Homosexual marriages?

[infamous]

Do you mean to justify a law by virtue of 'disgustingness'?

 

No sir, that was not the point that was being made. By virtue of the risk the offspring face, I simply pointed out the concern that our civil government has with regard to this issue. And even if that risk is slight, which I believe is a medical fact, it is still a risk I do not think anyone should expose their newborns to. In an effort to clarify my position, I believe that no law should be inacted because someone finds another's life style to be simply offensive...........Infy

[Turtle]

No sir, that was not the point that was being made. By virtue of the risk the offspring face, I simply pointed out the concern that our civil government has with regard to this issue. And even if that risk is slight, which I believe is a medical fact, it is still a risk I do not think anyone should expose their newborns to. In an effort to clarify my position, I believe that no law should be inacted simply because someone finds another's life style to be simply offensive...........Infy

 

Ok; I got it now. Disgusting people have a right to their disgustingness as long as it doesn't impinge on the disgustingness of others. I agree on the basis of the argument that having 'consensual crimes' of any type is absurd.

On to the medically deliterious aspect of incest (which if it's homosexual has no reproductive consequence), that I believe is unsubstantiated and in law based on religio-cultural myths .

Here's the latest I have found that touches on the genetic issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consanguinity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

At least from the animal husbandry evidence, there are advantages to incestuous offspring as well as detriments. :cup:

[TheFaithfulStone]

The incidence is pretty low, but so what? The incidence of homosexuality under any given sample of humans is low as well. Suspecting that it would be accompanied by a history of sexual abuse and/or dysfunction smells pretty prejudiced to me. If you look at the physical design of the organs under discussion, it could be argued that an incestuous relationship between brother and sister would actually be *more* normal than a homosexual relationship. This is not what we're discussing. What we are discussing, is if you oppose government legislating your sex life, you can't oppose consensual incest too. It might be a societal taboo, but taboos don't need legislation to be enforced.

 

Whoa there. Easy. Sorry - wasn't trying to hijack your thread - I was just saying that I don't think even if you "accepted" it it would be a huge issue.

 

There may be a given incidence of homosexuality in any population, and it (in general) is not concurrent with a history of sexual dysfunction.

 

So what you would need is a figure for the number of adult, consensual, incestuous relationship which are not concurrent with a history of sexual abuse. I don't know what this number is, but as I could find almost no reference to such activity being prosecuted.

 

PDF Warning.

 

For instance, that details sex crimes in Tennessee. Of the 54 cases of incest reported there in 2006, it looks like 1 involved people over the age of 18. What was their sexual history? In this case I think it matters.

 

It is perfectly reasonable to be against incest and for gay marriage - even if you base your opinion on the idea that "government should stay out of my bedroom." (A good idea, I'd say.)

 

The reason being is that it is possible for two consenting adults without a history of sexual abuse can be gay. However, as you put qualifiers on who exactly would -need- the same exception for an incestuous relationship the pool narrows.

 

The cousins marrying thing is a different matter, IMO - and really shouldn't be an issue.

 

The only relationship you need to make this exception for would be healthy relationships between two consenting adult siblings. I doubt that such a thing exists, or at least, I can find no reference to one.

 

You may say that we let consenting adults participate in screwed up relationships all the time, and I have to give it to you, that yes we do. But, on the other hand, if ever one party wakes up and ditches the other, the contract is generally terminated with some prejudice!

 

If I were to beat my wife, I would go to jail. If I were to mentally abuse my wife, she would get a hefty settlement, etc, etc. So, in that sense, the only way that an incestuous relationship is unique is that we (would) punish both parties.

 

So, saying that I must be for brother-sister incest if I am for gay marriage offers a false choice.

 

S'all I'm saying.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Here's something interesting.

 

Apparently, not wanting to boink your sister is a biological effect.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect

 

I would question whether a "secret sister" - someone you didn't know you were related too really qualifies as a sister.

[Boerseun]

So, saying that I must be for brother-sister incest if I am for gay marriage offers a false choice.

Hey Stone, I'm not one to hammer on an issue, but all that I'm saying is that if you're pro-homo, you can't be con-consensual incest using the same argument (government staying out of the bedroom etc.). As far as I can see, it's not a false choice, it's simply a logical progression of the argument.

 

For what it's worth, I also don't think that stats regarding incest will give you much of an indication of how prevalent consensual brother-sister incest is. It is such an ingrained unspeakable taboo, that those individuals engaging in incest is very unlikely to confess to it. I suspect the only cases of incest we get to know about, would be those reported to the police where abuse etc. is involved. This might skew the impression we *normal* folks have of the dynamics involved. We see from police reports that 99% of reported incest cases involved beating and abuse of some form or another, but what we won't see is the silent number of however many consensual cases that might exist, where both the partners are free to terminate the relationship. There would be no need for them to report anything at all to the police.

 

And that's my point. I am against any form or instance of any law that tries to dictate (hey - I said dick! Huhuhuh...) to me what I can and cannot do with my body, and with whom. So, I guess the idea of 'live and let live' might apply. Let anybody shag whomever they want, as long as its consensual, and of adult age. There you go; the gay issue solved, and, as an unintended side-product, we can't legislate against consensual incest either. And we can't use the 'inbreeding' argument for whatever genetic defects any kids resulting from such a union might have, either. I started a thread discussing whether people with genetic disorders like Downs syndrome should be allowed to procreate, and the general consensus was that you cannot and should not prevent it, and the offspring would basically just have to 'live with it'. If you prevent Downs sufferers from procreating, then you also have to prevent ugly people and general unwanteds from procreating. And you cannot do this without becoming a fascist of some sort. Read all about it here. The same argument applies to any offspring resulting from consensual incest.

 

I'm not for it at all, I'm just saying that it would be a logical result of what we are doing in accommodating the homosexual community.

[Chacmool]

Hey Stone, I'm not one to hammer on an issue, but all that I'm saying is that if you're pro-homo, you can't be con-consensual incest using the same argument (government staying out of the bedroom etc.). As far as I can see, it's not a false choice, it's simply a logical progression of the argument.

 

...

 

And that's my point. I am against any form or instance of any law that tries to dictate (hey - I said dick! Huhuhuh...) to me what I can and cannot do with my body, and with whom. So, I guess the idea of 'live and let live' might apply. Let anybody shag whomever they want, as long as its consensual, and of adult age. There you go; the gay issue solved, and, as an unintended side-product, we can't legislate against consensual incest either. And we can't use the 'inbreeding' argument for whatever genetic defects any kids resulting from such a union might have, either.

Playing devil's advocate here: why would "of an adult age" form an automatic part of what is acceptable? If you don't want government to ever decide what you do with your body, and incest is allowed, then surely paedophilia should be OK too? After all, "adult age" has been a rather fluid concept over the years, with our recent forefathers getting married around the age of puberty.

 

I think government should intervene in some cases - incest and paedophilia, in my opinion, are clear examples of these. However, I see no reason why homosexuality should be legislated at all.

[pgrmdave]

Hey Stone, I'm not one to hammer on an issue, but all that I'm saying is that if you're pro-homo, you can't be con-consensual incest using the same argument (government staying out of the bedroom etc.). As far as I can see, it's not a false choice, it's simply a logical progression of the argument.

 

It's not a logical progression, it's a slippery slope.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Hey Stone, I'm not one to hammer on an issue, but all that I'm saying is that if you're pro-homo, you can't be con-consensual incest using the same argument (government staying out of the bedroom etc.). As far as I can see, it's not a false choice, it's simply a logical progression of the argument.

 

Sure, using the same argument, I think that it's probably true - if you offer as an absolute that the Government should not interfere in your sex life. I don't know that anybody wants to offer it as an absolute, since that leads to exactly where Chacmool took it.

 

Saying something like "The Government should not interfere in the sex life of well-adjusted adults" I think pretty well covers it.

 

(Of course, there is an implicit assumption there that one can be both gay and well-adjusted. We'll define well-adjusted as not being involved in relationships that are damaging to either individual.)

 

I don't think we're going to go anywhere on the incest issue - it seems like there simply aren't enough facts about it to base any kind of an argument upon. I claim that "consensual well-adjusted incestuous, adult, sibling relationships" do not exist, since I can find no evidence of them. You claim that they are so taboo that no evidence of them WOULD exist. Both claims are equally impossible to prove.

 

TFS

[pgrmdave]

To continue this "logical progression" - is there anything about sex lives that you think should be legislated other than consent? Can someone who is mentally challenged consent? Can animals consent? What about masochists? What if somebody is masochistic enough to want to be beaten, and whipped, and cut until they need to be hospitalized? Is that still under the realm of consent, and must be legal?

[Boerseun]

Can someone who is mentally challenged consent?

No.

Can animals consent?

Obviously not.

What about masochists? What if somebody is masochistic enough to want to be beaten, and whipped, and cut until they need to be hospitalized? Is that still under the realm of consent, and must be legal?

Yes, masochists can consent. If they are stupid enough to want to be beaten to a pulp, they will do it, whether you have a law against it or not. All you'll achieve is to generate a lot of legal overhead for something that can't be stopped and only causes harm to the idiots involved through their own free will. Trying to legislate against masochism is kinda like trying to write a law that prevents kids from eating candy.

[Southtown]

I don't think governments should recognize any marriages. It's a religious concept, hence it being a sensative issue in the face of reform. The only reason it's an issue in the US is for insurance and tax purposes.

 

Tax breaks were given to married people to promote the making of more tax payers. But intellectually, this legislation was on par with paying a thief to park your Toyota.

 

IMO, who you live with is who you live with. Who you share bank accounts with is who you share bank accounts. And who you **** is who you ****. Tax breaks for married people is plain unfair, gay or not. And deductions per depentant are all that is needed.

 

Also insurance companies are too selective, and should be legally forced to keep their promises to all their customers, barring fraud.

[Zythryn]

There are actually a number of other legal benifits of married couples Southtown.

 

Some related to insurance (death benifits, child custody, etc) others to property. So while I agree with you that the government should distance itself from marraige, there are civil regulations that are mixed up in the issue.

 

The government in the 20th century really seemed to get into social engineering. It has not had much luck and I am not sure if it would be better to try to correct the issue or withdraw from social engineering (welfare, social security, marraige, unemployment, etc).

[TheFaithfulStone]

is there anything about sex lives that you think should be legislated other than consent?

 

Don't we do this all the time? Or, if not with the actual sex act, then at least with all of the stuff that comes with it?

 

I for instance, cannot beat my wife. Does a battered woman who doesn't press charges "consent" to being beaten?

 

Does a woman with a history of sexual abuse who marries an (emotionally)abusive man "consent" to the emotional abuse? Does that make his actions okay?

 

It's been established that not "putting out" in a marriage is grounds for divorce - but it is still possible to rape your significant other. Obviously, there is an interplay of principles at work here.

 

Not only should the government stay out of lives, but the government should also protect us from each other, or even in certain instances from ourselves.

 

What is the balance between these two principles?

 

It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

 

TFS

[Zythryn]

Here's the latest I have found that touches on the genetic issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consanguinity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

At least from the animal husbandry evidence, there are advantages to incestuous offspring as well as detriments. :smart:

 

Very interesting. So both positive and negative results have been observed.

 

I expect this is an issue that isn't readily observable as it is so rare (or at least rarely seen) in humanity. Results of further study would be fascinating, but I even feel uncomfortable talking about a study of brother/sister incest.:doh:

[InfiniteNow]

Why can't gays marry? Because then hamsters and jackels can screw? Seriously, shut the hell up...

 

 

Black people are 2/3 of a person too... :doh:

 

Women don't have the mental capacity to vote... :smart: :evil:

 

 

It's 2006, not 1006.

[Turtle]

Here's the latest I have found that touches on the genetic issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consanguinity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

At least from the animal husbandry evidence, there are advantages to incestuous offspring as well as detriments.

Very interesting. So both positive and negative results have been observed.

 

I expect this is an issue that isn't readily observable as it is so rare (or at least rarely seen) in humanity. Results of further study would be fascinating, but I even feel uncomfortable talking about a study of brother/sister incest.:)

 

I agree about the difficulty of gathering reliable data, and Boerseun pointed this out as well. I do not suggest undertaking human experiments either :hyper: , but given the data we have and statistical extrapolations of it the practice while rare perhaps, is consistantly extant.

At the risk of drifting onto the topic of the thread, the difficulty comes yet again from intermixing religio-cultural criteria with secular law. It is reasonable that children deserve special protection, both from sexual abuse by adults as well as from prosecution for sex play with peers. Once past puberty a person ought to be considred an adult in regard to sexual behavior and free to form any union they care to.

I don't think governments should recognize any marriages. It's a religious concept, hence it being a sensative issue in the face of reform. The only reason it's an issue in the US is for insurance and tax purposes.

Well put! At best - to accomadate taxation and insurance - it is reasonable to have one civil union statute without all the religious claptrap.:)

[TheFaithfulStone]

Once past puberty a person ought to be considred an adult in regard to sexual behavior and free to form any union they care to.

 

Yes, think of the life I'd be living if I had been able to make my own decisions when I was 15 or 16!

 

I imagine it involves a van, perhaps a river. Ahhh to dream.

 

But then considering you aren't really fully grown until you're 19 to 21, maybe that's not such a bad idea.

 

TFS