do what they want to anyway and other than some legal benefits provided by marriage I really don't see why a piece of paper needs to validate love people have for one another. And I'm not even going to get into pre-nups and divorce settlements.

[quote name='TctclMvPhase']
Also, I apologize for the implied value judgement behind the label "Normal Marriage" but I couldnt think of a PC way to delineate between marriage between a man and a woman and same-sex marriage.[/QUOTE]

By definition "normal" is defined as a common standard or something that is usual and that was the standard for thousands of years. Things just started transitioning recently and there is still a long way to go. I don't think it is a big deal. I didn't detect any malice.
 
Mixed-sex and same-sex marriages between two individuals are the same thing, so I don't care about those. (btw, there you go, mixed-sex vs same-sex would be the way to say it without a value judgment)

Incestuous marriage doesn't really matter, children from incest can eventually get messed up, but it takes a few generations of incest AFAIK, so it's not that big of a deal either.

I don't have a problem with polygamy in principle, I have a problem with its history of the exploitation of women, but marriage in general has been there too. I do agree that it would be complicated as a motherfucker legally though, and everyone would have to agree to every additional person. It seems like after 4 or 5 people or something it would start to lose its purpose though.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Now, all that being said, I think marriage is becoming outdated and irrelevant. People do what they want to anyway and other than some legal benefits provided by marriage I really don't see why a piece of paper needs to validate love people have for one another. And I'm not even going to get into pre-nups and divorce settlements.[/QUOTE]

I think marriage is a useful concept, like everything else it just has to be updated to stay with the times.
 
[quote name='TctclMvPhase']My question is how people feel about these various types of unions and why. Are there people out there who agree with same-sex marriage but disagree with plural marriage?

I personally don't see a problem with any of them, but that is more of a product of my belief that marriage is a religious matter and thus as long as someone's respective religion doesn't refuse to create the union then I don't object to it. I can understand the scientific reason behind objecting to incestuous procreation but I cant really see the reason to prevent the legal union.

Also, I apologize for the implied value judgement behind the label "Normal Marriage" but I couldnt think of a PC way to delineate between marriage between a man and a woman and same-sex marriage.[/QUOTE]

Depends.

Normal marriage = ok (two consenting adults)
Same-sex marriage = ok (two consenting adults)

It starts getting tricky with Polygamy and Incest.

Polygamy would be ok if there wasn't for the whole "we are marrying you off to this older guy" type thing that goes along with it. Too much room for abuse so I say, no, keep it banned.

Incest, same problem. Too much room for abuse (say an older sibling abusing the younger one) and the added fun of birth defects. Maybe if there was an age limit (25+) along a stipulation where they would have to get sterilized, I wouldn't care but I could never see that happening.
 
Hetero and homo sexual marriages are pretty much the same in my eyes. Just a legal recognition of a partnership, no reason to be opposed to one and not the other besides homophobia.

Polygamy I have no moral issues with, but as noted by someone else legally recognizing it gets messy on the legal end with things like inheritance etc. But if that can be worked out, I don't care.

Seems pointless to me, on spouse/significant other is enough hassle! If one wants multiple partners, better to just fuck around than have a bunch of significant others to support and keep happy etc. IMO! But to each their own, and I have no objections to it beyond having to sort out the legal issues.

As for incest, davo hit that one. That it leads to higher incident of birth defects is reason enough to try to limit that in society. It's the only one listed that has clear, physical harm in the reproductive process.


As for marriage as a whole, I'm kind of with Guile on it. I used to be big on in (was engaged to the girl I dated through part of high school and all of college, but have kind of soured on it sense. I don't really care about settling down with anyone (despite being 32), and definitely don't want kids.

It's nice to have a significant other to have regular sex, someone to hang out with regularly etc. as when you get older friends are spending more time with their families etc. But it's also nice to not have a bunch of legal hassles to deal with when relationships sour, sex gets infrequent and boring etc. and to just be able to end things, move out (if living together) and get on with your lives.

If kids are in the picture, then I guess marriage still has a useful purpose as it probably makes people work harder to fix relationships rather than giving up on them. Though that's not always good as it can lead to bad (or even abusive) relationships not being terminated "for the kid's sake" and end up in a bad environment for the kids.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
As for incest, davo hit that one. That it leads to higher incident of birth defects is reason enough to try to limit that in society. It's the only one listed that has clear, physical harm in the reproductive process.
[/QUOTE]

To play devil's advocate here, why should that be a limiting reason? Should then childbirth in women over the age of 35 be banned as well since the risk of birth defects rises sharply after that age? Or marriages within certain specific populations like Ashkenazi Jews that have markedly higher rates of genetic disorders than the rest of the population? Or outright, anyone with any transmissible genetic disorder (which in effect would be almost everyone) be banned for having children?

Marriage is a social construct, not a biological one. In fact, one could argue (convincingly in my opinion) that humans are most biologically compatible with polygamy.
 
Fair point. I'm not adamantly opposed to incestuous marriages.

I mean I think it's gross, but I'd never push to in any way legislate my personal morals or beliefs. The birth defect angle makes me less opposed to it being illegal than gay marriage or polygamy, but not enough that I'd every actively try to stop any efforts to legalize incest. If someone wants to marry a cousin or whatever, and it's consensual etc., I really couldn't care less.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Marriage is a social construct, not a biological one. In fact, one could argue (convincingly in my opinion) that humans are most biologically compatible with polygamy.[/QUOTE]

How is one more "biologically compatible" with one social construct over another social construct? What exactly do you mean by "biologically compatible"?

Serial monogamy seems to be what people generally prefer, perhaps for some biological reasons, but likely also social and psychological ones, which are no less real.
 
[quote name='SpazX']How is one more "biologically compatible" with one social construct over another social construct? What exactly do you mean by "biologically compatible"?

Serial monogamy seems to be what people generally prefer, perhaps for some biological reasons, but likely also social and psychological ones, which are no less real.[/QUOTE]

I think what he means is that biologically all life is programmed to reproduce as much as possible. So in that sense we're (especially males) programmed to spread our seed as widely as possible.

But you're right, that humans aren't just biological products. We're totally products of the interaction of our genes and our environments. So being socialized into monogamy plays a huge role as you note.

But the genes are still there which is no doubt why cheating is so prevalent, divorce rates so high etc. We're socialized in to serial monogamy, but have high sex drives that can't always be satisfied long-term by one person.

There's also an interesting decoupling of sex from reproduction in some ways. Like most guys, I have a hellacious sex drive, but I've never had any interest whatsoever in having kids. So that also challenges the overstating of the biological part of the equation in one way. But not totally since sex drive is a biological function.
 
In that sense you're conflating marriage and sex. Having sex with many people is also not polygamy.

Apart from that, your feelings for others are also biological and cheating on a spouse is not always indicative of not actually wanting to be married or partnered with them for other reasons, some social, some biological.
 
Fair point on the labels. Point is we're biologically wired for multiple partners, while socialized into a society that looks down on people who don't get married, especially looks down on those who sleep around (particularly females) etc.

Agreed that feelings are both biological and sociological, and that cheating isn't easy to pin down. I'm quite guilty of that and have cheated on all the long-term partners I've had. It's not purely biological, it's always just been things have gotten to a point that the sex was infrequent and boring, and the emotional part of the relationship had deteriorated as well. So I wouldn't pin it totally on biology, more just being too stupid to end relationships when things deteriorated.

I've never had a strong desire to just screw around with as many people as possible--I prefer having one partner. I just struggle with settling down and bothering working at keeping relationships strong since I don't want to have kids and don't even really care much about having someone there for me etc. Relationships end up being more hassle than enjoyment most time for me since I'm impatient and like having freedom to do what I want when I want etc. as it's often easier to be single rather than having to compromise with another person's needs and wants etc. So maybe I should just fuck around! :D

Biggest issue is probably that I dated the same girl through most of high school and college, so I missed out on that dating-around period. Had a 2-year period of dating around a tad in between that and the last long term relationship that I just got out of. So who knows? Maybe I do have some biological desire I've just never gave into that kills my interest in settling down despite being in my 30?. Or maybe I'm just destined to be a dirty old man! Time will tell I guess. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Fair point on the labels. Point is we're biologically wired for multiple partners, while socialized into a society that looks down on people who don't get married, especially looks down on those who sleep around (particularly females) etc.

Agreed that feelings are both biological and sociological, and that cheating isn't easy to pin down. I'm quite guilty of that and have cheated on all the long-term partners I've had. It's not purely biological, it's always just been things have gotten to a point that the sex was infrequent and boring, and the emotional part of the relationship had deteriorated as well. So I wouldn't pin it totally on biology, more just being too stupid to end relationships when things deteriorated.

I've never had a strong desire to just screw around with as many people as possible--I prefer having one partner. I just struggle with settling down and bothering working at keeping relationships strong since I don't want to have kids and don't even really care much about having someone there for me etc. Relationships end up being more hassle than enjoyment most time for me since I'm impatient and like having freedom to do what I want when I want etc. as it's often easier to be single rather than having to compromise with another person's needs and wants etc. So maybe I should just fuck around! :D

Biggest issue is probably that I dated the same girl through most of high school and college, so I missed out on that dating-around period. Had a 2-year period of dating around a tad in between that and the last long term relationship that I just got out of. So who knows? Maybe I do have some biological desire I've just never gave into that kills my interest in settling down despite being in my 30?. Or maybe I'm just destined to be a dirty old man! Time will tell I guess. :D[/QUOTE]

And that's more consistent with serial monogamy, people don't seem to like having multiple partners at the same time, they like having one at a time, but not the same one forever. Further than that, I think your claim that you never really wanted to screw around with tons of people is actually quite common, because it is itself also a social construct that men feel obligated to perform rather than some biological imperative.
 
[quote name='SpazX'] Further than that, I think your claim that you never really wanted to screw around with tons of people is actually quite common, because it is itself also a social construct that men feel obligated to perform rather than some biological imperative.[/QUOTE]

I think it's more just being realistic than not wanting multiple sex partners. No strings attached, one night stands (much less repeat fuck buddies) aren't that easy to find if you have high standards. Add in the risk over STDs etc., and it just doesn't end up appealing.

I mean if I could be in some fantasy world where I had a group of fuck buddies that were all super attractive to me and didn't have to deal with any relationship crap and just friendship and sex? I'd sign up for it in a heart beat over dealing with relationships.

Or if there was some mystical swingers bar full of hotties and no chance of STDs? Hell yeah!

But that's not the world we live in, so sleeping around just isn't the dream life it seems on the surface. In my experience there aren't a lot of 8's or above on the looks scale on the sleep around scene. And many who pretend to be and get clingy after a couple encounters etc.
So you end up with nearly as much hassle, and a lot more risk, than with serial monogamy.

And as you note, few people want multiple partners (in a dating sense) at the same time, but consistent one night stands are a pipe dream and huge STD risk, and fuck buddies just never works out as one person always develops feelings etc.

It's really just a lose-lose to me. With long-term relationships the sex always goes down hill after 6 months to a year in quantity and/or quality (as do the other aspects of the relationship, to not be completely shallow), and you have to put up with "having" someone else which sucks if you're a self-centered loaner like me. But sleeping around comes with it's own set of headaches and risks.


But getting more back on topic, it's really difficult to disentangle what parts of such feelings about relationships and sex and biological and which are social. It's really going to vary from person to person on which has more sway. And of course the environment can vary greatly one how much one is socialized into marriage and monogamy vs. being exposed to casual sex in the media or their own social circles etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']
As for marriage as a whole, I'm kind of with Guile on it. I used to be big on in (was engaged to the girl I dated through part of high school and all of college, but have kind of soured on it sense. I don't really care about settling down with anyone (despite being 32), and definitely don't want kids.

It's nice to have a significant other to have regular sex, someone to hang out with regularly etc. as when you get older friends are spending more time with their families etc. But it's also nice to not have a bunch of legal hassles to deal with when relationships sour, sex gets infrequent and boring etc. and to just be able to end things, move out (if living together) and get on with your lives.
[/QUOTE]

Pretty much my sentiment exactly.

Doesn't help that it seems like the only women interested in me are divorcees with kids. No thanks. I like being able to do what I want, when I want. That may change in the future, but even then I don't have any interest in marriage.
 
Yep. It sounds terribly selfish, but honestly if you don't want kids it's hard to see the point in marriage. With no kids in the picture, I just don't see the point of getting locked into a relationship and making it harder to leave if things sour etc.

Hell, it's hard to see the point of a monogamous relationship period for me at the moment having spent 14 of the last 16 years in two different ones (so most of my life from high school on).

Having been single again for a couple of months (and really longer since it had been super long distance since last August) the only thing I really miss thus far is having someone to go try new restaurants with as that's not really something to do with friends unless it's a bar type place. And I could do that with casual dating when I'm up for getting back in that game.

Other wise I'm generally pretty laid back and self sufficient so I don't really need to have someone "there" for me. And I always have family and some great friends if I do. Sex gets infrequent and bland after a year or so in my experience, so the "regular" sex thing isn't a long-term relationship benefit. So I don't see a whole lot of benefits and see a whole lot of negatives with having to be there for someone else, make compromises to different lifestyles, not be able to do what you want as often etc. etc.

Meh. I'm just soured on relationships for the time being I guess. I'm just trying to focus on my career and hobbies and not worry with that crap for a while.
 
So then how would you say we deal with things like divorce hearings, child custody, enrolling spouses in employee health plans etc? With no legal recognition that could be quite tricky. Actually, if the state doesn't recognize marriage as a legal contract basically, how would things like inheritance be handled when one dies?

Please respond with more than one sentence.
 
Civil unions, given to anyone that can walk in. Let it be between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, a man and two women, two men and a woman, etc. That way there would be no more "sanctimony of marriage" arguments, and those who want a religious service and "marriage" can go right ahead and do that.
 
Yeah, if you wanted to scrap marriage you could go with some other kind of arrangement, or even just require separate contracts for things like kids (file for them same time as birth certificate), inheritance, visitation rights etc. Insurance could just allow for one partner to be covered--instead of spouses now boyfriends/girlfriends could be eligible.

I don't necessarily think that change needs to happen. I think a lot of it is homophobes just wanting to change marriage so they can keep "them damn queers from ruining marriage" as there weren't many calls for getting the government out of marriage before the gay marriage legalization started happening. Not everyone, many libertarians have been wanting to scrap it for years etc.

But if it happened, it's easy enough to cover the legal issues through civil unions or a series of other legal contracts etc.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Civil unions, given to anyone that can walk in. Let it be between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, a man and two women, two men and a woman, etc. That way there would be no more "sanctimony of marriage" arguments, and those who want a religious service and "marriage" can go right ahead and do that.[/QUOTE]

That makes no sense, you can already go before a justice of the peace and get legally married without any sort of religion being involved. In fact, aside from the wording and some states not allowing gay marriage, it's already as you describe.
-------
I don't get abolishing one type of contract in favor of lots of other ones either. Seems to me that just creates more paper work and complication.
 
[quote name='Clak']That makes no sense, you can already go before a justice of the peace and get legally married without any sort of religion being involved. In fact, aside from the wording and some states not allowing gay marriage, it's already as you describe.
-------
I don't get abolishing one type of contract in favor of lots of other ones either. Seems to me that just creates more paper work and complication.[/QUOTE]


I agree it's silly. Again it's mostly a homophone issue and mostly tied to religion. It's mostly religious people opposed to gay marriage.

Changing wording and offering distinct civil unions allows "marriage" to be 100% religious and churches can decide on their own whether to do gay marriage or not. We only have equal protection under the law--if religious marriages have no legal recognition any more, gays would have no recourse to sue churches.

So that's where it comes from--aside from the libertarians who just don't think government should have any role in marriage period.
 
I was going to post a new thread but found that what I wanted to talk about fit nicely within this one. Zach Wahls is the 19 year old child of a lesbian couple who spoke out at a hearing on an Iowa resolution banning civil unions. He is a hell of a public speaker.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/03/zach-wahls-defends-gay-ma_n_818194.html

IMO people who say "I have no objection to same-sex marriages, I think it should just be called something different" don't have enough recollection of Jim Crow laws in the south.

Even if our government provides these couples EXACTLY the same rights and benefits, but wants to call it somethign different. It is still seperate but equal and seperate is never equal.
 
lol normal marriage, just say marriage! You forgot beastiality Marriage as well.

People will fuck whatever they want, marriage is just a seal of approval many people crave so that in their mind they (think) know its right and ok for it to be happening.

I'm not againist Homo marriage but there is already Domestic partnerships and I feel that Homo's are just trying to take away that title which should be a man and a woman = marriage.

Polygamy isn't really nessisary for marrage and I'm going to bundle it with my first point of the feel for approval, people are already with as many women as they can get (hugh hefner) so its really just the man trying to tie down as many women as he can get. (I want it to stay banned, no point)

Incest (immediate family, not kissing cousins) is already naturally wrong and I feel that people are easily taken advantage of always in this situation no matter how you put it. The only case I could slightly understand is if the father never met the daughter or knew who she was and they unknowingly start a relationship and find out later that they are related even then I don't think they would want to get married.

Flame on!
 
I could care less how many wives male or female a person takes. Incest is wrong, but only because it creates fucked up flipper kids and because it too often starts in abuse cases. If some dad and daughter randomly hooked up when the dad was 54 and daughter 35 and one of the two choose to make it so they could no longer have kids, more power to you. Weird as shit...but more power to you.
 
[quote name='phantasyx']lol normal marriage, just say marriage!
People will fuck whatever they want, marriage is just a seal of approval many people crave so that in their mind they (think) know its right and ok for it to be happening.[/quote]

I'm not againist Homo marriage but there is already Domestic partnerships and I feel that Homo's are just trying to take away that title which should be a man and a woman = marriage.
Click to expand...

Schizophrenic much?
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfbB0p-yyLA#t=0m10s

Except for that incest part. How on earth is the pro-incest crowd making statements of support without everyone shouting WTF? You guys honestly think a father fracking his daughter, or a brother doing his sister is A-OK as long as they both have consent? Jesus Christ. Has the whole world gone mad? Does anybody give a shit about the rules?
 
[quote name='berzirk']You guys honestly think a father fracking his daughter, or a brother doing his sister is A-OK as long as they both have consent? Jesus Christ. Has the whole world gone mad? Does anybody give a shit about the rules?[/QUOTE]

I think it's gross, but as long as it's consensual and they're not reproducing I don't really give a shit about it.

I think things like orgies etc. are gross as well, but people can have whatever kind of sex they want IMO as long as it's consensual and among adults (or all minors and no adults).
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I think it's gross, but as long as it's consensual and they're not reproducing I don't really give a shit about it.
[/QUOTE]

So they can couple but can't have children? That seems a little unfair.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']So they can couple but can't have children? That seems a little unfair.[/QUOTE]

Too much risk of birth defects etc. when you're talking father/daughter (as adults) or siblings etc.

Laws could maybe be more lax for distant cousins etc. depending on what the research says.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']So they can couple but can't have children? That seems a little unfair.[/QUOTE]

And how would it be fair to the child or to society if they had a fucked up flipper baby? I do not really think anyone here is pro incest per say, I think we are just saying we really do not give a flying fig what people do as long as no one is hurt in the process. Would I bonk my mom or daughter? Hell no. Do I think it is your best place to find a relationship..hell no. But, if someone for some reason did I would not care unless they hurt someone. Only way I can see that happening is with a child or if the relative is too young to understand the relationship.
 
Well, it's not that much of a stretch, but if we're saying incest should be OK as long as everyone is happy, how far away from that is pedophilia? I would think (hope) we all endorse laws that strongly forbid that. If an 18 year old girl wants to have sex with her 50 year old father, you don't think there should be a law in place which prevents that? Realistically do you think a child is going to start having a sexual relationship with a family on their 18th birthday, with nothing going on before?

I think due to the existing relationship, someone will absolutely get hurt. Let's say you break up with your mom. Do you start splitting up your stuff, and call her a whore for cheating on you?

With respect to distant cousins, I believe only first cousins are restricted from having relationships. It may vary from state to state, but that's my understanding.

I just can't fathom any rational person saying that if two people want to have an incestual relationship, who are we to say no. We are members of society, who through generations of accepted social norms, and medical science showing us the effects, should be able to comfortably say incest is wrong all of the time, without fear of being accused of shitting on personal liberties.
 
[quote name='Clak']So then how would you say we deal with things like divorce hearings, child custody, enrolling spouses in employee health plans etc? With no legal recognition that could be quite tricky. Actually, if the state doesn't recognize marriage as a legal contract basically, how would things like inheritance be handled when one dies?[/QUOTE]

This is the problem in a nutshell. There are way too many outside factors to consider. Once you get beyond 2 people it just becomes a mess.

[quote name='berzirk']How on earth is the pro-incest crowd making statements of support without everyone shouting WTF? You guys honestly think a father fracking his daughter, or a brother doing his sister is A-OK as long as they both have consent? Jesus Christ. Has the whole world gone mad? Does anybody give a shit about the rules?[/QUOTE]

+1 to this. I'm generally in the "people can do whatever they want" crowd but there is a need for some rules. Some thing goes for minors - I mean I don't think there is an actual difference between someone who is 17 years and 11 months and 29 days old and someone who just turned 18 but you have to draw the line somewhere. You just have to. Is it that much of a burden to say there are ~20 people in a world of 4 billion possible mates (if we are excluding minors) that you just can't pursue a romantic/sexual relationship with? Really?
 
[quote name='berzirk']Well, it's not that much of a stretch, but if we're saying incest should be OK as long as everyone is happy, how far away from that is pedophilia? I would think (hope) we all endorse laws that strongly forbid that. If an 18 year old girl wants to have sex with her 50 year old father, you don't think there should be a law in place which prevents that? Realistically do you think a child is going to start having a sexual relationship with a family on their 18th birthday, with nothing going on before?

I think due to the existing relationship, someone will absolutely get hurt. Let's say you break up with your mom. Do you start splitting up your stuff, and call her a whore for cheating on you?

With respect to distant cousins, I believe only first cousins are restricted from having relationships. It may vary from state to state, but that's my understanding.

I just can't fathom any rational person saying that if two people want to have an incestual relationship, who are we to say no. We are members of society, who through generations of accepted social norms, and medical science showing us the effects, should be able to comfortably say incest is wrong all of the time, without fear of being accused of shitting on personal liberties.[/QUOTE]

Actually its extremely far away from pedophilia. There is a big difference between two consenting adults and 1 consenting adult and a child. As for societal norms, to hell with those. Most societal norms were created out of fear of things we could not explain or out of fear of some religious rules. There are some that were created like incest both to prevent pedophilia and because of the already stated medical reasons. However, in some cases like incest scientific breakthroughs negate the issues relating to the subject. If incest is not with a child and you are not creating children what is the harm?

It seems you are responding to this not out of any sense of logic or any real counter argument and more from the sense that it just disgusts and shocks you so horribly that you think it should be wrong.
 
OH NO! NOT THE ACCEPTED SOCIAL NORMS!!!!

The only problems with incest are birth defects from resulting offspring and possible child abuse. The only issues of real concern barring those would be legality. Otherwise, it's whatever.

It's frowned upon largely because it's gross, moreso than for it having an insanely high probability of it ending a mess with people's lives not turning out well. *That* is what's truly bullsh*t. The thought that we have people in this country who want to make laws and run society according to what's gross/unacceptable according to what people have always done.
 
How does one fall into true, romantic love with a parent or child in the first place? There would have to be profoundly disturbing psychological issues at play for that to even occur.
 
This kind of thing depends on the culture of a people anyway, not everyone views this stuff in the same way we do. I mean their was a time when even people in the west married at very young ages, but then the average life span was around half what it is now, so people typically wait longer now. Opinions on stuff like this change with time even within the same culture. Who knows how people will feel about sex in the U.S. 100 years from now.

Maybe we'll use V.R. helmets.
 
We all added the stipulation that they have to be consenting adults (or both minors). That's the main concern with incest (aside from birth defects) and polygamy--the potential for abuse and exploitation.

But as long as something is consensual and people are of age of consent, that I really don't give a fuck what anyone does as long as it's not harming someone else.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Too much risk of birth defects etc. when you're talking father/daughter (as adults) or siblings etc.

Laws could maybe be more lax for distant cousins etc. depending on what the research says.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='MSI Magus']And how would it be fair to the child or to society if they had a fucked up flipper baby? I do not really think anyone here is pro incest per say, I think we are just saying we really do not give a flying fig what people do as long as no one is hurt in the process. Would I bonk my mom or daughter? Hell no. Do I think it is your best place to find a relationship..hell no. But, if someone for some reason did I would not care unless they hurt someone. Only way I can see that happening is with a child or if the relative is too young to understand the relationship.[/QUOTE]

I was being facetious of course.

But it opens the door for the argument. Who's to say the kid with the the Dad-Grandpa is going to turn out worse than the kid with 2 dads or the kid with a dad and 5 moms?

What about couples already legally married... but the mom drinks, the dad hits, the parents smoke, they are obese, etc etc. Aren't those kids at high risk of birth defects too?
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']How does one fall into true, romantic love with a parent or child in the first place? There would have to be profoundly disturbing psychological issues at play for that to even occur.[/QUOTE]

I do not know. How do people fall in love with people 40 years older then them? Or the hot chick with the horribly ugly guy? Or, or or. Honestly people fall in love for many and for very odd reasons, none of which are my concern if they are not effecting me.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Actually its extremely far away from pedophilia. There is a big difference between two consenting adults and 1 consenting adult and a child. As for societal norms, to hell with those. Most societal norms were created out of fear of things we could not explain or out of fear of some religious rules. There are some that were created like incest both to prevent pedophilia and because of the already stated medical reasons. However, in some cases like incest scientific breakthroughs negate the issues relating to the subject. [/QUOTE]

Don't "societal norms" define what a child is though? So it's OK for a father to have a consentual relationship with his 18 year old daughter but not his 17 year, 11 month and 29 day old one! Ridiculous.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Actually its extremely far away from pedophilia. There is a big difference between two consenting adults and 1 consenting adult and a child. As for societal norms, to hell with those. Most societal norms were created out of fear of things we could not explain or out of fear of some religious rules. There are some that were created like incest both to prevent pedophilia and because of the already stated medical reasons. However, in some cases like incest scientific breakthroughs negate the issues relating to the subject. If incest is not with a child and you are not creating children what is the harm?

It seems you are responding to this not out of any sense of logic or any real counter argument and more from the sense that it just disgusts and shocks you so horribly that you think it should be wrong.[/QUOTE]

In your response that pedophilia and incest don't go hand in hand, you have to clarify that as long as the incestual relationship isn't pedophilia, then yippee! Does that seem strange to you? You argued against yourself over the span of one sentence! At what age is it appropriate for relatives to f**k? You honestly think that on a girl's 18th birthday, all of the sudden she and her father exchange loving gazes, and go hop into bed without anything ever happening before? Come on dude.

So to hell with social norms? Sounds good. I'm going to start crapping in my pants, wandering around elementary school playgrounds cursing, and referring to every ethnic group by the most offensive term possible. Who is society to call me an asshole for doing that!?

If the idea of a father having sex with his daughter doesn't invoke feelings of disgust, then there's not much to say to you. I think you're in a very small minority with respect to that. Chalk it up to one of those oppressive "majority rules" situations. If the pro-incest movement takes off, then perhaps they can overturn the laws, but the facts from science prove that there is a higher risk of birth defects. The facts from science prove that there is great risk of serious emotional harm when parents have sexual relationships with their children. I don't need Jesus to tell me it's wrong, there is a slew of empirical research that does it for me!

As another poster wrote, if you're in favor or making incest legal, then how can you tell that joyful incestual couple that they can't have kids? Who wouldn't want to have a brother and son at the same time. Oh, the excitement! Then someday a nephew and grandson! So beautiful.

So if it doesn't disgust you, then there is something medically wrong with you, seek help. If scientific evidence which shows the harm of incestual relationships doesn't convince you it's wrong, please never have children...or siblings...or parents.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']
But it opens the door for the argument. Who's to say the kid with the the Dad-Grandpa is going to turn out worse than the kid with 2 dads or the kid with a dad and 5 moms?
[/quote]

That's apples and oranges. We're talking about physical defects from births. Not about parenting fucking up kids socially.

What about couples already legally married... but the mom drinks, the dad hits, the parents smoke, they are obese, etc etc. Aren't those kids at high risk of birth defects too?
Click to expand...

Sure, but that's not related to marriage and is off topic for this thread.

Not much that can be done there beyond educating the public about the risks of such things. There's nothing that can be banned there unless you want to criminalize drinking while pregnant etc.
 
[quote name='berzirk']

So to hell with social norms? Sounds good. I'm going to start crapping in my pants, wandering around elementary school playgrounds cursing, and referring to every ethnic group by the most offensive term possible. Who is society to call me an asshole for doing that!?

If the idea of a father having sex with his daughter doesn't invoke feelings of disgust, then there's not much to say to you. [/QUOTE]

No one is saying any of that. It is disgusting IMO. And it should be against social norms and people should be shamed etc.

It just shouldn't be illegal if it's two consenting adults. We can shame whoever we want as a society. But we shouldn't legislate social norms.
 
But there are plenty of things which increase the risk of birth defects in children, we don't ban all of those. A woman can drink and smoke as much as she wants, and society might call her a terrible mother, but that isn't illegal to do that despite the potential for harm to the baby.

Lets be honest here, banning incest is more about the ick factor than any real concern for a potential child.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top