Gay Marriages.........

So if we legalized it would it still be considered incest by definition?

 

in the fact that it is between a brother and sister(or whatever), yes...as in illegal.. no

i dont see what this has to do with anything..

 

Just curious.

I think it's interesting that (if you go by definition) when you legalize incest it ceases to exist.

 

I agree with you that the argument for same-sex marriage can parrallel the argument for polygamy, polyandry, and incest.

The most compelling reason to argue against incest is protection of children from sexual exploitation. This is how power comes into play with incest. Society has an extemely compelling interest in doing everything it can to prevent fathers and brothers from viewing their daughters and sisters in a sexualized manner. Also, parental authority established during childhood has a lating impact, dominating what would otherwise be the child's freedom of choice.

Polygamy/polyandry does not have as clear of an argument. One argument is, same-sex marriage is asking for the right to marry who you want, not how many you want. Where would you draw a logical limit to the number of legal spouses? Is it two, four, fifty, sixteen thousand? Another credible argument is that polygamy/polyandry threaten the social safety net by diluting social insurance. If a polygamist dies, the presumably severeal spouses would have to divide his social security benefits, making an already small income even smaller. Though little empirical data exists, many critics of polygamy argue that it has been rife with abuses, including forced marraige, sexual exploitation of minors, and welfare dependency. This is what I was referring to by power, and, I admit, it is a weak argument. I should not have assumed that such antisocial behaviour is inherent in the lifestyle itself. That argument has been used against gays and lesbians very often.

 

Why draw a limit?

Very trivial, and still the individuals decision.

Interesting point, and I realize you acknowledge this, but I feel I have to say that making something illegal doesn't stop bad effects from happening...never has, it just escalates the problem. And in this case it's a little like curing the disease by killing the patient.

 

What evidence do you have for this? Public policy might never eliminate harmful behaviors, but it can certainly impact their prevalence. As for gay "marriage," I'll refer you to the previous thread on the subject:

http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27329

 

Why draw a limit? Again, I go back to power (as one example). What is to stop a cult leader to convince large numbers of weak-minded women to marry him? I understand that he may still brainwash and control them, but marriage would add a large degree of legal difficulties when the individual realizes the situation and wants to leave, or, as in Waco, the government intervenes in an attempt to free the cult members. Also, a man could marry several older women, presumably without the knowledge that each other exists, and wait for them to die & collect inheritance. Polygamy, by default, diminishes the intimacy of marriage, doesn't it?

Very trivial - I don't think it is very trivial if my tax dollars will have to go to support these women and the many children they could produce. Of course, this is not foolproof, or a good argument, but it is my opinion. A man can still produce many children with several women without marrying them, and my tax dollars support them, and no laws have been broken. While a ban on polygamy may not be a very effective plan for saving tax monies, I do think we need something to ensure that citizens are taking financial responsibility for themselves. Again, this is still posible with polygamy, but polygamy seems to me to be one more way to increase social responsibility, and reduce individual responsibility.

Is it still the individuals choice? If we are speaking of mentally and physically healthy individuals, who are participating with explicit consent, and accept all responsibility for their choices, ultimately I think yes, it is their choice. I think that we do, however, have a responsibility to try and protect the feeble minded, the ill, the weak, etc.

 

We're getting way too abstract here. But an example, let's see? The war on drugs for one. Hmmmm, alcohol restrictions. Now I do think there should be restrictions on alcohol in our country, but if you look at many european countries where there are less restrictions on alcohol (legal drinking age mainly) they have far less problems with underage drunken behaviour than we do, because it's not exciting to them when it's not illegal. Hmmmmm, Smoking in public places...they say yiou can't smoke indoors here, but people still do it. Making something illegal is not an effective deterant these days is all I'm saying. If people want something bad enough, they'll get it. Anyway, I'm bored with this topic now, so don't bother responding........

 

Just look at the success of Just Say No, our drug war is a raving success!

Also, 5 a day! What a success! Obesity it OVER!

*obvious sarcasm*

 

forgive me for being dense, but how does this relate to gay marriage? I think I am missing something.

Are you saying that drugs will always exist, people will alway suffer, Kerry/Edwards want an impossible utopia, and gays shouldn't marry?

-or-

Gays should/shouldn't marry because people will suffer?

Please elaborate...

 

I <3 Al Franken's anti-Bush ad spoof:

"While George W. Bush is against GAY marriage, he's soft on TERRORIST MARRIAGE.

". . .Because after all, terrorists can BREED."

As to my opinion, this SHOULD be a total non-issue, as all agruments against either contradict separtation of church and state, or are downright discriminatory.

 

All I know is it better be legal because the next person I marry is NOT going to be a non-dish doing, dirty sock on floor leaving, lazy ass, egotistical, idiotic worthless piece of crap MAN.
And I'm still going to wear the gown dammit