Incest/Polygamy

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

From what I heard in school, gay marriage was always seen as a gateway issue preventing legal polygamy and incest in the US, because there are equally infirm arguments against both as there are against gay marriage. Even as support for LGBT grew, there was always this trepidation at seeing incest/polygamy make its way through the courts someday. This idea may sound surprising, but it's the same domino theory that lead to Korea/Vietnam: we can't let the status quo change at all, because it'll change completely.

I'm actually pretty interested to hear people's attitudes on this subject, given the "gateway" phenomenon I mentioned.

Polygamy is illegal, but it certainly exists in a de facto sense, as any man who has fathered children by multiple women has basically accomplished what people dislike most about it.

Incest, I know certain folks on this forum believe that love surpasses all physical barriers, so if love between a man-man is possible, why not a man-woman who happen to be father/daughter?

Dees-cuss

[Deebs]

No. Stop.

[Mercutio]

Polygamy is fine.

Incest leads to Norfolk accents so should be avoided.

[Princess Ana]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Polygamy is fine.

Incest leads to Norfolk accents so should be avoided.

This.

As long as the relationship is healthy, polygamy is perfectly fine.

[Zelphon]

Tis worth noting that there is like, actual reason why incest isn't allowed.

Heightened chances for defects, specially of the mental variety.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Zelphon

Tis worth noting that there is like, actual reason why incest isn't allowed.

Heightened chances for defects, specially of the mental variety.

Incest has been taboo long before biology gave a reason why it doesn't happen often in humans. But in certain cultures (ancient Japan, Egypt) and levels of socioeconomics (kings/queens in Europe) it's been seen as a positive to keep bloodlines pure and governments allies.

And, it happens a lot in animals.

[Muyotwo]

There's only an issue with Polygamy if it's just for men. There's nothing in the world wrong with polyamory in my mind.

[Mozz]

Incest should be legal now.

[Zelphon]

What animals do is rather unimportant to the discussion or argument. Joining in on their standards would lessen us as a whole.

As for the "good" things you've mentioned, those are more of a past thing, and there's a reason they're past things and not now things.

[Princess Ana]

Also from what I remember European Royalty was pretty much littered with hemophiliacs. Incest had its things in the past but its biologically not terribly safe.

[Mozz]

Why should the government prevent things that are unsafe? Or at least, why ban some unsafe sexual things but not other unsafe sexual things?

[Zelphon]

People should be able to do what they want with each other, but that stops being a rule of thumb when:

Either of the party do not wish to partake
or
Another, third party individual is involved without consent.

I don't think an infant can agree to be formed incorrectly within a incest mother and live the rest of its future life handicapped because two family members couldn't keep their pants on.

[Mozz]

Originally Posted by Zelphon

People should be able to do what they want with each other, but that stops being a rule of thumb when:

Either of the party do not wish to partake
or
Another, third party individual is involved without consent.

I don't think an infant can agree to be formed incorrectly within a incest mother and live the rest of its future life handicapped because two family members couldn't keep their pants on.

So does this lead to "we should ban anything that would increase the odds of a negative development in a future child"? If so, that's a fun path to discuss.

[Princess Ana]

To be fair, incest only increases the chances of hereditary illnesses because of the greater chances of both parents being carriers for the genes.

It's not limited only to incest.

[Zelphon]

Originally Posted by Mozz

"should ban anything that would increase the odds of a negative development in a future child"?

Yes

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Muyotwo

There's only an issue with Polygamy if it's just for men. There's nothing in the world wrong with polyamory in my mind.

Men are polygamous by nature, while women are monogamous. Even if they're equal before the law there will be a de facto inequality that would spring up.

[Sparkbeat]

See I was about to make that argument as well (@Zelphons thing from a bit further up), but the thing about saying stuff like that is it seems like it makes total sense until you realize said child wouldn't have a life at all if it weren't for the incest it was born from. It kinda leads to the moral question of "Is a crippled life better than no life at all?"

So honestly I'm neutral, don't care much either way. Polygamy is more touchy because if it were ever to become prominent, it can possibly lead to some bad things (like in the Middle East, guys who can't get any because most 'attractive' females are taken by rich men with many wives are promised a multitude of virgins by terrorist organizations by committing atrocities to 'serve their religion'). So while Polygamy isn't itself bad, it can lead to some bad things. Same goes for incest and the increased likelihood of infants with some sort of irregular occurrence that can effect them for life.

So yeah, neither are directly bad but indirectly I can see why it'd be difficult for them to become legal.

[Mozz]

Originally Posted by Zelphon

Yes

Plastics, older mothers, older fathers, homosexual parents, consuming certain fish while pregnant, etc

[Zelphon]

Originally Posted by Sparkbeat

S until you realize said child wouldn't have a life at all if it weren't for the incest it was born from. It kinda leads to the moral question of "Is a crippled life better than no life at all?"

That child, specifically? Sure.

But another, with another father's genes and less mental fuckery would in theory be in its place.

Originally Posted by Mozz

Plastics, older mothers, older fathers, homosexual parents, consuming certain fish while pregnant, etc

I mean, at least as far as the creation process is concerned how does the parents being gay/lesb matter? It requires male stuff to fertalize female stuff. Not by sex strictly speaking, but male & female stuff would have to interact for a baby to form.

You would obviously have to fine tune the banlist, but obvious things like "don't drink or smoke while you're pregnant" should be banned I'd say. As for older parents, unsure but there is argument for it.

[Doppleganger]

To be fair, I consider something like 65 year old father with a 22 year old mother to be repulsive. Another one is where there's an enormous guy (6'4", 230 lbs) and a tiny girl (4'9", 110 lbs).

You see father/daughter incest and pedophilia even if that's not the case, just because of perceived age gap, height difference, and cuckolding.

[Heather]

I would have to think a little more on this, right now, I can see both sides of the story, but I think another important question in the polygamy issue needs to be asked: One guy with several wives would understandably mean that it's likely that they will have more kids, but does the average Anerican home have the capability to stand up to that? And what if supporting all of those children, could the parents incomes manage to bring in enough to do it all? I need more information on a few things.

[Mozz]

Originally Posted by Myles Fowl II

I would have to think a little more on this, right now, I can see both sides of the story, but I think another important question in the polygamy issue needs to be asked: One guy with several wives would understandably mean that it's likely that they will have more kids, but does the average Anerican home have the capability to stand up to that? And what if supporting all of those children, could the parents incomes manage to bring in enough to do it all? I need more information on a few things.

Be more concerned about the men who won't have wives since sheik alpha is hoggin up 5 women for himself. On a large enough scale, there will be a lot of men without prospects, which could lead to violence and a legit hit to the economy.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Myles Fowl II

I would have to think a little more on this, right now, I can see both sides of the story, but I think another important question in the polygamy issue needs to be asked: One guy with several wives would understandably mean that it's likely that they will have more kids, but does the average Anerican home have the capability to stand up to that? And what if supporting all of those children, could the parents incomes manage to bring in enough to do it all? I need more information on a few things.

Sperm donor Ed Houben has fathered 114 children. He doesn't owe child support to any of them.

[Sparkbeat]

You can't really say the average American home because...well it wouldn't be the current average American's home. Say a guy has 3 wives, and 3 children, one for each wife. He works a job, and two of the wives work jobs, while one is more of the "stay at home and car for the kids" type. There are already households who manage off of two parents and five kids, and that's with only 2, or maybe even 1 source of income. As long as all 3 jobs weren't minimum wage, I'd say it'd almost be more financially stable than the current average American home.

[Talon87]

It's not really fair to either issue to lump them into the same debate thread like this. I understand why you did it, given the same-sex marriage ruling by the Supreme Court yesterday, but people may support one while not supporting the other and in forcing the two into the same discussion you're bottlenecking the debate for why either one should not be legalized.

On the issue of polygamy and polyandry, I don't have a love-based problem with legalizing either but Mozz raises the social issue of few men hogging disproportionately many women and making the others in society feel pretty vexed. No heterosexual was feeling cockblocked when a gay man paired off with another gay man, but a man hogging five women to himself could make single men in the community upset. So you could say that this argument from sociology suggests that polygamy and polyandry ought to remain illegal despite any appeals made under the same rhetoric that the pro-SSM camp used to get SSM legalized. That is to say, "It's not the same."

On the issue of incest, I see no compelling reason to outlaw incest between consenting adults. "Oh no, what about genetics? " is not a good enough answer to bar relatives from marrying one another. A, because if it were, then we'd have to also go around barring any and all genetic losers from marrying, and we certainly don't do that either. And B, because even if we were to strike out A, we still couldn't rule out the possibility that couples would willingly go through with sterilization if it meant getting to be meaningfully married to the love of their life. (You don't have to remove his goddamn balls or her goddamn uterus. A simple vasectomy coupled with a simple [Fallopian] tubal ligation is plenty good enough. Allows them to still have kids some day, too, should they ever decide to have kids with somebody else.)