Incest and Polygamy, where are the gays?

[Dirty Name]

I have no objection to either incest or polygamy. Cases of incest are small anyway, unless we are also counting in underage parent/child incest, but the crime there, of abusing a child, is already covered by the law. I would suggest legalising incest but making the above exceptional case a higher penaltied crime. As for polygamy, who cares how many spouses someone has? Your assuming it's only men who would want multiple wives, women might want more than one husband too. In theory, okay in my head, this would be a better situation for both parties. Men get to have multiple relationships without losing their partner/s. For women, their men will have to compete for their attention, so you won't have the great boyfriend/lousy husband situation. Men often feel that once their married, it's all settled, time to slob out. And also, when people grow apart, as most do, you won't feel trapped into a relationship with someone you no longer like (although you may still love them). And you won't have the problem of starting to hating your partner because you see them 24 hrs a day.

That's great. In theory. But we are talking about whether or not the goverment should legally recognize these relationships. If people wish to engage in the sorts of relationships you describe, they are free to do so. They can even have a wedding ceremony and everything.

Sadly, most people believe it's somehow illegal to stand in a church somewhere and exhcange wedding vows between one man and 10 women, or any other combination involving at least three people. Here's the shocker - IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL.

The part that is illegal is when those same people attempt to file the paperwork and collect benefits on behalf of multiple spouses.

So any discussion about the "legality" of marriage is really about whether or not the federal, state and local government should offer incentives, rights and protections to these sorts of relationships. Where I have the problem is when people try to claim that such arrangements are somehow "equal" to a heterosexual traditional marriage. The fact is, they are NOT.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Dirty Name the idiot Justice Kennedy has already made bedroom relations a private matter

You call Justice Kennedy an idiot for this? You want sexual behavior to receive public scrutiny?

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Dirty Name The way the incest movement will counter the homosexual rights argument against incest is to take sex and procreation out of the equation - as the Lawrence case has already done. And this is precisely the technique the incest crowd will use to legalize the movement. Allow me to explain: Gay marriage advocates argue that the knock against incest is that it has a negative impact on children spawned from such a relationship. But what about homosexual incest between, say, two adult brothers? Since there is ZERO chance that any child will be conceived, the "deformed kids" objection raised by gay rights advocates falls away. What about a "non-sexual" relationship between a brother and sister who only want to lay claim to the same domestic partnership benefits that gays are screaming for? What argument will gays have against such a partnership? The answer is that gays CANNOT argue against such domestic partnerships if they are basing their own gay marriage fight on the issue of "equality." Oh, they may try to claim that "sexual love" should be a requirement for marriage, but since the idiot Justice Kennedy has already made bedroom relations a private matter, I don't think that dog's gonna hunt.

I don't understand why either is being fought over. If someone is crazy enough to marry their own sister, I don't see why we shouldn't let them. If another guy wants to marry another guy and adopt kids, I don't see why that's a problem either. Even if women are feeling dejected enough to marry a man already married, let them. However, in each instance, they should know full well that the government will not pay for the outcomes and consequences of these relationships, such as: defected children, STD occurences, etc.

[YourTokah]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 I don't understand why either is being fought over. If someone is crazy enough to marry their own sister, I don't see why we shouldn't let them. If another guy wants to marry another guy and adopt kids, I don't see why that's a problem either. Even if women are feeling dejected enough to marry a man already married, let them. However, in each instance, they should know full well that the government will not pay for the outcomes and consequences of these relationships, such as: defected children, STD occurences, etc.

I completely agree, but I'd even take it one step further. Not only will the government NOT pay for the consequences, I think:

It should be legal for relatives to marry eachother if they wish it, but illegal for them to procreate together. Adoption - fine, legal. Sperm donor from outside the family gene pool - fine, legal. But it should not be legal to have a child that will in all likelihood be born with physical and/or developmental disabilities. That child will have to endure a life of suffering and setbacks, all because his mom and his uncle wanted to have him.

I'm not saying that we can force abortion in the event that an incestuous couple became pregnant the old fashioned way. I'm not even suggesting forced sterilization to marry (although I don't think that's an entirely bad idea). But until such laws as those exist (which, let's face it, they never will), I'm all in favor of deporting incestuous couples who marry and violate the no-natural-birth law.

Let them marry eachother, if that's what they want, but let them know that there will be limitations imposed upon them that are not imposed upon non-related adults who marry.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: PatrickHenry You call Justice Kennedy an idiot for this? You want sexual behavior to receive public scrutiny?

Public scrutiny is one extreme of the enforcement scale. The other extreme is to look the other way, which is what typically happened with homosexuals who got caught sodomizing one another.

In the case of Lawrence, the arresting officers should have just walked out of there and exercised common sense. In this way, Lawrence doesn't get arrested, but the law making certain types of bedroom bahavior still stands - acting as a sensible barrier to prevent deviance from going mainstream. It's win-win for everyone.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: YourTokah Let them marry eachother, if that's what they want, but let them know that there will be limitations imposed upon them that are not imposed upon non-related adults who marry.

I agree. But lets take it a step further - saying the same thing to homosexuals. You can "marry" each other all you want, but don't expect us to treat a completely barren relationship as though it's the same as a heterosexual one.

[YourTokah]

Quote by: Dirty Name I agree. But lets take it a step further - saying the same thing to homosexuals. You can "marry" each other all you want, but don't expect us to treat a completely barren relationship as though it's the same as a heterosexual one.

They could still adopt, however. There are plenty of kids that need a good home. Same goes for polygamous/polyamorous and incestuous households - they could theoretically still provide a stable, loving, healthy upbringing for adopted children who would otherwise not be afforded such a life.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: YourTokah I completely agree, but I'd even take it one step further. Not only will the government NOT pay for the consequences, I think: It should be legal for relatives to marry eachother if they wish it, but illegal for them to procreate together. Adoption - fine, legal. Sperm donor from outside the family gene pool - fine, legal. But it should not be legal to have a child that will in all likelihood be born with physical and/or developmental disabilities. That child will have to endure a life of suffering and setbacks, all because his mom and his uncle wanted to have him. I'm not saying that we can force abortion in the event that an incestuous couple became pregnant the old fashioned way. I'm not even suggesting forced sterilization to marry (although I don't think that's an entirely bad idea). But until such laws as those exist (which, let's face it, they never will), I'm all in favor of deporting incestuous couples who marry and violate the no-natural-birth law. Let them marry eachother, if that's what they want, but let them know that there will be limitations imposed upon them that are not imposed upon non-related adults who marry.

Good idea. I would hate my parents if they had me and knew full well that I could be retarded.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Dirty Name I agree. But lets take it a step further - saying the same thing to homosexuals. You can "marry" each other all you want, but don't expect us to treat a completely barren relationship as though it's the same as a heterosexual one.

How would you treat differently?

[YourTokah]

I suspect he's talking about tax benefits, etc. - the same old stick a lot of people are shaking at the issue. (of course, this is all imho)

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: YourTokah I suspect he's talking about tax benefits, etc. - the same old stick a lot of people are shaking at the issue. (of course, this is all imho)

Well marraige is marraige, so it should be the same. We can't dance around the line here.

[YourTokah]

I agree. Until the concept of "morality" based on the views of the majority informed by religion is separated from the concept of "legality", however, it won't happen.