From gay marriage to polygamy?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BinaryGreyArea

Fine. Legalize homosexual incest. That's what you want me to say right? So do it. To me, it's the same thing, but hey if you want to split hairs so thoroughly, I don't have a way to refute you.

you are really having fun with this....what?....is this the day you wanted to throw some red meat into their cages?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BinaryGreyArea

Fine. Legalize homosexual incest. That's what you want me to say right? So do it. To me, it's the same thing, but hey if you want to split hairs so thoroughly, I don't have a way to refute you.

You just caused a million anti gay marriage heads to explode while screaming we were right.

a reply to: jimmyx

It reminds me of when I was a kid. I remember on the playground I would hear someone yell, "Well if you love it so much why don't you marry it?".

People are going to demand to marry their pets in droves. Right.

That basically is saying that you have so little faith in humanity, and believe there are so many crazy people out there that this will actually become a real issue.

I wish someone who lived through the interracial SCOTUS decision would chime in and tell us if this same kind of fear mongering happened back then. I have a feeling it probably did.

a reply to: jimmyx

Sorry. There's only so much tit-for-tat I can take before I just give up. I don't actually agree with him, I'm just tired of his ridiculous argument.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Doom and Gloom

Yea, well some love has to remain forbidden

Why?.

Look, I see what you and BinaryGreyArea are trying to do, but do you realize that we can literally attempt this same argument for ANY moral in society?

Morals are different for everyone. What is moral to you may not be moral to me and vice versa. So I should start a campaign to demonize you for not agreeing with me.

There are no defined morals in nature. The TRUE law of nature is "Do what thou will". That's it, but society has determined some standards to abide by to keep the most people happy.

Yet society constantly changes the standards. So I advocate to change them again until everyone is happy.

And frankly, the arguments for what you are pitching ALL have victims attached to them. There is no way around that. It goes against American ideals to victimize someone for someone else's benefit.

Polygamy and incestuous relationships have no victims. American ideals are out dated and the US needs to join the rest of the free world and stop its imperialistic control of telling people who/what they can love and who/what they cannot.

a reply to: BinaryGreyArea

We deny the right to carry a weapon to people with mental health issues because of the risk factor

That's true. Incest is illegal because of the biological risk factor and the cruel and unusual punishment it can create for a child born of two genetically related individuals.

We do not deny all people of the same race, gender, or relatedness the right to carry a weapon because of that other person's risk factor.

Also true.

If we're going to grant 2nd amendment rights to people because they have not demonstrated any risk factor, but revoke them from people who do demonstrate a risk factor... the same reasoning applies to this topic.

Exactly. Marriage is available to anyone of age and consent, except those that engage is risky, illegal behavior like incest.

You have proven my point. There is already precedence to validate why an incestuous couple should not be married.

originally posted by: Doom and Gloom
Why?.

I just explained that to you. I can't help it if you didn't read my whole post. I'm not going to keep repeating myself though.

Morals are different for everyone. What is moral to you may not be moral to me and vice versa. So I should start a campaign to demonize you for not agreeing with me.

Well here's the thing. The morals that define our society are the most popular ones. So do it. If you can change society's will then maybe the law will be changed so that everyone has to demonize me whenever they see me. I won't hold my breath for you being very successful though.

Yet society constantly changes the standards. So I advocate to change them again until everyone is happy.

Impossible.

Polygamy and incestuous relationships have no victims. American ideals are out dated and the US needs to join the rest of the free world and stop its imperialistic control of telling people who/what they can love and who/what they cannot.

Which Progressive parts of the world are incestuous relationships allowed? As for polygamist relationships, they are only legal in theocracies.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Fine. Legalize homosexual incest. That's what you want me to say right? So do it. To me, it's the same thing, but hey if you want to split hairs so thoroughly, I don't have a way to refute you.

What I want you to do is recognize the consequences of the recent ruling.

I oppose the ruling... but perhaps not for the reasons you might suspect.

I do not support the things I'm playing devil's advocate for. I'm demonstrating how the current ruling can be used to put some into a situation where they have to endorse something they think is morally wrong, or accept that their reasoning for saying denying them is honestly not any different from religious people saying no to homosexuality.

Splitting hairs is what the legal system excels at and is how people abuse the system to take it places the original supporters never intended. Those split hairs are used to good effect.

No crap. I already said that about you earlier in the thread. In fact, it was LITERALLY the post above the one you are responding to here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I know you don't agree with the gay agenda ruling and are being purposely obtuse to try to paint me in a corner. You slightly got me, but that still doesn't make your argument sound. It is just as ridiculous now as it was when you first brought it up. There are CLEAR reasons why those relationships will remain illegal and they don't involve religious reasons. THAT'S the key difference.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

yup, I was teen back in 67' when that ruling came out....going to Viet Nam after I graduated high school was a bigger priority to me than that, though. a few of my friends brothers didn't come back from there, so I was scarred s**tless about being drafted.

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: MystikMushroom

yup, I was teen back in 67' when that ruling came out....going to Viet Nam after I graduated high school was a bigger priority to me than that, though. a few of my friends brothers didn't come back from there, so I was scarred s**tless about being drafted.

So did people say the world was ending and that dogs and cats were going to marry? Was there fearmongering from people back then too?

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
I consider it a Federal Power Grab ruling with gay marriage used as a smoke screen.

Federal power grab? The Supreme Court has legal precedent for making that ruling whether you like it or not. Twice they've made similar rulings, one of which was DIRECTLY about the definition of marriage in regards to Christians trying to define it at the expense of everyone else.

The proposal I offered fixes all the problems that existed without the ability for the federal government to come through and use their authority to decide the matter against the people celebrating now when the political winds change.

The proposal YOU offered should have been offered at the very beginning of this whole debate before it even GOT to the Supreme Court. Instead you stood by and let the state governments enforce bigotry, which necessitated federal intervention. Y'all made that bed. You need to lie in it now.

I'm being exceedingly precise. Because when it comes to "where do we draw the line"... you have to deal with these outliers and due to the nature of the ruling... have to be able to explain why two lines with identical risks are going to be treated differently.

I've defined VERY clearly where I stand on these issues and have no problems with the reasonings for them. Consent is the key issue here.

Remember... I'm not arguing for these things. I'm demonstrating how YOU are without meaning to.

Yea. I get it. It's a dumb argument. The only thing you are going to accomplish with this line of reasoning is to convince me to legalize those things you are arguing for. You aren't going to get me to change my mind on gay marriage or polygamy though. You are gambling on the fact that my resistance to legalizing those forms of relationships is strong enough that you can push the boundaries to force me into a hypocritical situation where I "see the light" and decide to retract my positions on polygamy and gay marriage. I'd call it a form of reverse psychology, but it isn't going to work on me. I LIKE giving more rights to people. So like I just said, you'll only just succeed in convincing me to legalize those arguments if you convince me of anything.

They have to do with "I don't think it's moral" and "the risks to society are too great for my comfort level."

No they don't. The reasons against gay marriage and polygamy are SOLELY religious in nature. The ones that aren't religious in nature are VERY weak and not worth considering. The ones against animal love, incest, and child marriage ALL have STRONG secular arguments against them. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: MystikMushroom

yup, I was teen back in 67' when that ruling came out....going to Viet Nam after I graduated high school was a bigger priority to me than that, though. a few of my friends brothers didn't come back from there, so I was scarred s**tless about being drafted.

So did people say the world was ending and that dogs and cats were going to marry? Was there fearmongering from people back then too?

No they did not say cats and dogs would get married. They said now that people can marry anyone of any color, next homosexuals would get married, and gasp they were right. Of course it took nearly fifty years for them to be right.

So in another fifty years polygamy will be legal. Fifty after that you will be able to marry your sister. Fifty years after that you will be able to marry your dog. Fifty years after that you will be able to marry a robot. Fifty years after that the fight to allow the legalization of marriage to offworld alien species will begin. Those against will say, its one thing if you marry a man, woman, sibling, animal, robot, or any combination of those. But if we let people marry those evil, smelly, godless aliens. Jesus will return and the world will be destroyed by Gods fiery wrath.

a reply to: karmicecstasy

Yea. That's called a slippery slope fallacy.

I said this earlier in the thread, but I think that if anything marriage is going to go away within the next so many decades. Millennials are starting to forgo marriage because it is too much of a hassle. I agree with this sentiment. -I- don't want to get married. I see too much unhappiness resulting from it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

These things ebb and flow. I think you are right. In the next few decades marriage numbers will go down. But then will pick up a few decades after that. Its not like this is the first time in history young men have found the idea of marriage to be unappealing.

But even if marriage numbers go down we will still have these slippery slope arguments. They just will not be about can you marry x, y, or z. But can you have intimate relations with x, y, and z without being publicly shamed or arrested for breaking a law. Because segments of society do in fact like having sex with animals and family members and multiple people. More than people think. Right now on the web there is widely accessible forums and adult video sites that cater to all three.

In some ways the religious people are right. As religious institutions decay and lose power in the coming decades. We will see a temporary increase in wild sexual behavior that is outside the norm. The norm being defined in this case as consenting adults that are not related. Simply because of centuries of repressed sexuality. But then things will even out again. It will never get to the point where it is so widespread that people looking to marry their dog or sister have to fight to get the right date for their wedding.

a reply to: karmicecstasy

Well to be honest, at the end of the day, that is for the society of the day to determine. If society finds reason to sympathize with those causes for whatever reason, then they can legalize it. For now, I see some strong reasons to keep them illegal that aren't solely religious in nature. Those reasons stand as reasonably high hurdles to clear for any group looking to gain support for that topic.

Polygamy is really the only form of illegal marriage I can think of that I would legalize if given the opportunity. That is unless we can perfect AI and humans want to start marrying robots, I really can't argue against such notions because philosophy hasn't gotten far enough yet to make those judgment calls.

who needs more paperwork

anyway ..

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Again I agree. I think there is a good chance that polygamy will be made legal at some point if things stay on their current course. I also think there will be slightly less opposition to it than to gay marriage. As straight religious men may not have fantasies about homosexuality simply because they are straight. But straight religious men can have fantasies about having multiple wives. So they will fight it less. Its something they can better understand.

I can see a push being made for the normalization of incest, pedophilia, and bestiality. But I do not think they will succeed for all the reasons you yourself have stated. I think the next new big fight for a minorities rights will be as you said with robots.