I'll need to hear that from staff.Please do!
Also, should head and butt be separate threads?
Could I have a roll call vote from the RF elite? @Smart_Guy
Tom
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'll need to hear that from staff.Please do!
Well, I doubt they thought about it much.Yes, I'm sure the Founding Fathers had allowing incest and polygamy in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights. I'm sure they really wanted a hedonistic free for all. Yes, you're correct.
Asking is fine.Mentally healthy people don't have to ask. It's like asking why it's disgusting for parents and their children to have sex together. There's an innate revulsion to it that is there from evolution. There are genetic problems with it and psychiatric problems, too. It's very unhealthy and it ruins family.
I'll need to hear that from staff.
Also, should head and butt be separate threads?
Could I have a roll call vote from the RF elite? @Smart_Guy
Tom
I just like making you blushI'm afraid I don't understand how I can help in this
Incest has other problems. Family dynamics are not always about love and care. If two people think that their best mate for life is a close relative, the odds of them both freely, and comp
etently, choosing the marriage are minute.
I would fully expect some investigation to be sure.
Tom
But what important reason would the state have for getting involved?I would take no issue with polygamy. It is a pretty common traditional arrangement.
But what important reason would the state have for getting involved?
Inheritance rights, medical decisions, shared responsibilities, among others.
Isn't that why government registering of any arrangements would be needed?But in a multiple marriage none of that would be clear. That is my point. In a modern marriage the issues are settled unless the parties choose something else, deliberately. If they want to do that they don't need the government.
Tom
but, the legal requirements for such a marriage could be established to make things clear. For example, for a long time, the right of the spouse to make decisions for the other in medical situations of incompetence was assumed. Now, increasingly, we are having to specify through living wills what those arrangements are to be. It would make sense that one requirement of marriage is that those questions have to be answered in the marriage agreement itself.But in a multiple marriage none of that would be clear. That is my point. In a modern marriage the issues are settled unless the parties choose something else, deliberately. If they want to do that they don't need the government.
Tom
The parties involved could make any ambiguities clear.But in a multiple marriage none of that would be clear. That is my point. In a modern marriage the issues are settled unless the parties choose something else, deliberately. If they want to do that they don't need the government.
Tom