If you allow homosexuals marriage then...

[Real Sorceror]

...do you have to allow any form of marriage between consenting adults (i.e. polygamy, incestuous relationships, etc.)?

Hey whatever, just keep it within the same species. I don't want things to get wierd.

 

[Booko]

No, you don't have to, but I think it's only natural that one [minority] movement might inspire another.--The only thing I can see against polygamy/polyandry is a) working it out legally in terms of benefits, etc., and b) how many wives/husbands should an individual be permitted?

I think we might see why polygamy could be a problem for a society if we watch China for a while. They've put themselves in a position where this upcoming generation has more men than women, and that can be a problem.

That's the problem I see with polygamy today. If we want to work out legal angles, all we need to do is look at what's done in cultures that allow the practice. But there are the extralegal issues like what happens to the menfolk who can't find available women to marry? Hm...too much loose testosterone, I think!

But that issue is really divorced (uh...no pun intended) from the issue of same sex marriages, because there would be no effect on the number of hetero women available for hetero men anyway.

Does anyone here opposed to legal recognition of same-sex marriages have any alternatives to protect the children in such families?

Or if you believe the children deserve no protection, why do you believe that?

 

[Booko]

LOL...by definition, to be in a polygamous relationship, you would have to be in a relationship with at least one other person of the same gender...thus making polygamists at least bisexual. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that, for example, a man with two or more wives should only spend one night a week with each wife (which hardly sounds like a real, loving relationship)?

Methinks you need to do a little more research on the practice of polygamy. You're described an orgy -- not polygamy.

I assure you for centuries the practice of polygamy has been part of Islam, but the idea that the wives should be having a little fun on their own is very very off base.

Ask some of the Muslims around here about Islamic law on the subject.

 

[Booko]

i quite agree ignorance is irresponsible but so is promescuity with the amount of people nowdays with std's, i don't believe it's possible to love more than one partner it's just pure glutteny and lust, both of which are sins apparently!

What do you think about divorce, then?

Oh, btw, gluttony has to do with food, not sex.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Unless you're doing one or both incorrectly.

*runs and hides*

 

[Ðanisty]

On the other hand, with the recent condoning of homosexuality in large portions of the world, we now see an immediate result of other sexual minority groups attempting to draw up sympathies for their causes. The connection seems pretty obvious.

And you think homosexuals are responsible for that connection? I can hardly see how.

a child is not a consenting adult. :sarcastic

Except in cases where the child is a consenting adult. There are people out there with grown children you know.

So again, the women just get passed around by a chauvinist man who wants to get lots of booty, sleeping with one girl one night, another girl another night, on and on. By what standard is this acceptable behavior?

By the standards of the people who practice it? Of course, what you've just described is a stereotype. A lot of women enjoy being in a polyamorous relationship and I can think of a lot of good reasons why.

Oh, and the assumptions in this thread on what others find moral are crazy. Please do not assume that other people find these "deviant" behaviors wrong. As far as the incest goes, all I have to say is consenting adults. I don't really care if someone wants to have sex with their sister as long as both are adults and both want to do it. I don't think they should have children, but as far as the actual act of sex...it doesn't bother me.

 

[Booko]

point is, any kind of marriage can lead to inequalities, and they often do. heterosexual marriages is, as you probably know, no exception.

It's so true, divine. My marriage is terribly unequal. My husband makes the money, and I spend it. It's awful!

 

[Pah]

Actually, I think polygamy should be allowed by the government, as long as the religion says it's OK. Incest is never OK, due to genetic abberations and psychological trauma that always accompany the act.

What he said! I would support polygamy but not incest

 

[Booko]

Oh, and the assumptions in this thread on what others find moral are crazy. Please do not assume that other people find these "deviant" behaviors wrong.

Heck, I'm not even sure there's a clear line on what is "deviant" behaviour to be had much of anywhere.

What the heck am I supposed to make of a person who was born hermaphrodite, her parents chose to make her a "her" as an infant, but she grew up to be...more masculine and prefer women?

Deuced if I know how to handle situations like that, other than to keep my nose out of her business.

 

[Pah]

What do you think about divorce, then?

Oh, btw, gluttony has to do with food, not sex.

There is in some Christian circles the thought that anything with a possessive appetite qualifies as Gluttony. However, Lust is a special category "deadly" sin.

 

[d.]

Except in cases where the child is a consenting adult. There are people out there with grown children you know.

to me, a grown-up isn't a 'child' anymore...but sure.

 

[Ðanisty]

What the heck am I supposed to make of a person who was born hermaphrodite, her parents chose to make her a "her" as an infant, but she grew up to be...more masculine and prefer women?

Well, for me, that's pretty easy. I would blame the parents. It's been shown that forcing a gender on intersexed children is disastrous and many times leads to genitals that don't function at all. I can't think of anything more cruel than to condemn your child to never having an orgasm just because you want them to look "normal."

 

[d.]

I don't really care if someone wants to have sex with their sister as long as both are adults and both want to do it. I don't think they should have children,

but if their children are consenting adults?

 

[Bishka]

What gets me is these people who are against polygamy - but they are fine with people sleeping around without bothering to get to know the person.

 

[lilithu]

and your sure your a christian? think you should consider becoming a mormon my friend!

Mormons are Christians.

 

[Ðanisty]

but if their children are consenting adults?

I don't get it. What's the point you're trying to make? What I'm saying is that I believe consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own home. I don't agree with inbreeding though (for lack of a better word). Essentially, I think people who consent to incest should practice safe sex. I'm not against the sex itself...just the possible outcome.

 

[Bishka]

Mormons are Christians.

Thank you.

If there is one thing I can always count on from RF (99% of the members) think we are Christians.

 

[lilithu]

...do you have to allow any form of marriage between consenting adults (i.e. polygamy, incestuous relationships, etc.)?

I know this is a hot hot topic and I am not trying to rub anyone the wrong way. I seriously want to know.

My perception is the pro-homosexual marriage group gets offended when it is suggested allowing homosexual marriage may lead to polygamy or other kinds of marriage.

In my mind, it seems like a logical progression.

So, I'm just asking for clarification. What do you believe and why? Set me straight or help me understand.

Regards.

I have no problem with legalizing polygamy. I can see no reason for why it is illegal other than societal norms.

That said, I do not think that it's an inevitable logical progression that we must legalize polygamy and, heaven forbid incest, just because we legalize same-sex marriage.

What is it that makes you lump those three things together? I'm not attacking you. I'm just trying to point out certain assumptions that you're making that are not shared by all of us.

If you think that homosexuality is a perversion, and polygamy is a perversion and incest is a perversion, and that's why they're grouped together, then yes, it seems logically consistent that if you legalize one you would legalize all of them.

But I see the three as three distinct things. Same-sex marriage is the union of TWO people who wish to commit to each other in a loving relationship that is recognized by their society. Polygamy is the union of more than two people. Incest is between two genetically related people.

Without making judgements as to which is ok and which is not, my point is simply that they are distinct and therefore legalizing one will not automatically lead to legalizing the others.

 

[lilithu]

It's "fair" by the same standard that all regulations and laws made by a society are "fair." Unfortunately, anarchy does not work in this world; people cannot do whatever they want whenever they want however they they want. People who resent certain laws of course will always say, "That's not fair!" However, the fact that a minority resents a regulation is not an immediate reason to change it. Laws are changed because there is reason to specifically alter the law in a certain way. All the reasons you have thus far given are applicable to any number of sexual deviances, and again, therefore prove nutshell's point.

Actually, our legal system is set up such that ideally we recognize that people have an innate right to liberty unless there is a reason to restrain it. Meaning that people can indeed do whatever they want whenever they want however they they want. And govt can only restrain such liberty if it can show that it's for the common good. The problem is that a lot of restraints that weren't really necessary got put in place due to social norms. Everyone believed that it was necessary so they were taken as necessary. This includes laws like requring all stores to be closed on Sundays, for the common good. The general trend is that as we have recognized that such laws are more the result of cultural bias than need, we have eliminated them. BECAUSE people have the innate right to do whatever they want whenever they want however they they want, unless there's a real compelling reason why they can't.

So your argument about majority rule is wrong; it goes against the very foundations of our government.

 

[Fluffy]

Heya nutshell,

...do you have to allow any form of marriage between consenting adults (i.e. polygamy, incestuous relationships, etc.)?

I know this is a hot hot topic and I am not trying to rub anyone the wrong way. I seriously want to know.

When I produce a justification for one thing being right or wrong, it necessarily means that various other things become right and wrong as well.

For example, if somebody asked me why murder was wrong and I said it was because one person was causing harm to another, then it would be logical to assume that, due to this justification, I would also view GBH as wrong.

Therefore, to answer your question, it depends on why the particular person is saying that homosexual marriage is aokay. Some of those justifications, such as my own, will and some will not.

My perception is the pro-homosexual marriage group gets offended when it is suggested allowing homosexual marriage may lead to polygamy or other kinds of marriage.

In my mind, it seems like a logical progression.

In my mind it seems like a logical progression as well. However, I suspect that the reasons that offence is given are twofold:
1) It assumes a particular justification on the part of another based off their support for gay marriage which both creates a strawman and is irrational
2) It is often used in the context of "if we allow gay marriage then we will allow polygamy too" implying that this is a bad thing which would obviously be offensive to those of us who support polygamy

So, I'm just asking for clarification. What do you believe and why? Set me straight or help me understand.

Generally my ethics go like this:
There are three moral components to any situation that can be judged ethically. These are motive, action and outcome and I believe they should be prioritised in that order.

Harm, or rather the lack thereof, is the most important meter that I use to judge situations by. Responsibility is the second most important. I judge all situations according to these two items

Therefore, if somebody intends harm to another (ie they fail on both of my meters whilst I analyse the most important component) then I view their thoughts to be morally wrong. If somebody accidentally causes another harm then I would view this as less wrong on two accounts etc etc

You will notice so far that I have not given any consideration as to what is morally right but that is only because whilst I have a very clear sense of what is wrong, I have a less clear sense of what is right. However, in order for anything to be amoral (ie that which is neither right nor wrong) it must, at the least, not qualify under these judgements as morally wrong. So now it might be clear why I am telling you all of this because my justification for why homosexual marriage is amoral is by elimination since I am going to demonstrate why I feel it is not morally wrong.

I have seen homosexuality be accused of causing two types of harm: direct and indirect.

The direct type of harm can further be split into two categories, harm to the spouses and harm to the children if any. Now I believe that harm is only wrong if it is done without consent. So things like bondage games, self harm, euthanasia etc. I consider to be amoral because the only harm that I feel those involved are responsible for are to themselves and I consider such harm to be morally okay since that is their choice. Therefore, if homosexuals are harming themselves by having sex or loving each other (either spiritual by setting themselves up for hell or by increasing the likelihood of contracting sexual diseases) then I view that as irrelevant to the question of whether homosexuality is morally wrong. The only time I have seen accusations of harm towards the children is either because a child needs both a mother and father which I find to be intellectually indefensible or because the child is bullied by others who are not tolerant of their parentage which I find to be immoral, not due to the homosexuality but due to the intolerance of others.

The indirect harm that homosexuality is accused of is damaging the nuclear family and, since society supposedly rests upon the nuclear family, society as a whole as well. Firstly I do not believe this to be true but secondly, even if it was true, I would consider it irrelevant to the question since I do not consider the nuclear family to be of any inherant worth and therefore any damage done to it is neither immoral nor a "bad idea".

So in other words I have looked at every accusation made towards homosexuality that implies that it causes some sort of harm and made a decision as to whether homosexuality is inherently harmful. I have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not inherently harmful and therefore is not morally wrong. I also consider it to be amoral but considering I have as yet poor grasp of what is right, this may not be the final resting place for my views on the matter.

Now then, if homosexuality is amoral, then I feel it logically follows that homosexual marriage is fine to. However, my views are more complex than that since I actually do not like religion as part of the state and I don't think that the state should recognise religious marriage as a valid institution. What I think should be made available to both heterosexuals and homosexuals is a secular marriage but since this is a fine point in a complicated debate I tend to avoid making the distinction.

And so we get onto the final point of whether this justification makes for a "logical progression" towards making polygamy, incest okay. Well the answer is a bit of yes and a bit of no. I won't bore you with the details of how I reached these conclusions (they are fairly self explanatory really) but I believe that regarding sex, there is only 1 type of sex that is wrong and that is sex where informed consent is not given.

For me this makes sex with a child (whether molestation or consensual), bestiality any other form of rape and unsafe sex (unborn children can't give consent) all immoral. In terms of incest, it rules out incestuous relationships between children and other family members.

However, it also means that polygamy (so long as it is non-gender specific) and any other sort of incest are amoral according to my beliefs.

Whether this means that those kinds of things should be allowed in marriage is slightly different. For example, some kinds of rights such as cross adoption should clearly be made available to polygamous groups but since I am unaware of the full bill of rights that marriage provides, I cannot say whether adaptions might need to be made. Therefore I am for polygamous marriage but some of the finer points of detail regarding the rights this provide might need to be fiddled around.

Similarly, there are already several benefits for those who are related that marriage brings making most of those irrelevant. In fact I cannot think of a single benefit that an incestuous couple would gain from marriage that they would not already have although they may find it more convenient. I would also support incestuous marriage but again with any obvious alterations that might be needed for practical reasons.

Might I ask, what other things were you including in your etc? The only thing I can perhaps think of is bestiality and child sex but I addressed those earlier. If there was anything else then let me know.