"Why not polygamous marriage?"

bookitty said:
I know it has already been mentioned but seriously, dead people can not consent, children can not consent. Adults can consent and can make rational decisions.
Click to expand...

His style of argument is pretty silly too. It assumes "Ick" is a logical argument and tries to convince others that they secretly think so too. "I think 'Ick' on this issue, you think 'Ick' on that one so I must be right by default!"
 
JJM 777 said:
Equalling the mental abilities of "children" (an undefined and thus vague = meaningless concept, by the way) with those of dead people is not a very good example of critical thinking.
Click to expand...

No I am linking their ability to consent. Neither can.

And no, I will not be joining in another 40 page thread about how adults should be allowed to have sex with children as long as the adults are really, really nice about it.
 
JJM 777 said:
Equalling the mental abilities of "children" (an undefined and thus vague = meaningless concept, by the way) with those of dead people is not a very good example of critical thinking.
Click to expand...
The legal standard that a 10 year old can't consent to sex is not a meaningless concept.
 
bookitty said:
No I am linking their ability to consent. Neither can.
Click to expand...

Forgive me for being crude but if a dead body "can't give sexual consent" then neither can a sex toy. I think there are good reasons to be opposed to necrophilia that don't appeal to "Ick" but consent is not one of them.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Forgive me for being crude but if a dead body "can't give sexual consent" then neither can a sex toy. I think there are good reasons to be opposed to necrophilia that don't appeal to "Ick" but consent is not one of them.
Click to expand...

I'm with Merv on this. A dead body is just an inanimate object.

Off-topic: Then again, my views on corpses are unusual; I don't see a problem with funerary cannibalism, for instance.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Forgive me for being crude but if a dead body "can't give sexual consent" then neither can a sex toy. I think there are good reasons to be opposed to necrophilia that don't appeal to "Ick" but consent is not one of them.
Click to expand...

My entire (original) paragraph was crudely written. I was preempting a slippery slope.
 
bookitty said:
My entire (original) paragraph was crudely written. I was preempting a slippery slope.
Click to expand...

thats ok, some of us noticed your familiarity with scene terminology, even if everyone didn't :D

no worries I won't tell anyone


:degrin:
 
Marduk said:
thats ok, some of us noticed your familiarity with scene terminology, even if everyone didn't :D

no worries I won't tell anyone


:degrin:
Click to expand...

I've got the words but no deeds to back it up. My personal life is beyond vanilla and heading towards white bread. Very far end of the heterosexual scale, no experimentation, married 12 years to a guy with whom monogamy is a shared kink, and perfectly happy with standard fare in the bedroom. Honestly, even though it makes us happy, I wouldn't force our lifestyle on anyone.
 
AvalonXQ said:
I'm with Merv on this. A dead body is just an inanimate object.

Off-topic: Then again, my views on corpses are unusual; I don't see a problem with funerary cannibalism, for instance.
Click to expand...
Which of course deflects the point that the legal requirement for consent is pointed out in rebuttal to those who try to demonize gay marriage, polygamy, or equal rights in general by conflating them with the crimes committed by pedophiles and necros.
 
crimresearch said:
The legal standard that a 10 year old can't consent to sex is not a meaningless concept.
Click to expand...
You see a difference between "to be able to" and "to have the legal right to"? If not, then many impossible things happen in the world. Things what cannot happen, happen. Some people do what they cannot do.
 
JJM 777 said:
You see a difference between "to be able to" and "to have the legal right to"?
Click to expand...

Yes. The difference is pragmatism. We know babies can't consent but average adults can. As a matter of practicality and consistency we have to draw a line somewhere. It's the same reason we don't allow 4 year olds, no matter how precocious, to sign mortgage agreements.
 
Last edited:
JJM 777 said:
You see a difference between "to be able to" and "to have the legal right to"? If not, then many impossible things happen in the world. Things what cannot happen, happen. Some people do what they cannot do.
Click to expand...
Which of course, is still carrying water (or straw) for nonsense.

The meme that needs to be shot down every time it appears, is that tolerance of gay people, poly, equal rights, etc. will lead to legalizing crimes like bestiality, pedophile rape, and necrophiliac defilement.

Those types of assertion dishonestly leave out the fact that the legal situation is based on (among other things) consent.

The 'tolerate everything' comparisons are built not only on a contempt for tolerance and equality, but on trivializing the idea of non-consent.
 
Last edited:
crimresearch said:
'tolerate everything' comparisons are built not only on a contempt for tolerance and equality, but on trivializing the idea of non-consent.
Click to expand...
I am not promoting a "tolerate everything" view.

I am just sick of seeing misleading and discussion-killer expressions like "cannot" (whose meaning is: "is unable to") in a rational discussion where the intention is "has no legal right, in the opinion of the ruling party in country X (while some discussers are in fact living in country Z), which was voted into power with 56,4% vote share in the elections of last August".
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
I'm not against polygamy because it's non-traditional (an argument which is nonsense because it's very traditional in many place). I'm against it because I think it does harm, as I've already explained. And the harm which I think it does isn't applicable to gay marriage. So why would I oppose gay marriage?
Click to expand...

The reason to oppose gay marriage, I would say, apart from the absurdity of the whole proposition -- but then again human beings accept all kinds of absurdities -- is what I said before: that many people's real cause in supporting gay marriage is to undermine marriage in general, not because gay marriage itself does it, but because they will then demand polygamy -- as they do right now -- and then incest and pedophilia or zoophilia be legalized, too.

I can certainly see the point of fairness towards gays, but here, but the cause have been taken over by the "destroy marriage by stages" crowd. For this reason I think perhaps gay relationship recognition should stop at civil unions which are equivalent in all but name to marriage. This is perhaps unfair to gays, but the unfairness is small (and more or less formal, as opposed to actual) compared to the damage prevented by having the "down with marriage" crowd get a huge victory, let alone the potential damage to equality of the sexes if polygamy is legalized.
 
JJM 777 said:
I am not promoting a "tolerate everything" view.

I am just sick of seeing misleading and discussion-killer expressions like "cannot" (whose meaning is: "is unable to") in a rational discussion where the intention is "has no legal right, in the opinion of the ruling party in country X (while some discussers are in fact living in country Z), which was voted into power with 56,4% vote share in the elections of last August".
Click to expand...
I specified an objection to the meme that tolerating equality must lead to tolerance for crimes... how do you get I am not promoting a "tolerate everything" view as a logical response to that?

And how do you get from a discussion of law and crimes to the obvious point that 'cannot consent doesn't' mean 'not able to' in a non-legal context?
We are discussing what is and isn't allowed under the law, not whether or not a child is capable of performing a sex act.

Both of those seem waaaaaaaaay off base.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom