From gay marriage to polygamy?

a reply to: BinaryGreyArea

[Snip]

Lets not get too graphic. I'd hate to see this thread shut down because we couldn't stay within the boundaries of etiquette.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

i'm okay with sister wives as long as women can have brother husbands.

as long as the rules are fair and all are consenting adults i don't see a problem.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'm pretty sure that animal loving violates some sort of consent law since the animal can't technically consent to it...

Animals don't consent to be Eaten, Vehicles, Slaves, or Pets.

[SNIP]

Let's see, on one end you have a natural order where other animals are eaten by other animals.

On the other end you have a woman who manipulated an animal into pleasuring her by tricking it into eating something in a specific area?

Exactly how do you not see a difference in this matter?

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
Please demonstrate the boundary where a person is unarguably old enough to consent to marriage. Different states have different boundaries. Who defines what is age discrimination and what is "morally correct"?

We know of average maturity at a biological scale. Even though most places don't go by that as a rule, it is a general consensus that lines up with that biological maturity.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
Why do you assume only heterosexual people are into inscest?
What if the couple is sterile?

I personally have no issue with incest if the couple is unable to reproduce, and at an adult age. The fact is, most people don't want to be chemically castrated or forbidden to reproduce. Accidents do happen after all, and the child will be the one that suffers

your arguments are ridiculous

a reply to: Baldryck

We can't pick and choose when they can give consent about their future and when they can't.

I think we can make a very good determination of such. You might want to read Krazyshot's post above.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MystikMushroom

To be honest, I think marriage is ultimately going to go the way of the dinosaur. Contractual obligations to stay in a relationship make people hate each other more than ever. Many millennials are actually opting OUT of getting married because they don't want to go through the headache.

I can see that. As I said, relationships are going to be come much more fluid and dynamic in the future. If you consider how realistic VR and AI technology will be, we may find happiness with non-human/computer companions.

The only reason to have a contractual relationship I can see is for the sake of children.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: whyamIhere
I honestly think this kind of cheapens what was just accomplished.

But, this is just the beginning.

"Just the beginning" of what?

More personal freedom? The right to determine our own destiny? People being able to make their own decisions without state or religious interference?

I have a feeling that's not what your are referring to. Tell us....

I think to immediately jump to marrying an animal mocks what just happened.

Although, I was for Civil Unions I understand why Gay People demand total equality.

What I meant by just the beginning. I am afraid Beezer might try to marry a carrot.

Also, you know I don't like the Militant 5% of Gay people. They won't stop either.

They seem to want a Saddam sized statue of an excited Gay Man on every Town Square.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Animals don't consent to be Eaten, Vehicles, Slaves, or Pets.

[SNIP]

Yes I am.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Please demonstrate the boundary where a person is unarguably old enough to consent to marriage. Different states have different boundaries. Who defines what is age discrimination and what is "morally correct"?

You just answered your own question. The state you live in.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Why do you assume only heterosexual people are into inscest?
What if the couple is sterile?

Hmmm... Good question. You got me there. I think I'd still side against it for equality reasons though. If we aren't going to let heterosexuals do it, it's only fair and equal not to let homosexuals do it.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

If you consider how realistic VR and AI technology will be, we may find happiness with non-human/computer companions.

THX-1138

a reply to: Klassified

I did read what he wrote.

Child do not have the emotional maturity to consent to a long term decision like that. It has been proven in scientific study after scientific study. I'm not going to accept a bandwagon appeal to overturn scientific evidence.

Blocking hormones is a long term decision. Just as getting married under age.

Please, I am not endorsing children get married. I am just stating that those who will want to marry children will use the other things to validate their points to try to make it happen.

a reply to: Klassified

I like Dolby digital better than THX.

I'm just kidding, I know of the movie...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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

I never said government mandated. It is the choice of the parents. More specifically the mother. The government should not be involved in anyway.

Then you create the victim of the child being born with birth defects. This wouldn't be so bad for unpreventable birth defects. But incestuous birth has been PROVEN to cause birth defects. At this point, the parents are being willfully negligent.

Absolutely. Just do a little research on Newton County Arkansas where there is predominant incest population that are overlooked by the Courts. The entirety is Criminal, from the governors mansion all the way to the local sheriff.

a reply to: Baldryck

Blocking hormones ISN'T a long term decision because the results are reversible. Stop taking the blockers and puberty takes over from where it left off. You can reverse the decision REALLY easy.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
Heterosexual non-incest couples also result in birth defects, and not all incest couplings result in birth defects. Older women and men also increases the chance of birth defects. Shall we put an age cap to prevent the "risk" there too?

Very true... Except the probability of a serious birth defect from a incest born child is about 50%


www.psychologytoday.com... lem-incest

Are you saying that the sole existence of birth defects there for justifies incestual reproduction?

You're logic is absurdly ridiculous...

a reply to: Ghost147
Where do you draw the line though?
A couple that both carry the CF gene have a 25% chance of giving birth to a child that has cystic fibrosis.
A 25 y/o woman has a 1 in 1250 chance of having a child with Down's Syndrome, in a 40 y/o woman the chance is 1 in 100.
Should we sterilize women over 40? I think not.

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

Hell yeah go for it. Who are we to dictate that a person should only love one person. None of our business and they should be allowed to marry as many people as they see fit marry.


After we get that passed we need to work on incestuous rights. There can be no love purer than the love of a mother or father for their children. All barriers need to be removed love needs to be allowed to flourish.

After we liberate the above groups, the next oppressed group are the animal lovers among our species. Who are we to dictate that love can be confined to one species. If a man wants to marry his horse and have a sexual relationship with it, who are we to decide?? Love has no bounds, embrace love in ALL forms.

Might as well add children to that list, In the name of equality and all. /s

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t



BUT, when it comes to polygamy, the other spouse must know about it and give some sort of consent prior to one of the parties adding another spouse.

That's a valid point. The other spouses certainly should have a say.