Nambla Vs Polygamy

[Pandora]

You got a point there. Now that's a loophole for sure with polygamists!!

hey that lol is cute

 

[Coyote]

But let's face it. Societies all over the world have arrived at the same conclusion that marriage is between one man and one women. I suggest that this is sort of evolution of sociology; what works continues. Before we embark on some grand experiment to see what happens when marriage can be whatever one wants it to be we should consider the possible consequences very carefully.

That's really not entirely correct on several different levels. First off - what marriage "is" - depends on what's best for society in question. The idea of one woman/one man is clearly a result of the dominance of western Judeo-Christian culture. What's "best" is relative to the times and the cultures involved and is not objective in the case of marriage. Polygamy was wide spread and still is in certain parts of the world. Apparently, it works well enough in those cultures. The same can be said about same sex marriage where historically - same sex unions of some sort (usually different named) have attained formal recognition and respect.

Perhaps MT will come back and modify her statement so that she no longer approves of incest. In the mean time she has either been reckless or she has approved of something that is harmful. Caution is called for when we make changes to the primal institutions that have been the basis of our society for thousands of years.

Incest is a very old taboo with a basis in genetic health of the species should children be produced. Recognizing and giving equal rights to a same sex union is something different. To argue that if one does so then we'll descend to legalizing incest is a bit of the "slippery slope" fallacy. If you are going to argue that the definition of marriage can never be changed then you are also setting the stage for validly banning interracial or inter-class marriages.

I believe the argument that this thread makes is the one that says: "once we allow gays to marry then everyone will want to be able to get married - pedophiles, bestiophiles, incest lovers, fuzzy stufed animal lovers, etc. Maybe that won't happen but so far MT advocates gay marriage, marriage with "new" genders, polygamy, and incest. She seems to be making the point that the thread began with. I see and understand completely why people are afraid of gay marriage.

Where did MT advocate incest?

same sex marriage
polygamy
incest

3 different things.

 

[Pandora]

That's really not entirely correct on several different levels. First off - what marriage "is" - depends on what's best for society in question. The idea of one woman/one man is clearly a result of the dominance of western Judeo-Christian culture. What's "best" is relative to the times and the cultures involved and is not objective in the case of marriage. Polygamy was wide spread and still is in certain parts of the world. Apparently, it works well enough in those cultures. The same can be said about same sex marriage where historically - same sex unions of some sort (usually different named) have attained formal recognition and respect.




Incest is a very old taboo with a basis in genetic health of the species should children be produced. Recognizing and giving equal rights to a same sex union is something different. To argue that if one does so then we'll descend to legalizing incest is a bit of the "slippery slope" fallacy. If you are going to argue that the definition of marriage can never be changed then you are also setting the stage for validly banning interracial or inter-class marriages.



Where did MT advocate incest?

same sex marriage
polygamy
incest

3 different things.

Define incest? In some countries they still marry their fist and second cousins to keep the wealth in the family and keep the blood lines. I think its kind of gross but what ever.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You can say it as often as you want but it will not make your statements true. Christians are not the root of all evil in the world. People by nature have evil within them and they will do all sorts of evil things with or without Christianity. They will even do them and justify their evil with Christianity.

Do you think that gay people never suffered any "disenfranchments" before Jesus was born? Do you think that they still do not suffer in many non-christian (or even non-abrahamic) countries?

It might be time to take the chip off your shoulder as it is to some degree imaginary.

I don't know about the past, but right here and now it's the Bible-beaters, hence, I address them. When another group shows up and behaves as badly as the Christians are, then I will speak about them as well.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So you're in favor of incestual unions?

Nope.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

My point in the post was my frustration with the polygamy issue. Because of the news story of the Texas polygamists. I am not a fan of marrying off your 12 year old to a 60 year old man. I am not trying to defend it at all. But polygamy in general, I do defend. And it seems that it is considered some sort of horrible thing. It drives me nuts when I hear some people speak on the topic of making homosexual marriage legal, the big fear is it could lead to polygamist marriages as though it’s something worse than homosexual marriage. I find that terribly offensive.

But I guess what bothered me was so much focus on how horrible this Texas polygamy ranch was in regards to child sex scandals and I agree they are horrible and something should be done about that. Just as something should be done about NAMBLA, but I HIGHLY doubt anything will ever be done about the second, there is hope for the first though..

NAMBLA has been around a very long time yet I never hear anything about them. NAMBLA’s entire focus is sex with ten year old boys. The boys are no good to them after 13 ish, and they find other ten year old boys. A group invented for the sole purpose of finding and molesting young kids seems to be ignored, while polygamy though true one of their practices is marriage with way to young girls to much older geezers is a problem, it is by no means the main focus of the relationships, or the group as a whole. Yet it gets the brunt of child abuser’s status. Totally ignoring a group whose sole focus is molesting a certain age group of kids, for no other reason than personal sexual pleasure..

You posted that NAMBLA is brought up a lot but I have never seen any posts here about it or in any of the other blogs I have read. Not since the one NAMBLA “couple” killed then raped an 11 year old boy and threw him off of a bridge.

Two groups who could easily be attacked for hurting kids, but the “leftist” group is ignored and the other not. Don’t get me wrong, I am glad the child abuse in the polygamist ranch is not ignored, but I am disgusted that the child abuse in NAMBLA is ignored. And if anyone like me brings it up, its just those right wingers bringing them up… if we don’t, who does?

It would be fair to say in part it’s because its current stuff in the news. And if someone like me takes this opening to bring up the problems of child abuse in NAMBLA while the child abuse topic is already on the table, that should be a good thing, not a bad thing.

If NAMBLA were grown men who targeted 10 year old girls it would be in the news daily. It’s because they are a homosexual group that they are not brought up more often. So I disagree with you completely on this. In fact I will go further to say if they were grown men seeking sex with 10 year old girls they would all be in jail or prison.

The reason you don't hear about NAMBLA more is that they are an extreme fringe group with about 6 members, there are more blood-drinking vampires in the US than there are NAMBLA members. Polygamists outnumber NAMBLA members by about 10,000 to one.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That's really not entirely correct on several different levels. First off - what marriage "is" - depends on what's best for society in question. The idea of one woman/one man is clearly a result of the dominance of western Judeo-Christian culture. What's "best" is relative to the times and the cultures involved and is not objective in the case of marriage. Polygamy was wide spread and still is in certain parts of the world. Apparently, it works well enough in those cultures. The same can be said about same sex marriage where historically - same sex unions of some sort (usually different named) have attained formal recognition and respect.




Incest is a very old taboo with a basis in genetic health of the species should children be produced. Recognizing and giving equal rights to a same sex union is something different. To argue that if one does so then we'll descend to legalizing incest is a bit of the "slippery slope" fallacy. If you are going to argue that the definition of marriage can never be changed then you are also setting the stage for validly banning interracial or inter-class marriages.



Where did MT advocate incest?

same sex marriage
polygamy
incest

3 different things.

Dr. Who is just using the incest thing as an arguing point, I have stated over and over again that I don't approve of incest. One time I post something and don't put in the whole list of caveats and Who jumps on it to accuse me of supporting incest--it's a cheap shot, nothing more.

 

[Pandora]

The reason you don't hear about NAMBLA more is that they are an extreme fringe group with about 6 members, there are more blood-drinking vampires in the US than there are NAMBLA members. Polygamists outnumber NAMBLA members by about 10,000 to one.

We should keep them out in the open if people are able to forget about them.

 

[Dr.Who]

Dr. Who is just using the incest thing as an arguing point, I have stated over and over again that I don't approve of incest. One time I post something and don't put in the whole list of caveats and Who jumps on it to accuse me of supporting incest--it's a cheap shot, nothing more.

It is not a cheap shot. It is clarification. I explained that you would have a chance to clarify but you chose to attack me instead of taking your chance. Honestly I can't remember all of what you support or don't.

You previously said you support any marriage of consenting adults. But if you don't approve of incest then you don't approve af any marriage of consenting adults. So now you have expressed that you do not approve of consenting adults getting married for at least one reason: if there is a tendency for the children to be harmed as a result. I don't think it is unreasonable for you to stop saying that any consenting adults should be allowed to marry if you believe in exceptions. This seems to be an important issue for you so define your position concisely and clearly.

As has been said before: the customs of marriage have evolved over thousands of years to accept one man and one women. To make a drastic change in what is the norm based on the desires of a tiny minority with the justification that there is no evidence that they do not raise healthy children is reckless. A lack of evidence is not evidence. We do not know enough to know if having many people raising children in marriages that are not one-man one-women is healthy or not. We need to use caution!!

I am not arguing that gay marriage is bad (though it might be). I am arguing that we can understand people who fear it and that we need to use caution when altering the mores that have been established for generations.

 

[Pandora]

If Mare is against incest, would that be a brother sister? and is it only because of the possible chance of kids?

Mare believes in abortion, even partial birth...... so couldnt that brother/sister love match just abort their kids if they dont come out the way they want them too?

also Mare, are you against incest if it is a homosexual brother brother? or a sister sister? no kids would be at risk for having to be aborted in those cases.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If Mare is against incest, would that be a brother sister? and is it only because of the possible chance of kids?

Mare believes in abortion, even partial birth...... so couldnt that brother/sister love match just abort their kids if they dont come out the way they want them too?

also Mare, are you against incest if it is a homosexual brother brother? or a sister sister? no kids would be at risk for having to be aborted in those cases.

Please quote me where I said I was in favor of abortion, including partial birth abortion.

 

[vyo476]

I've never completely understood bans on incest. I know that it is supposedly psychologically damaging, but I'm not sure how, precisely - if it is a consensual act, that would suggest the "damage" is preexisting; if it is non-consensual it is rape and I don't see a reason to attach any added definition to it. And, of course, there's the problem of genetic depletion, but banning people from engaging in consensual intercourse on genetic grounds treads a little too close to eugenics for my liking. So, in essence - if brother and sister want to have sex, why should the government tell them they can't? There are plenty of reasons to tell them they shouldn't, but I don't see a clear impetus for the ban.

I understand bans on polygamy only from the economic perspective. Presently, marriage affords certain rights in regards to taxes to married couples, yes? I don't know the details personally, I think Mare does. In any case, if we allow people to marry as many people as they want, suddenly those benefits start getting stretching out to extreme proportions, with the result of havoc in the financial world. I remember discussing this sort of thing with a friend of mine from high school - a man I'm 100% certain entertains no religious affiliation or homophobic bigotry - and he said that one of the qualms he had about homosexual marriage stemmed from the fact that allowing universal homosexual marriage would suddenly and drastically increase the number of married couples, which would cause all kinds of problems in terms of tax codes. That's just for homosexual marriage, which, if the current group of protesters had their way, would still restrict people to monogamous relationships. Imagine the chaos, then, if groups of people were marrying ten, fifteen people.

I do not understand objection to polygamy on moral grounds. Were those economic concerns out of the way (something I've come to believe should be a reality: no more economic incentives for marriage, they're ridiculous) I would have no objection whatsoever to legal polygamy.

 

[Dr.Who]

That's really not entirely correct on several different levels. First off - what marriage "is" - depends on what's best for society in question. The idea of one woman/one man is clearly a result of the dominance of western Judeo-Christian culture. What's "best" is relative to the times and the cultures involved and is not objective in the case of marriage. Polygamy was wide spread and still is in certain parts of the world. Apparently, it works well enough in those cultures. The same can be said about same sex marriage where historically - same sex unions of some sort (usually different named) have attained formal recognition and respect.

You are technically correct. Nevertheless polygamy and other forms of marriage have always been in the minority in cultures that accept it or widespread in cultures that are themselves in the minority. We can never know if these cultures are not as advanced as the ones that are less plygamous partly because they are polygomous but it is possible.

So in short I concede. One man one women marriage is almost universally the norm but there are exceptions that invalidate my statement.

Incest is a very old taboo with a basis in genetic health of the species should children be produced. Recognizing and giving equal rights to a same sex union is something different. To argue that if one does so then we'll descend to legalizing incest is a bit of the "slippery slope" fallacy. If you are going to argue that the definition of marriage can never be changed then you are also setting the stage for validly banning interracial or inter-class marriages.

I agree that it is something different. When people say that any consenting adult should be allowed to do whatever and they do not make a distinction between consenting adults that would commit incest and ones that would act gay then they create confusion which lights the fires of those who are afraid of this slippery slope.

Where did MT advocate incest?

same sex marriage
polygamy
incest

3 different things.

When MT made a statement that applied equally to all three she lumped them together. Her statement approved of all three including incest. I did say that she was either reckless OR approved of incest. And yet she ignored that little word "OR". Instead of clarifying her statement as she was invited to do she assumes I am taking the cheap shot and fails to clarify. Probably because the clarification demands that there are exceptions to the "consenting adults" principle. And once there are exceptions then why not more?

 

[Pandora]

Please quote me where I said I was in favor of abortion, including partial birth abortion.

Did we not have this debate when I first started coming here? I don’t remember what thread it was on; I have a horrible habit of bring up abortion in about any topic. If I am wrong and it was not you and I that had this debate then I am very sorry. I was sure you and I did argue abortion. But I have been wrong more than once. I don’t know how to find a chat you and I had. There are so many to go through, I would rather apologies if I was wrong.

So you are against abortion?

 

[Pandora]

I've never completely understood bans on incest. I know that it is supposedly psychologically damaging, but I'm not sure how, precisely - if it is a consensual act, that would suggest the "damage" is preexisting; if it is non-consensual it is rape and I don't see a reason to attach any added definition to it. And, of course, there's the problem of genetic depletion, but banning people from engaging in consensual intercourse on genetic grounds treads a little too close to eugenics for my liking. So, in essence - if brother and sister want to have sex, why should the government tell them they can't? There are plenty of reasons to tell them they shouldn't, but I don't see a clear impetus for the ban.

I understand bans on polygamy only from the economic perspective. Presently, marriage affords certain rights in regards to taxes to married couples, yes? I don't know the details personally, I think Mare does. In any case, if we allow people to marry as many people as they want, suddenly those benefits start getting stretching out to extreme proportions, with the result of havoc in the financial world. I remember discussing this sort of thing with a friend of mine from high school - a man I'm 100% certain entertains no religious affiliation or homophobic bigotry - and he said that one of the qualms he had about homosexual marriage stemmed from the fact that allowing universal homosexual marriage would suddenly and drastically increase the number of married couples, which would cause all kinds of problems in terms of tax codes. That's just for homosexual marriage, which, if the current group of protesters had their way, would still restrict people to monogamous relationships. Imagine the chaos, then, if groups of people were marrying ten, fifteen people.

I do not understand objection to polygamy on moral grounds. Were those economic concerns out of the way (something I've come to believe should be a reality: no more economic incentives for marriage, they're ridiculous) I would have no objection whatsoever to legal polygamy.

It would be easy to fix it. Change the tax codes. I think its wrong that a single man or woman should have to pay a higher rate than a man or woman married anyways. every one pays the same percent. A tax break if you have a child seems fair enough but even that I would be ok if they stopped it.

If they changed the laws where there were no government bennys for marriage, many wouldnt bother with it and the problem would solve its self.