Active Users:1061 Time:13/11/2024 06:18:31 AM
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac Send a noteboard - 09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM
Ah, sounds like you are disagreeing on opinion then - around what is actually a right, what it intails and what, if anything, overrides it.


Not really an opinion thing in this case, more a reminder to people that phrases like "I can say whatever I want to" are totally acceptable in casual conversation but are, of course, absolutely not true, e.g. threats, slander, libel, inciting to riot, perjury, state secrets, causing panics, etc. and when you're engaging in legal conversation those 'finer points' are pretty important, like various people's erroneous thoughts on self-defense laws. If someone wants to say you should never throw the first punch, that's fine, if they are going to say 'legally, whoever throws the first punch is in the wrong and you can do whatever you want, it's all self-defense' then they need to get called on that.

An interesting point in this is that it isn't exactly a ban, just a limit on how far the rights and benefits of marriage should be spread. You can legally have a relationship with as many partners as you like, you're still just going to get the same as a couple do though and the simplest way to do it is to only allow a marriage between two people, since it doesn't involve rewriting a huge volume of laws. Still though, you can be married in religion to multiple partners (people moving to the UK who are married to multiple partners have to nominate one on moving here to be the one who recieves the benefits and rights)


It is a rather tricky affair, partially because the state does have an apparent vested interest in encouraging people to marry and have kids. It's an easy conundrum for me, since I'm libertarian on the issue of marriage and don't think the government should give incentives to marriage in the first place, while it certainly is handy to raise kids and co-habitate with someone you're having sex with, plenty of single parents have roomed with family or friends who also a have kids, I tend to think they should receive the same handy privileges where logically applicable, I also have problems putting all the happy stickers on marriage when people regularly tie the knot for reasons not particularly involved with love. So the 'two loving partners' bit, while icing on the cake, is not to me strictly part of a wedding cake.

It is an old charge against polygamy - not sure it holds true in the same way though (since you can have a polygamous relationship, you just can't marry, so a clear difference there) and I'm not sure if it is actually a true issue now or just an old fear?


It's always hard to get reliable data on something that is banned or horribly against current social norms. End of the day I'm not sure if it matters how true the various assumptions are anyway, I don't approve of casinos, I don't want them outlawed either. Polygamy doesn't actually have to be ethical to be legal, S&M isn't particular ethical, nor is adultery, lying, etc. but they are legal. I would guess though, that polygamy can be functional, but usually won't be, I could say the same about the average pair of 18 year olds tying the knot.

Most of your argument in there really is down to the fact there is a big grey area around exactly where the cut off points are... but then that exsts everywhere (different countries have different laws, after all). It is about balancing the rights of the people (those of having a relationship of their choice against their right to protection)


Pretty much, and people need to remember that it is a balancing act and rarely black and white, once you acknowledge the state has the power to regulate something your are almost always going to start running into grey zones. We just tend to be a little lop-sided on queers, IMO, and distaste or homophobia really shouldn't be a factor one way or another, damn few of us approve of 80 year olds marrying 18 year olds, should we ban that, can we ban that, etc.

I'm slightly lost on what you are arguing with regards to children - same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because there is no risk of children but rather regardless of it. A male-female relationship carries a risk that they will have children - people can lie, doctors can mess up etc.


A risk tends to get carried with everything, a 'reasonable certainty' the people involved won't breed should seem sufficient, but regardless the main point is that a ban for that reason sticks procreation in as a default aspect of marriage, as opposed other forms of legal and business contracts. If banning incest is strictly about preventing f'd up offspring, then that ban shouldn't really exist for those able to show that reasonable precautions have been taken to prevent that. Once you get around to defining marriage, you can almost always find exceptions that still seem legit. More or less why I don't think the government should be in the habit of defining it and thus shouldn't give unique fiscal and legal advantages to it, saves a lot of trouble, IMHO.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein

King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
Reply to message
Let's ban all Christian Marriage. - 07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM 1529 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 957 Views
One small problem... - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 976 Views
Re tax. - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1010 Views
That seems sensible to me. - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 853 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1013 Views
Nice. *NM* - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 583 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1179 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 991 Views
Who else should make those decisions? - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 938 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 904 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1049 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 472 Views
Indeed - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 989 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 976 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 889 Views
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 473 Views
*Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 858 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 502 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 952 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 913 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 869 Views
whoops *NM* - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 436 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 905 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 851 Views
You cannot be that stupid. - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1135 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1224 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 846 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 878 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 474 Views
Did I say there was anything? - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 997 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 917 Views
Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 870 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 852 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 963 Views
Not really - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 822 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 953 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 834 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 980 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 994 Views
... - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 874 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM 881 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM 843 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM 938 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM 957 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1008 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 819 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 932 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 818 Views
Great post Danny - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 689 Views
It should be noted again... - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 983 Views
and how is it not a right? - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 855 Views
My definition of rights... - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 983 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 749 Views
+1 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1034 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 846 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 971 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1156 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 842 Views
It also doesn't say they can - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 847 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 839 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 864 Views
To clarify for you - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 772 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1217 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 780 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 454 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 459 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1025 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 922 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1001 Views
I agree - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 727 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1079 Views
Note it all you want... - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 721 Views
The best one yet. - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 968 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 844 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 950 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 832 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 953 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 928 Views

Reply to Message