Homosexuality, Incest and Polygamy

michel · Nov 19, 2005

Good post Ceridwen; I agree. The points you make about polygamy or polyandry are, from my point of view, to be seen in the light of the social effect, and how such a system would influence the family unit.

As I related earlier, having heard people in polygamous relationships interviewed, ther greatest problem seemed to be with jealousy between the wives, and the feelings of a need for each one to prove herself 'better' than the next.

The only fully satisfied member of the family (hardly unsurprisingly) was the husband, although he did have one comment to make; "Imagine being nagged at by many wives instead of just the one".........my heart bled for him.

I wonder though, if there have ever been societies where one wife has had more than one husband......well, what is good for the Gander...........

I agree with you about the points you make about incest; the subject is one which evokes many unpleasant emotions....and the fact that" in some states, kids can be married as young as 10 with parental consent--some states don't even have limits, just so they can legally sexually abuse them? " is one that I hadn't even thought of - it is completely alien to us here; I don't even want 'to go there'.

Jaymes · Nov 19, 2005

bartdanr said:
I believe most jurisdictions have laws against incestuous sexual relations...of course, such 'bedroom' laws are generally not enforceable.

I wasn't aware of that... I was going to say if there aren't any laws against it that it's not like denying them marriage rights would stop them, but I guess that shoots that argument down.

By being 'wary' about inbreeding, do you think that that specificially merits law? For example, should it be legal to enter into an incestuous marriage, so long as no children are conceived? Or should this be a consequence we should be wiling to allow?

I think if someone of very close kin (first cousins, siblings, aunt and nephew, whatever other combinations you can come up with) wants to wed, one should undergo sterilization. It would be irresponsible to not make sure children can't be produced.

I think that specifying certain relationships as illegal because of the possibility of birth defects, but allowing others that also have higher than average possibility of birth defects, is descriminatory. I believe that the main reason that incestuous marriages are illegal is the 'ick' factor...but that's the same reason that most people object to homosexual marriage as well.

Exactly. There's no reason to deny people marriage rights just because it makes us go 'eeewwww!' (Unless someone's being hurt. It seems every time I say something about marriage I need to throw that disclaimer in.

)

However, this brings up a point: what is the purpose of marriage and marriage law?

IMO, to let two (should be two or more, I believe) individuals obtain the rights associated with marriage (time off work when a partner's sick, hospital visitation rights, etc).

Why does the State recognize certain relationships as changing the legal identity of those that enter into that relationship?

I don't know enough about law to answer that. I'd say 'because they benefit society,' but unless you sit around on welfare all day, you probably do that anyway. ('You' being general, not specifically you)

Click to expand...

Sunstone · Nov 19, 2005

I've never heard of a healthy case of incest where one or both partners didn't come to regret it and feel harmed by it. Has anyone?

Basically, I'm staunchly against homosexuality and polygamy for the same fundamental reason: Someone out there might be having more fun than me.:sarcastic

Jaymes · Nov 19, 2005

I recall a case on Oprah or somesuch a while back where a half brother and sister got married and were in a happy relationship until they found out they had the same father. From what I remember, the woman was rather upset by it. I didn't watch to see how it ended, though. :areyoucra

Sunstone · Nov 19, 2005

Sometimes the people you see on talk shows like Oprah are actors paid to dramatize the issues by posing as "real people". (If you ever get a chance, check out the help wanted ads in the Village Voice for talk shows soliciting actors to appear on their shows as "real people") I don't know if Oprah is one of the talk shows that uses paid actors, but I know the practice is widespread. So, I would be cautious about accepting an incestous couple seen on Oprah as true and real.

jamaesi · Nov 19, 2005

I've never heard of a healthy case of incest where one or both partners didn't come to regret it and feel harmed by it. Has anyone?

I've been looking up on Google for pro-incest materials- and really only coming up with websites for incest abuse surviviours and, well, some awful pornogaphy.

Royal families practiced incest, and it's somewhat common in parts of the Middle East- probably other places too, but I don't know for a fact... and some of those relationships turned out happy.

I'm grabbing at straws now, but- there was an incestous relationship in Gone With the Wind where they didn't seem harmed by it. (Well, Miss O'Hara was, but she wasn't in the relationship.)

bartdanr · Nov 20, 2005

Jensa said:
I wasn't aware of that... I was going to say if there aren't any laws against it that it's not like denying them marriage rights would stop them, but I guess that shoots that argument down.
I think if someone of very close kin (first cousins, siblings, aunt and nephew, whatever other combinations you can come up with) wants to wed, one should undergo sterilization. It would be irresponsible to not make sure children can't be produced.
Exactly. There's no reason to deny people marriage rights just because it makes us go 'eeewwww!' (Unless someone's being hurt. It seems every time I say something about marriage I need to throw that disclaimer in. )
IMO, to let two (should be two or more, I believe) individuals obtain the rights associated with marriage (time off work when a partner's sick, hospital visitation rights, etc).
I don't know enough about law to answer that. I'd say 'because they benefit society,' but unless you sit around on welfare all day, you probably do that anyway. ('You' being general, not specifically you)

Hi Jensa, thanks for your post.

Do we really want to open the can of worms of having the state require that certain individuals be sterilized? What would stop the state from requiring people with other genetic diseases to be forcibly sterilized? Can we really single out just incest?

BTW, I really appreciate that people in general have not gotten really emotional and irrational in this debate. It's refreshing to see people acting like civil human beings.

Peace

bartdanr · Nov 20, 2005

Ceridwen018 said:
I am not personally opposed to polygamy or polyandry as far as morality goes. I don't think that there is a huge demand for it in this country, ie, most people are pretty jealous by nature, and probably wouldn't be happy in such a relationship, but that doesn't mean that legalizing it would be harmful. It would be difficult, however, as far as taxes, registration, and everything else goes. Susie may be married to Rob and John, who in turn have other wives, who in turn have other husbands, do you see where I'm going? In order to keep a situation like polygamy and polyandry from getting too confusing, (and therefore impossible for the government to keep track of), certain regulations would have to be set in place, perhaps limiting the number of spouses that one person is allowed to have at one time.

By making polygamy and polyandry legal, other obstacles would also be encountered. The divorce rate would probably skyrocket, as would tax fraud by way of "sham marriages". We have sham marriages now, without a doubt, but these would become much more numerous and more easily attained, in my opinion, if polygamy were made legal.

As for incest, I'm still not sure about it. I admit I am struggling with my own personal biases when I talk about incest, but that aside, I feel incest is an entirely different barrel of monkeys compared to homosexual marriage and polygamy/polyandry. I think that the legalization of incest would almost be congruent with the legalization of sexual abuse in familes. Little girls and boys are sexually abused enough as it is by their parents and older siblings. If incest is made legal, who is to say that parents will not influence their young kids to marry them, (in some states, kids can be married as young as 10 with parental consent--some states don't even have limits), just so they can legally sexually abuse them?

I think that all marriage can be abused in some way or another, but I think that the abuses possible with incest outweigh any good it could bring.

Hi Cerdiwen, thanks for your post.

I appreciate what you said. However, I made it clear in the OP that I was not talking about minors, but about consenting adults.

Now, I think we should examine the wisdom of allowing young children to marry, regardless of the laws regarding incest. I'd view it as sexual abuse for a 10 year old child to marry, regardless if their spouse was a relative or not.

So if we limited the discussion to consenting adults (say at least age 18, if not 21), what legal basis can or should we use to limit the right to marry? I don't find the birth defect argument particularly compelling, unless we look at fairly applying the law--that is, not allowing marriage of others who are likely to pass on birth defects to their children.

Now, what you said about the legal ramifications of polygamy/polyandry: I agree, it could enormously complicate matters. But what are the legal benefits and/or detriments to marriage? Should they exist? What is the purpose of the legal recognition of marriage at all? (I'm not saying there is no purpose, but I'd really like to know the rationale used behind any marriage law, even heterosexual monagamous marriage.)

Peace

standing_alone · Nov 21, 2005

Here's my view on the matter. I'm not even going to go into incest, just homosexual marriage and polygamy. To me, marraige is (or should be) an institution for two adults only (based on love, hopefully) to declare that they are dedicating their lives to take care of their partner, to be the first person that that person has for aid in any sickness or problem. They are making a public vow that they, and not the state, will be responsible for the care of that person first. To me, polygamy would not be able to meet this criteria, since I don't think the one spouse could aduequetely care for all of their other spouses in the whole dedicating time to care for that person and fufill their vows. A marriage of two (and only two) heterosexuals or homosexuals can fufill this obligation. I hope you all follow what I'm saying. Another thing with polygamy is that, historically, it was based on a hierarchy where (typically) higher class men would take several wives and generally the more wives he had, the higher his status. Also, polygamy was often used to dominate women. I'm not saying that this is always the case, this is just my view on this matter.

bartdanr · Nov 22, 2005

standing_alone said:
Here's my view on the matter. I'm not even going to go into incest, just homosexual marriage and polygamy. To me, marraige is (or should be) an institution for two adults only (based on love, hopefully) to declare that they are dedicating their lives to take care of their partner, to be the first person that that person has for aid in any sickness or problem. They are making a public vow that they, and not the state, will be responsible for the care of that person first. To me, polygamy would not be able to meet this criteria, since I don't think the one spouse could aduequetely care for all of their other spouses in the whole dedicating time to care for that person and fufill their vows. A marriage of two (and only two) heterosexuals or homosexuals can fufill this obligation. I hope you all follow what I'm saying. Another thing with polygamy is that, historically, it was based on a hierarchy where (typically) higher class men would take several wives and generally the more wives he had, the higher his status. Also, polygamy was often used to dominate women. I'm not saying that this is always the case, this is just my view on this matter.

Hi Standing, thanks for the post.

Your definition makes a lot of sense, and I can see how it could be used to support monogamous marriage. It also is entering into a legally-enforceable contract (i.e., a partner could be help legally responsible when the other partner needs assistance).

I would further add that marriage is used to protect children, if any, that result from a marriage. (Even in a homosexual marriage there could be adoption). The partners in a marriage become legally responsible for the well-being of the children in this family. Of course, parents are still legally responsible for children that result from sexual activity outside of marriage (though sperm donation is a complication to this general rule.)

What are some other people's thoughts on this? What is the purpose in legally defining marriage? If it was only a declaration of love, then I would think that there should be no legal recognition of marriage--just a religious or social ceremony. I think that if the State is to get involved in recognizing marriages, then it must be something more.

Peace

James the Persian · Nov 22, 2005

michel said:
I wonder though, if there have ever been societies where one wife has had more than one husband......well, what is good for the Gander...........

I know of one, though I'm not sure if they still follow the practice. It certainly used to be reasonably common in some Tibetan communities that a woman would marry two brothers. I don't recall hearing of there ever being more than two husbands or of the husbands being unrelated, but this arrangement seems to have had practical reasons revolving around the difficulties of a semi-nomadic lifestyle of yak herding. If I remember correctly (though what I know is poorly remembered information gleaned from a lama in my Buddhist past) both husbands were considered to be equally the father of any offspring regardless of whose it was biologically - there are, of course, obvious practical reasons for this!

James

bartdanr · Nov 23, 2005

JamesThePersian said:
I know of one, though I'm not sure if they still follow the practice. It certainly used to be reasonably common in some Tibetan communities that a woman would marry two brothers. I don't recall hearing of there ever being more than two husbands or of the husbands being unrelated, but this arrangement seems to have had practical reasons revolving around the difficulties of a semi-nomadic lifestyle of yak herding. If I remember correctly (though what I know is poorly remembered information gleaned from a lama in my Buddhist past) both husbands were considered to be equally the father of any offspring regardless of whose it was biologically - there are, of course, obvious practical reasons for this!

James

Hi James, thanks for posting.

I saw a travelog show on TV several months ago, and they showed a modern wedding ceremony where a Tibetan woman was marrying three men (well, two were really no more than boys). I think, but I'm not sure, that the men/boys were all brothers.

Peace

Homosexuality, Incest and Polygamy

michel

Administrator Emeritus

Jaymes

The cake is a lie

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora

Jaymes

The cake is a lie

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora

jamaesi

To Save A Lamb

bartdanr

Member

bartdanr

Member

standing_alone

Well-Known Member

bartdanr

Member

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin

bartdanr

Member