Active Users:1108 Time:23/11/2024 01:05:44 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 1533 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 962 Views
One small problem... - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 981 Views
Re tax. - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1014 Views
That seems sensible to me. - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 857 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1016 Views
Nice. *NM* - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 584 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1185 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 995 Views
Who else should make those decisions? - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 945 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 911 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1056 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 474 Views
Indeed - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 994 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 981 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 894 Views
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 475 Views
*Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 864 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 504 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 957 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 919 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 873 Views
whoops *NM* - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 439 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 909 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 854 Views
You cannot be that stupid. - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1140 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1228 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 849 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 884 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 476 Views
Did I say there was anything? - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1001 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 923 Views
Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 875 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 857 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 968 Views
Not really - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 827 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 957 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 839 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 983 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 998 Views
... - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 878 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM 886 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM 849 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM 943 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM 963 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1013 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 824 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 938 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 827 Views
Great post Danny - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 694 Views
It should be noted again... - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 989 Views
and how is it not a right? - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 863 Views
My definition of rights... - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 988 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 753 Views
+1 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1040 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 852 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 976 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1160 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 851 Views
It also doesn't say they can - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 855 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 844 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 869 Views
To clarify for you - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 777 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1222 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 785 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 457 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 462 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1031 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 929 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1006 Views
I agree - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 733 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1084 Views
Note it all you want... - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 726 Views
The best one yet. - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 973 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 849 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 957 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 837 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 959 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 936 Views

Reply to Message