Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gay Marriage and Polygamy

ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 12:34:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why is it that most gay rights supporters get uncomfortable when the subject of polygamy comes up? All the arguments in favor of legalizing gay marriage are applicable to polygamy as well. And yet I know a lot of people who are strong passionate supporters of gay marriage, but don't support polygamy.

If you don't believe marriage should be confined to one man and one woman, how can you argue it should be confined to two men, or two women? Three men or three women are all still consenting adults so they should have the right to marry, no? Can anyone explain this hypocrisy?

This is not a thread to discuss whether or not gay marriage should be legalized. Please take that argument elsewhere
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 1:17:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 12:34:08 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Why is it that most gay rights supporters get uncomfortable when the subject of polygamy comes up? All the arguments in favor of legalizing gay marriage are applicable to polygamy as well. And yet I know a lot of people who are strong passionate supporters of gay marriage, but don't support polygamy.

If you don't believe marriage should be confined to one man and one woman, how can you argue it should be confined to two men, or two women? Three men or three women are all still consenting adults so they should have the right to marry, no? Can anyone explain this hypocrisy?

This is not a thread to discuss whether or not gay marriage should be legalized. Please take that argument elsewhere

First, the reason people do that is that most people cannot/do not think in analogies, especially about a topic close to them. Try telling a person who does X they are wrong, bad, or illegal. It isn't received well.

However, there is a huge difference between gay and multi marriages. Namely, probate.
Assuming there is no will, how are things to be divided between three wives upon death? Upon divorce?
In a marriage, the rule of thumb is 50% is mine, 50% hers, but, if I have three wives, it is 25% mine and 75% theirs, isn't it? Also, the 50% rule does not apply to previous assets, so, the second wife is actually entitled to less than the first.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 2:49:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 1:17:23 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/27/2015 12:34:08 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Why is it that most gay rights supporters get uncomfortable when the subject of polygamy comes up? All the arguments in favor of legalizing gay marriage are applicable to polygamy as well. And yet I know a lot of people who are strong passionate supporters of gay marriage, but don't support polygamy.

If you don't believe marriage should be confined to one man and one woman, how can you argue it should be confined to two men, or two women? Three men or three women are all still consenting adults so they should have the right to marry, no? Can anyone explain this hypocrisy?

This is not a thread to discuss whether or not gay marriage should be legalized. Please take that argument elsewhere

First, the reason people do that is that most people cannot/do not think in analogies, especially about a topic close to them. Try telling a person who does X they are wrong, bad, or illegal. It isn't received well.

Agreed, although I would hope that some people would be open minded enough to consider why they may be ok with one scenario but be opposed to another. I was able to get one of my friends to realize he was being inconsistent on these issues, and he now believes that both gay and multi marriages should be legal.

However, there is a huge difference between gay and multi marriages. Namely, probate.
Assuming there is no will, how are things to be divided between three wives upon death? Upon divorce?
In a marriage, the rule of thumb is 50% is mine, 50% hers, but, if I have three wives, it is 25% mine and 75% theirs, isn't it? Also, the 50% rule does not apply to previous assets, so, the second wife is actually entitled to less than the first.

I don't see the problem. In a marriage, the rule of thumb is that all of the assets are divided equally amongst all surviving partners. In the case of divorce, 50-50 as you said. In the case of death, 100% to the widow. In a multi marriage, the same rule is easily applied. As for previous assets, the court would just need to estimate how much wealth has been accumulated before the inclusion of the last member, and work backwards from there. Doesn't seem too complicated.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 3:04:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Practically speaking, polygamy would be a disaster. Humans are naturally a mildly polygamous species. But, what that leads to is a bunch of violent, horny men. For example, the polygamous Islamic culture is a classic case of this.

As of late in the USA, "sexual revolution" has brought about a slight movement back towards polygamy. This has led to increased rape rates and people like Elliot Rodger. So, monogamy may not be the prehistoric norm, but it has extreme social benefits in the form of social stability.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 4:26:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
My main question re: polygamy is this: who gets to marry? Do we give men rights to marry multiple women, women rights to marry multiple men, or both? I see practical issues with all of that.

I have some other concerns that relate mostly to societal cohesion, but I am not going to bother typing those out ATM b/c I am on my phone.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 4:27:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Generally speaking, however, I am open to the idea that polygamy isn't that bad an should be legalized.

Where I draw the line is maintaining the illegality of incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 4:29:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:27:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Generally speaking, however, I am open to the idea that polygamy isn't that bad an should be legalized.

Where I draw the line is maintaining the illegality of incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.

So incest between two consenting adults should not be allowed? Why not?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 4:35:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:29:53 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:27:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Generally speaking, however, I am open to the idea that polygamy isn't that bad an should be legalized.

Where I draw the line is maintaining the illegality of incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.

So incest between two consenting adults should not be allowed? Why not?

Because of the potential for exploitation. I can give you a fuller reply in about 30 minutes.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 4:36:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:35:24 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:29:53 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:27:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Generally speaking, however, I am open to the idea that polygamy isn't that bad an should be legalized.

Where I draw the line is maintaining the illegality of incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.

So incest between two consenting adults should not be allowed? Why not?

Because of the potential for exploitation. I can give you a fuller reply in about 30 minutes.

Please do so.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 4:39:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:26:07 PM, bsh1 wrote:
My main question re: polygamy is this: who gets to marry? Do we give men rights to marry multiple women, women rights to marry multiple men, or both? I see practical issues with all of that.


Most gay rights advocates say that gay marriage should be legal because everyone involved is a consenting adult. So if you extend that argument, any number of consenting adults (gender doesnt matter) should be allowed to marry. Including incest, as long as everyone involved is of age and consenting. So yes, men can marry multiple women or men, and women can marry multiple men or women.

What kind of practical issues do you see with legalizing multi marriages? I see none, if we are under the assumption that "traditional marriage" objections are not valid.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 4:42:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:27:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Generally speaking, however, I am open to the idea that polygamy isn't that bad an should be legalized.

Where I draw the line is maintaining the illegality of incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.

Incest would be fine under these parameters. Pedophilia would obviously not be, since children cannot consent to sex. Bestiality depends on whether you believe animals have rights. I don't, so if i were to accept legal gay marriage, i would not have a problem with allowing people to marry animals either. However, many people think animals have rights so they would probably argue that, similar to the pedophilia situation, animals cannot consent and therefore it should be illegal.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:34:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:39:29 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:26:07 PM, bsh1 wrote:
My main question re: polygamy is this: who gets to marry? Do we give men rights to marry multiple women, women rights to marry multiple men, or both? I see practical issues with all of that.


Most gay rights advocates say that gay marriage should be legal because everyone involved is a consenting adult.

I think that's a vast oversimplification of the issue. I am currently debating Zarroette on the issue of marriage [http://www.debate.org...] and one of the main areas of contention revolves around the purpose of marriage. This is an important question to at least consider, because if there is no point to marriage, why incentivize it? In fact, why have it at all?

Advocates of the traditionalist view of marriage argue that marriage is about procreation. They say that marriage facilitates a stable reproductive environment that will also form a stable family unit in which to raise a child.

I disagree. It is my belief that the purpose of marriage is, to put it in popular terms, promote the general welfare. There are several notable benefits that come from marriage: improved health of a family (and not just the children), greater wealth for the family, stronger civic and social ties, increase personal happiness, and so forth. Society thus has an incentive to allow marriage insofar as it furthers those goals.

My objection to polygamy rests on my belief that polygamous marriages are likely to spur higher levels of jealousy and competitiveness within the families, as well as placing greater strain on the primary spouse to divvy up his resources (time, money, affection, etc.) equally. I am also concerned that polygamous families may face undue financial burdens as a result of their larger families (more spouses, more children, etc.) So, ultimately, I believe the polygamy really isn't in keeping with what I understand to be the core purpose or value behind marriage.

So if you extend that argument, any number of consenting adults (gender doesnt matter) should be allowed to marry. Including incest, as long as everyone involved is of age and consenting. So yes, men can marry multiple women or men, and women can marry multiple men or women.

My issues with incest are that it is potentially exploitative, unhealthy, and dangerous for the children. Regarding exploitation, in some states, the age of consent is 16. In other locations, it can be even lower (e.g. in Iceland, where, last I heard, it was 14; or Afghanistan, were child marriages are common.) But, sticking with the U.S. example, let's say a 16 year old child is has reached the age of consent in a region where incest is legal. This child is financially and perhaps emotionally dependent on their parents, they have no where else to go (or feel as if that is the case), and have been taught to obey their parents all their lives (esp. in authoritarian households). If a parent asks their child to have sex with them, even absent any coercion, the child may feel as if it is impossible to say "no," because of the extent of their dependance on their parent. This feeling could be heightened if the parent persisted with the request, even if the parent never crossed any legal red line. So, the problem here is that legalized incest has severe potential for abuse; parents are in a position of power over their kids, and it may make it difficult for kids to rebuff parental advances.

Even after kids move out of the house at 18, they may still have significant levels of financial, emotional, or social dependance on their parents which leads to the same problem. And, just as a passing comment, children born of incestuous relationships are at a higher risk for illnesses such as hemophilia, which is inherently unfair to the child.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:40:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:42:51 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:27:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Generally speaking, however, I am open to the idea that polygamy isn't that bad an should be legalized.

Where I draw the line is maintaining the illegality of incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.

Incest would be fine under these parameters. Pedophilia would obviously not be, since children cannot consent to sex. Bestiality depends on whether you believe animals have rights. I don't, so if i were to accept legal gay marriage, i would not have a problem with allowing people to marry animals either. However, many people think animals have rights so they would probably argue that, similar to the pedophilia situation, animals cannot consent and therefore it should be illegal.

I already address incest, but I will speak briefly as to zoophilia (as it seems we agree re: pedophilia). Frankly, I believe that animals have a right to humane treatment, but even if I didn't believe that, I would still be against zoophilia.

Sex requires consent. Let's say we have a human being that is mentally handicapped, and whose intelligence is around that of a dog's. Why is it wrong to rape one, but not the other? There don't seem to be any morally relevant differences between the two (as far as I can see), and, so, inasmuch as I would say that one cannot have sex with that mentally handicapped person or with a young child, I would have to argue that it would be wrong to have sex with a dog.

The basic point: any sexual act between two or more beings, where at least one of them is capable of rational thought, requires consent to be justified, even if it is a sexual act with animals.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:40:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:36:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:35:24 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:29:53 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:27:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Generally speaking, however, I am open to the idea that polygamy isn't that bad an should be legalized.

Where I draw the line is maintaining the illegality of incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.

So incest between two consenting adults should not be allowed? Why not?

Because of the potential for exploitation. I can give you a fuller reply in about 30 minutes.

Please do so.

See the second half of post 12.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:48:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:27:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Generally speaking, however, I am open to the idea that polygamy isn't that bad an should be legalized.

Where I draw the line is maintaining the illegality of incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.

Why would you oppose incest? I can understand opposing it in situations where, say, a brother and sister are both fertile and of child-bearing age, but suppose one or more of them was infertile? What reason would there be to oppose it then?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:53:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 5:48:32 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:27:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Generally speaking, however, I am open to the idea that polygamy isn't that bad an should be legalized.

Where I draw the line is maintaining the illegality of incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.

Why would you oppose incest? I can understand opposing it in situations where, say, a brother and sister are both fertile and of child-bearing age, but suppose one or more of them was infertile? What reason would there be to oppose it then?

I doubt there is a good "reason", rather the real reason it would be opposed is the "ew" factor, we don't like it, but we can't really ban something on the justification of we don't like it so we will have to come up with something..............

It's a sin against God ? sure why not.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:53:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 5:48:32 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:27:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Generally speaking, however, I am open to the idea that polygamy isn't that bad an should be legalized.

Where I draw the line is maintaining the illegality of incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.

Why would you oppose incest? I can understand opposing it in situations where, say, a brother and sister are both fertile and of child-bearing age, but suppose one or more of them was infertile? What reason would there be to oppose it then?

The latter half of post 12 [http://www.debate.org...] explains my reasoning. I am concerned about incest because of the broader implications of it.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:54:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 5:34:32 PM, bsh1 wrote:

I disagree. It is my belief that the purpose of marriage is, to put it in popular terms, promote the general welfare. There are several notable benefits that come from marriage: improved health of a family (and not just the children), greater wealth for the family, stronger civic and social ties, increase personal happiness, and so forth. Society thus has an incentive to allow marriage insofar as it furthers those goals.

If it turned out that same sex marriage was a net detriment to society, would you oppose it?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:54:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 5:53:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:48:32 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:27:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Generally speaking, however, I am open to the idea that polygamy isn't that bad an should be legalized.

Where I draw the line is maintaining the illegality of incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.

Why would you oppose incest? I can understand opposing it in situations where, say, a brother and sister are both fertile and of child-bearing age, but suppose one or more of them was infertile? What reason would there be to oppose it then?

I doubt there is a good "reason", rather the real reason it would be opposed is the "ew" factor, we don't like it, but we can't really ban something on the justification of we don't like it so we will have to come up with something..............

Oh no, there is definitely a real reason.

It's a sin against God ? sure why not.

That's never a good reason for anything.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:55:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 5:54:09 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:53:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:48:32 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:27:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Generally speaking, however, I am open to the idea that polygamy isn't that bad an should be legalized.

Where I draw the line is maintaining the illegality of incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.

Why would you oppose incest? I can understand opposing it in situations where, say, a brother and sister are both fertile and of child-bearing age, but suppose one or more of them was infertile? What reason would there be to oppose it then?

I doubt there is a good "reason", rather the real reason it would be opposed is the "ew" factor, we don't like it, but we can't really ban something on the justification of we don't like it so we will have to come up with something..............

Oh no, there is definitely a real reason.

Well do tell.........

It's a sin against God ? sure why not.

That's never a good reason for anything.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:55:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 5:54:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:34:32 PM, bsh1 wrote:

I disagree. It is my belief that the purpose of marriage is, to put it in popular terms, promote the general welfare. There are several notable benefits that come from marriage: improved health of a family (and not just the children), greater wealth for the family, stronger civic and social ties, increase personal happiness, and so forth. Society thus has an incentive to allow marriage insofar as it furthers those goals.

If it turned out that same sex marriage was a net detriment to society, would you oppose it?

In theory, I guess I would have to. But I strongly believe that it is beneficial to society.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:56:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 5:55:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:54:09 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:53:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:48:32 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:27:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Generally speaking, however, I am open to the idea that polygamy isn't that bad an should be legalized.

Where I draw the line is maintaining the illegality of incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.

Why would you oppose incest? I can understand opposing it in situations where, say, a brother and sister are both fertile and of child-bearing age, but suppose one or more of them was infertile? What reason would there be to oppose it then?

I doubt there is a good "reason", rather the real reason it would be opposed is the "ew" factor, we don't like it, but we can't really ban something on the justification of we don't like it so we will have to come up with something..............

Oh no, there is definitely a real reason.

Well do tell.........

If you had read the thread, you would've seen I already "told" in post 12.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:56:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 5:53:24 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:48:32 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:27:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Generally speaking, however, I am open to the idea that polygamy isn't that bad an should be legalized.

Where I draw the line is maintaining the illegality of incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.

Why would you oppose incest? I can understand opposing it in situations where, say, a brother and sister are both fertile and of child-bearing age, but suppose one or more of them was infertile? What reason would there be to oppose it then?

The latter half of post 12 [http://www.debate.org...] explains my reasoning. I am concerned about incest because of the broader implications of it.

I read that after I asked my question. Sorry. But most of your worries seemed to be about exploitation and children. I'm not sure it answered the specific question I had about a brother and sister who were infertile (maybe because of menopause, hysterectomy, testicular cancer, or whatever).
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 6:00:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 5:56:48 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:53:24 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:48:32 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:27:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Generally speaking, however, I am open to the idea that polygamy isn't that bad an should be legalized.

Where I draw the line is maintaining the illegality of incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.

Why would you oppose incest? I can understand opposing it in situations where, say, a brother and sister are both fertile and of child-bearing age, but suppose one or more of them was infertile? What reason would there be to oppose it then?

The latter half of post 12 [http://www.debate.org...] explains my reasoning. I am concerned about incest because of the broader implications of it.

I read that after I asked my question. Sorry. But most of your worries seemed to be about exploitation and children. I'm not sure it answered the specific question I had about a brother and sister who were infertile (maybe because of menopause, hysterectomy, testicular cancer, or whatever).

I think there is still a unique potential for abuse in a sibling relationship as well. Siblings are often emotionally close, and may even be financially tied as well. Ultimately, though, I would be more inclined to allow incest in that situation than in others.

However, my concern is that if incest is allowed in that situation, it may be harder to prevent its legalization in others.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 6:07:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 5:56:42 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:55:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:54:09 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:53:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:48:32 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:27:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Generally speaking, however, I am open to the idea that polygamy isn't that bad an should be legalized.

Where I draw the line is maintaining the illegality of incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.

Why would you oppose incest? I can understand opposing it in situations where, say, a brother and sister are both fertile and of child-bearing age, but suppose one or more of them was infertile? What reason would there be to oppose it then?

I doubt there is a good "reason", rather the real reason it would be opposed is the "ew" factor, we don't like it, but we can't really ban something on the justification of we don't like it so we will have to come up with something..............

Oh no, there is definitely a real reason.

Well do tell.........

If you had read the thread, you would've seen I already "told" in post 12.

Well I didn't, but had I known that the great BSH had post previously I would of probably read it.........maybe.

Your argument is that it is open to exploitation, but what gets me is that argument can be used to justify banning anything and everything.

Pretty much anything and everything has the potential for exploitation. Allow me to name one in the words of George Carlin the all time heavy weight champion of b*llsh*t, religion.

So does your reasoning justify banning religion ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 6:18:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 6:07:53 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:56:42 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:55:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:54:09 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:53:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:48:32 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:27:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Generally speaking, however, I am open to the idea that polygamy isn't that bad an should be legalized.

Where I draw the line is maintaining the illegality of incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.

Why would you oppose incest? I can understand opposing it in situations where, say, a brother and sister are both fertile and of child-bearing age, but suppose one or more of them was infertile? What reason would there be to oppose it then?

I doubt there is a good "reason", rather the real reason it would be opposed is the "ew" factor, we don't like it, but we can't really ban something on the justification of we don't like it so we will have to come up with something..............

Oh no, there is definitely a real reason.

Well do tell.........

If you had read the thread, you would've seen I already "told" in post 12.

Well I didn't, but had I known that the great BSH had post previously I would of probably read it.........maybe.

I am not the "great" anything. I'm just a normal user.

Your argument is that it is open to exploitation, but what gets me is that argument can be used to justify banning anything and everything.

Pretty much anything and everything has the potential for exploitation. Allow me to name one in the words of George Carlin the all time heavy weight champion of b*llsh*t, religion.

So does your reasoning justify banning religion ?

Sure, everything as the potential for abuse, and we can ban everything. But, we can prohibit those things that have a unique or increased potential for abuse, or those things that are inherently abusive.

Religion has the potential for abuse, sure, but I don't think it meets that qualification. When religions cross-over into cults, then it becomes problematic, but I don't see most mainstream faiths as cultist.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 6:18:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm pro gay marriage and pro polygamy. The reason I think some people get upset about the comparison is because of the slippery slope ridiculous conservatives use in general to denounce gay marriage. "Oh, what's next? People will be marrying goats!" Obviously that's stupid for a number of reasons, and legalizing polygamy is not so stupid (it would just essentially be a multi-party business contract). However the idea that legalizing one thing means you necessarily have to legalize a whole bunch of other things, some of which ARE ridiculous, is just annoying. People who are pro gay marriage like to emphasize that gay relationships are similar to straight relationships, and by comparing them to polygamy it emphasizes that gay relationships are not normal (or promiscuous or should otherwise continue to be rejected).
President of DDO
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 6:23:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 6:00:14 PM, bsh1 wrote:

However, my concern is that if incest is allowed in that situation, it may be harder to prevent its legalization in others.

That is probably true.

I'm curious what you think about this hypothetical dialogue:

Jim: Since marriage is about having kids, and same sex couples can't have kids, then marriage should not be between same sex couples.

Bob: If marriage were just about having kids, then opposite sex couples who were infertile shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

Jim: It would be hard to prevent infertile opposite sex couples from getting married if fertile opposite sex couples could marry.

Do you think Jim gave a good response to Bob?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 6:26:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 6:18:26 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 6:07:53 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:56:42 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:55:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:54:09 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:53:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:48:32 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:27:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Generally speaking, however, I am open to the idea that polygamy isn't that bad an should be legalized.

Where I draw the line is maintaining the illegality of incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.

Why would you oppose incest? I can understand opposing it in situations where, say, a brother and sister are both fertile and of child-bearing age, but suppose one or more of them was infertile? What reason would there be to oppose it then?

I doubt there is a good "reason", rather the real reason it would be opposed is the "ew" factor, we don't like it, but we can't really ban something on the justification of we don't like it so we will have to come up with something..............

Oh no, there is definitely a real reason.

Well do tell.........

If you had read the thread, you would've seen I already "told" in post 12.

Well I didn't, but had I known that the great BSH had post previously I would of probably read it.........maybe.

I am not the "great" anything. I'm just a normal user.

Your argument is that it is open to exploitation, but what gets me is that argument can be used to justify banning anything and everything.

Pretty much anything and everything has the potential for exploitation. Allow me to name one in the words of George Carlin the all time heavy weight champion of b*llsh*t, religion.

So does your reasoning justify banning religion ?

Sure, everything as the potential for abuse, and we can ban everything. But, we can prohibit those things that have a unique or increased potential for abuse, or those things that are inherently abusive.

Religion has the potential for abuse, sure, but I don't think it meets that qualification. When religions cross-over into cults, then it becomes problematic, but I don't see most mainstream faiths as cultist.

If religion, a project of where people can control other people by blasting them with threats of hell fire (including at children) from an invisible being who is watching them doesn't count as unique or increased potential abuse then I don't know what does

Your not winning me over here BSH.

Okey so let me try a modification here, according to your unique/increased potential abuse criteria can we ban religion where children whether implicit or explicit are threatened with hell fire unless they conform with a certain religious belief or practice ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 6:28:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 6:18:58 PM, Danielle wrote:
I'm pro gay marriage and pro polygamy. The reason I think some people get upset about the comparison is because of the slippery slope ridiculous conservatives use in general to denounce gay marriage. "Oh, what's next? People will be marrying goats!" Obviously that's stupid for a number of reasons, and legalizing polygamy is not so stupid (it would just essentially be a multi-party business contract). However the idea that legalizing one thing means you necessarily have to legalize a whole bunch of other things, some of which ARE ridiculous, is just annoying. People who are pro gay marriage like to emphasize that gay relationships are similar to straight relationships, and by comparing them to polygamy it emphasizes that gay relationships are not normal (or promiscuous or should otherwise continue to be rejected).

Danielle, unless you're reading different people than I am, I think you have misunderstood the argument. The argument isn't "If you allow this thing, then next thing you know, you'll be allowing this other thing." Rather, the argument is that the reasons people often give for allowing one type of marriage also apply to other types of marriage. For example, a person might argue:

1. People should be allow to marry whoever they want.
2. Becca and Traci love each other.
3. Therefore, Becca and Traci should be allowed to marry each other.

In that case, the first premise is just taken to it's logical conclusion.

1. People should be allowed to marry whoever they want.
2. Dan love Becca, Traci, Angie, and Amber.
3. Therefore, Dan ought to be allowed to marry Becca, Traci, Angie, and Amber.

There is nothing to be upset about with this line of reasoning. The purpose of it is to undermine the basis upon which some people condone same sex marriage.

If it turns out that there is a basis upon which one could condone same sex marriage that does NOT apply to other forms of marriage, then one could consistently condone same sex marriage while opposing those other forms.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle