Time to Allow Polyamorous Marraiges

Do gay marriages have the incest exceptions?

Or is it legal for me to marry my brother?

In which case, it would be discrimination based on sex to outlaw me marrying my sister. Therefor, incest is legal.

If I can marry either sex, why not both? Seems like an arbitrary law to limit how many of something I can have. Must society ration partners? There's no limit on sequential marriages, why the limit to consecutive? Hmm, think of a man who fathers several children by sequential wives today. Wouldn't the kids be better off if they all lived together in one house? Just various women might come and go....

How did the kids from hippy communes work out? It's the only example I can think of where the parents were not the usual religious whackos.

The main problem I can see is that all the polygamists we hear of are religious wackos. Nothing wrong with extended families, it's how we used to live 100 years ago. A family farm might have 3-4 generations living on it. Heather had four mommies- Gramma, a couple aunts, and mommy. And just as many 'fathers'. So I think the potential of polygamy would be umm like adoption of more relatives? "Uncle Louie is coming to stay" wouldn't cause any uproar, would it? Why should an additional wife?
 
casebro said:
Do gay marriages have the incest exceptions?
Click to expand...

Incest isn't an "exception." It's simply a crime. You don't have to get married to commit incest. You do, however, have to get married to commit gay marriage.

Or is it legal for me to marry my brother?
Click to expand...

Are you both adults and freely consenting? I don't see why it should be illegal in that case.

In which case, it would be discrimination based on sex to outlaw me marrying my sister.
Click to expand...

If incest were legal, and if incestuous marriage were legal, you could marry your adult, consenting sister. But neither of those is true.


Therefor, incest is legal.
Click to expand...

No....if we put those two sentences back together for a second, you seem to be arguing that discrimination renders some things legal. But no...discrimination is a consequence of someone being denied something that is already legal and to which they have a right.

Incest, married or not, is still illegal.

Making incest legal is another thread.
 
Alex Libman said:
OK, we can have a transitional step where marriage is privatized but the government still subsidizes the legal costs to the same degree it does now.
Click to expand...

The thing is, it doesn't subsidize the legal costs now. It defines the legal status. A status and a contract are not the same.

That's nowhere near good enough. They can only cover a limited part of the legal spectrum, the rest is imposed by government force (i.e. "family law") and should be gradually phased out.
Click to expand...

So you want no way to settle disputes over child custody?
 
slingblade said:
Incest isn't an "exception." It's simply a crime. You don't have to get married to commit incest. You do, however, have to get married to commit gay marriage.



Are you both adults and freely consenting? I don't see why it should be illegal in that case.



If incest were legal, and if incestuous marriage were legal, you could marry your adult, consenting sister. But neither of those is true.




No....if we put those two sentences back together for a second, you seem to be arguing that discrimination renders some things legal. But no...discrimination is a consequence of someone being denied something that is already legal and to which they have a right.

Incest, married or not, is still illegal.

Making incest legal is another thread.
Click to expand...

I think our definitions of incest differ. Mine is "sex between close relatives", yours seems to be "heterosexual sex between close relatives".

So, my premise is based on the question, "Is incest permitted in a homosexual marriage?"

Most states do have laws against marrying first cousins and closer. Are they applying those laws to gays?

Have we heard of any gay brothers legitimizing an incestuous relationship via marriage? At which point I might be discriminated against, due to the prohibition of a heterosexual incestuous marriage.
 
casebro said:
Do gay marriages have the incest exceptions?
Click to expand...

Well, setting aside the fact that you're conflating sex and marriage, the answer is yes. I'm not sure about "civil unions", but where same-sex marriage has been made legal it is by extending current marriage laws to same-sex couples. So, if sibling marriage, for example, is disallowed for straight couples, then it would be for gay couples as well.

Or is it legal for me to marry my brother?
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.
 
arthwollipot said:
No. You don't get to avoid answering my question by asking one of your own. Why do you think polyamorous marriages are "going too far"?
Click to expand...

And I think this is the question that needs to really be considered. Too many people call for government to prohibit or impose limits on things that don't make sense to me. For example, many cities in our area limit pet ownership to two per household. Why? Because some people don't like animals, and because some people feel that it's impossible to adequately care for more than two pets...yet four or five children are perfectly acceptable.

One of our local cities has an ordinance prohibiting more than two unrelated adults sharing a residence. How do they enforce that? (they don't, really) But more importantly, WHY should they enforce it? And does it even make sense to have such an ordinance in a college town with fraternity and sorority houses? If those can be exempt, then does it make any sense at all for the ordinance to exist? Are college students in what pretty much amounts to social clubs for some reason more important, or more worthy, than everyone else? If THEY cause no harm...why would adults in a marriage with multiple partners cause harm?

All of the debates surrounding marriage leave me wondering when there will be a push to limit the number of children people can have. I mean, if two wives is "going too far" in someone's opinion, what about people who hold the opinion that having four children, or six, or seven is "going too far"? After all, we all pay to educate people's children (unless they are privately schooled), but who's having to pay for someone having two wives? Why is two dogs or four dogs "too many" but having ten children is not? Do we really think it through when we expect government to impose restrictions on what amounts to personal preferences?

Another example--many local towns have imposed a restriction on parking Recreational Vehicles on one's property. They must be garaged or stored elsewhere. Because SOME neighbors don't like to look at them. How much of our lives do we want government involved in? The answer, to me, is starting to seem like *most* people want government in every part of everyone's life--except their own, that is.

If it isn't difficult for governments to IMPOSE restrictions, on frivolous things like RV's parked in driveways or garbage pickup or constructing fences to make some people "happy"...then it shouldn't be too difficult to REMOVE restrictions that are equally frivolous and make other people "unhappy".
 
sugarb said:
And I think this is the question that needs to really be considered. Too many people call for government to prohibit or impose limits on things that don't make sense to me. For example, many cities in our area limit pet ownership to two per household. Why? Because some people don't like animals, and because some people feel that it's impossible to adequately care for more than two pets...yet four or five children are perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...

And when is someone a cat hoarder? Limits on the number of animals make sense. What is wrong with 150 cats?
 
casebro said:
I think our definitions of incest differ. Mine is "sex between close relatives", yours seems to be "heterosexual sex between close relatives".
Click to expand...

I answered your question about two brothers marrying by saying that if incest were legal, they should be able to marry.

Slingblade said:
Are you (brothers) both adults and freely consenting? I don't see why it should be illegal in that case.
Click to expand...

How do you then get "heterosexual only" from my answer?

The problem is that incest is illegal, so no incestuous couple, neither hetero, homo, or other, can get married. It isn't their gender, but their blood relationship, that matters. Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't then also legalize incestuous marriage. It's a fully separate issue.

So, my premise is based on the question, "Is incest permitted in a homosexual marriage?"
Click to expand...

Incest is against the law. Why would recognizing gay marriage make incest legal?

Most states do have laws against marrying first cousins and closer. Are they applying those laws to gays?
Click to expand...

I've never seen any indication that they are not, so I assume they are. Have you seen such an indication? Have you read reports about legalizing incest in general, and/or legalizing it only for gay married couples? Who is considering such a move?

Have we heard of any gay brothers legitimizing an incestuous relationship via marriage?
Click to expand...

Why would we? Incest is still illegal, even where same-sex marriage is legal.

Are you just...I dunno, pretending to be a moron, that you don't get that being homosexual has nothing, in and of itself, to do with incest? Any more than being hetero has anything, in and of itself, to do with incest?

At which point I might be discriminated against, due to the prohibition of a heterosexual incestuous marriage.
Click to expand...

You have such a relationship?
 
ponderingturtle said:
And when is someone a cat hoarder? Limits on the number of animals make sense. What is wrong with 150 cats?
Click to expand...

Hoarders usually have obsessive compulsive or other types of disorders, and in the realm of animal ownership, hoarders are the exception, not the rule.

There is nothing wrong with 150 cats in an animal shelter, is there? (Aside from it being an indication that there are a lot of irresponsible people out there.) There is nothing wrong with 150 head of cattle. There's nothing wrong with zoos. There is nothing wrong with any number, as long as they have sufficient shelter, exercise, food, and care. Not everyone is too lazy to take care of animals.

What's wrong with ten cats? What's wrong with ten dogs? They certainly aren't as complex in caretaking as ten children would be, are they? They don't utilize what the public funds, nearly as much as ten children, do they? They don't add to an already overly burdened government provided health care program as much as ten children, do they? But we don't call people with more children than they can afford or be bothered to care for "hoarders". We call them poor and are expected to care for them. We offer at little to no cost program after program in an attempt to make those parents be parents...while the children live in conditions most of us would consider unacceptable. Those "parents" can reproduce year after year after year, adding to the problem...but there aren't laws against that. Why? They more often than not don't get jail time and have their children removed. Only in obvious cases of abuse and neglect, and even then they will very often have their children returned to them (at least once)...but with animals? We just apply a number, not a standard of acceptable care. And, by the way, many, many people have dozens of animals and care for them very well, and no, they aren't hoarders, and they never encounter problems with neighbors or animal enforcement. Being a hoarder involves more than a number. It involves sanitary conditions, mental status, and an inability to care for what one continues to acquire for some reason. There is no comparison between people with significant numbers of animals and "hoarding". I know the "crazy cat lady" myth is a stereotype that has been around a long time, but, although I'm not a huge fan of cats, all of the "crazy cat ladies" I know take exceptionally good care of their animals. Why should you or anyone else be able to tell them they can only have two on their own property?

Does that mean we care more about animals than children, in reality? Or...are we going back to what "the majority" considers a "normal family" and "acceptable household"? I mean, after all, "family" is all about propogating, apparently, and visas for spouses. Nothing else. So we should encourage having more children than one can adequately care for and pay attention to? While limiting pets and spouses. Yeah. That makes sense.

Except that it DOESN'T make sense. Not at all. In fact, it would make MORE sense to limit the numbers of children, since "hoarder" parents (parents who provide the same kind of living environment as animal hoarders) are more numerous and more costly to the system as a whole, on every level--legally, medically, academically, even socially, it could be argued. Not that I advocate doing that...but...if it "makes sense" for animals...and spouses...
 
Polygamous Marriages were here first. The question is not that they should be allowed. The question is that the disallowing should be undone.

Monogamy was an invention imposed on people by a monarchy that wanted better control of the people and a compact system of raising kids.

The monarchies are gone. So should be monogamy.

Gay marriages are springing up (ew) because today we have governments that are to represent the will of the people. It is a side effect of having Representative Republics. So should Polygamous marriages.

There is almost no cheating in polygamous marrages. We have monogamy to thank for the spread of STD's.

It is not a question of if monogamy will be gone. It is a question of when. It is a test of how intelligent and flexible and rational a species we are.

By the way, Puppy Cow:
時間がタイトルにスペルチェックを使用する。
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
Do gay marriages have the incest exceptions?

Or is it legal for me to marry my brother?

In which case, it would be discrimination based on sex to outlaw me marrying my sister. Therefor, incest is legal.
Click to expand...

Good quesiton.

Chris Crooker making out with his brother on YouTube made my pro-gay marrage belief waver.

There is no off spring from gay incest. So i guess it would be legal.
 
Bill Thompson said:
Good quesiton.

Chris Crooker making out with his brother on YouTube made my pro-gay marrage belief waver.

There is no off spring from gay incest. So i guess it would be legal.
Click to expand...

Legalizing gay marriage makes incest laws vanish? How does that happen, exactly?
 
I think what many people seem to be forgetting is that the law doesn't descend upon us.

We make the law, create the law, are the law and allow the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom