Battle to Legalize Polygamy

[Madman]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Yes, but is 'yuck' any grounds for illegality?

Yup!

"Yuk" is grounds for illegality in Madman's book and probably a few other books.

If a person desires to have sexual relations with your cousin, kids, aunt, mother, grandmother, sister or brother. That is not considered "normal." It just doesn't seem "right." It seems "groose."

[Ibby]

But I fail to see how that constitutes illigality. I personally think eating fish is just nasty, but does that mean that you should all not eat fish just because i dont like it?

[DanaC]

So same sex incest is ok, because there'll be no offspring. And it's ok to fuck your mom if you use a rubber. Got it.

Precisely!

then we should arrest mothers who drink/smoke/do drugs while pregnant on assault charges? All can cause defects in the baby after all...

My point was more that there is a genetic drive towards making incest taboo. Long before we knew about genetics, we had taboos about incest. These were abandoned when people got the idea of 'purity' of blood, but that was a departure from a a mode of thought which predates the politics of religion, morals or race.

Whether it should be illegal, is a different matter. I have a problem with laws prohibiting the way people deal with their private life, but the reality is most people aren't attracted to their siblings sexually, precisely because we have a genetic need not to be.

Arresting someone for smoking, drinking or taking drugs during pregnancy carries wiht it the complication of addiction. If someone chose to do those things, free from the drive of addiction I'd say that was an unacceptable level of cruelty if they then bore that child. Addiction is a tough thing to break though, particularly during the stress of pregnancy so whilst there is a level of culpability, there should also in my view be a level of societal compassion.

[Ibby]

from Positive Liberty:

Originally Posted by Timothy Sandefur

Kuznicki raises an intriguing question about plural marriage: wouldn’t state recognition of (consensual, adult) polygamy have effects on existing monogamous marriages, in a way that recognizing same-sex marriage would not? That is, if the government recognizes polygamy as legal, wouldn’t a married person then be free to marry another, in a way that he or she was not, before—thus altering the dynamic?

Full Article

[9th Engineer]

Not a problem if marriage is not longer give special recognition by the government. I heard of some piece of legislation in New York that removed the financial perks from being married, not sure of the details. The idea used to be to encourage people to get married and raise kids, since we seemed to have established that that is no longer going to be the recognized 'official' function of marriage we can probably agree that you can end the compensations on the same logic.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by case

I agree. I think it really is that way and what struck me the most was the last part..."own two cars...[own] two women." I think that is what bothers me most about this idea. The idea that two people own each other or one owns the other. I know that is not the intention in most relationships. Of course, everyone has their own ideas on what a relationship should be, but why should we be able to dictate that on a legal level to the degree that if a person wants to be married to more than one person, he/she cannot?

I am, of course, speaking from my version of the prevailing male-centric sociological view. It is not a view I share, and my characterization of women being equivalent to cars as property is a use of absurdism to illustrate what I see as the effective operating norm.

Two people should not own one another, unless that is the stated and unequivocal wish of *both* partners. As far as I am concerned, adult people should be able to marry whomever they wish, in whatever quantities they so desire, live in any configuration they choose, boff whomever in whatever *consenting* fashion seems like fun and doesn't result in serious injury or death. That said, I can see a reasonable case for allowing only one-partner, one set of benefits situations, but they shouldn't be based on gender. Homosexual marriages should be legal, and benefits should be extended identically as they would be in heterosexual unions.

The *only* reason this is not allowed is because a specific form of *religious* morality is being allowed to be foisted upon us.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by Griff

hmmm... cut back on conversation by 50%, always another guy around when yer building something, draw straws to cover the wife's companies' holiday parties, 50% reduction in crayola check off boxes... we may be on to something.

I know you meant this as a joke, but in truth...that's how it worked for me and Selene's now-ex when she and I first hooked up. He was my best friend. We got drunk and watched football together, worked on the house, and did other guy stuff quite a bit.

For those of you who have the obvious prurient question running through your heads...no, we did *not* double up on Selene. Those sorts of things were always one on one.

And, as I am, as I have mentioned quite a bit by now, a flaming heterosexual, neither did he and I engage in carnal pasttimes together. Drunken football watching was as intimate as we got.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

The idea used to be to encourage people to get married and raise kids, since we seemed to have established that that is no longer going to be the recognized 'official' function of marriage...

It was never restricted to only couples capable of conceiving. It still serves the same purpose of encouraging and helping couples raising children, whether or not every couple has them. And plenty of gay couples have and raise children, regardless of the conception method.

[kerosene]

Originally Posted by Elspode

I am, of course, speaking from my version of the prevailing male-centric sociological view. It is not a view I share, and my characterization of women being equivalent to cars as property is a use of absurdism to illustrate what I see as the effective operating norm.

Two people should not own one another, unless that is the stated and unequivocal wish of *both* partners. As far as I am concerned, adult people should be able to marry whomever they wish, in whatever quantities they so desire, live in any configuration they choose, boff whomever in whatever *consenting* fashion seems like fun and doesn't result in serious injury or death. That said, I can see a reasonable case for allowing only one-partner, one set of benefits situations, but they shouldn't be based on gender. Homosexual marriages should be legal, and benefits should be extended identically as they would be in heterosexual unions.

The *only* reason this is not allowed is because a specific form of *religious* morality is being allowed to be foisted upon us.

I think we are speaking the same language, here.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by case

I think we are speaking the same language, here.

Seems like there are several of us with the same views.