Homosexual acts incest and plural marriages

  • Thread starter Thread starter Naztakuan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Naztakuan

Guest
Not sure this is in the right section or not but…

I’m gonna play devil’s advocate here. Ok so say that same sex marriage is made legal. Now I know there are laws against incest because there is a possibility that these two people will sire a child who is severely deformed. However, what if the couple happen to be of the same sex? If it is two sisters or two brothers, shouldn’t the courts recognize their marriages as well? What is the arguement against same sex incest? I mean, no matter what they do, they will never have children either. What makes too related gay people different from two unrelated gay people?
And with polygamy or polyandry, most of the outcry is actually from left leaning people who are for gay marriage. What I don’t understand is why. Maybe it’s an economics thing. I can understand all the negative coverage from the compounds on the news but the issue here seems to be child abuse and brainwashing. Other cultures have had plural marriages like Muslims, African tribes, or Alaskan people. If the participating wives or husbands are adults, what on earth is the arguement against that? Traditionally marriage is between one man and one woman correct? Now if two men or women can marry then marriage is defined as…two people making a life commitment to each other? But why just two? I’m confused how when many christians say that man and woman is what defines a marriage and many leftleaning people say it’s not but they both agree that plural marriage is bad. Now for christians and conservatives, I can understand because of the consitancy. But the secular arguement seems to be inconsistant.
On what basis is SSM a right and plural marriage not a right?:confused:
 
Humans making agreements with each other is a right. Both SSM and PM are natural rights. I don’t know why there seems to be more support for SSM than PM. Perhaps humans are naturally predisposed to settling down with one sexual partner. Sexual jealousy seems to be a huge factor in most peoples lives. My guess is that if all artificial taboos (religious/societal) were removed, we would still see a very small amount of plural marriage families. It seems a bit strange that PM doesn’t get more support in majority Christian nations since their bible mostly endorses PM. But I think the bottom line is “settling down” and sexual jealousy seem to be natural instincts.
 
The Bible doesn’t mostly endorse PM, it depicts it as second-best to 1M/1W+M and shows how it tends to lead to tragedy.
Societies that allow PM are extremely stratified and have feudal levels of competition among patrilines. This is contrary to both the ideals of democracy and those of Christianity.
 
Well that makes sense but don’t people already “compete” with one another for mates. maybe not for the number of mates but for the social and material influence that mate has. But also, if SSM were made legal, should it also be legal for related same sex couples since they can’t do any damage to the gene pool? I’m just saying, this should be somehow addressed. If people act like it could never happen, then what is there to do when confronted with such a situation? I mean, the whole reason there are technically no laws against SSM is because no one thought such a situation would occur. there were laws against incest I presume from watching the monarchy collapse on itself from years of inbreeding. I’m assuming, that long ago, people new of people who were homosexual but perhaps their attitudes toward marriage was that they rejected it. I mean they were consistant. They rejected typical courtship and also marriage as well. I recall in Count of monte Cristo, the main female character runs away, with some lover of hers instead of marrying. Since marriage as it was defined at the time pertained to merging of assets. If you were in love with someone, that was not enough reason to marry but a reason to take a lover on the side.
Perhaps the law forbids plural marriages because it consolidates more money to one group and any and all spouses would benefit from shared medical services and tax breaks. If all the wives are able to register as dependants, I should think that they don’t have to pay taxes as they do not work. I’m not entirely sure. Maybe the reason marriage is restricted to a specific group of people is that it is simply more cost effective to do so. :confused:
 
strngrnrth is right about the bible not mostly endorsing PM. Though Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15-17 instruct that one must treat one’s multiple wives well.

PM might be contrary to the ideals of Christianity, but I don’t know about democracy. Luckily I don’t live in a democracy. I live in a representative democratic and constitutional republic wherein I should enjoy inalienable rights that are not subject to removal by democratic processes. And removable of the right to PM is contrary to the ideals of freedom and liberty. The fact that PM is kinda weird and backward does not mean that a government can outlaw it. Freedom is a messy thing and the quest for an ideal society should not be accomplished at the point of a gun.
 
this is a bit off but since we are discussing plural marriages and such here goes…say 2 women married to the same man have intimate relations with each other only… are they committing aduldtry?if so how? they are in the same relationship with the same man.
 
fbl9 said:
this is a bit off but since we are discussing plural marriages and such here goes…say 2 women married to the same man have intimate relations with each other only… are they committing aduldtry?if so how? they are in the same relationship with the same man.
Click to expand...
I dunno. That used to always confuse me as well. But people who are in plural marriages are often against SSM and vice versa. If anything, both groups are not helping their own cases because they’re against each other. Perhaps proponents of SSM would get more legitimate support if they would also support PM and vice versa. Each group fears the other. The most “progressive” liberals constantly mock the idea of Plural marriage, but by doing that they aren’t helping the case of SSM either. Both are outside the norm, SSM even more so because you usually have to be gay to even want to marry. However, perhaps this opens up its own new kinds of abuses. If SSM is made legal, it won’t simply become legal for practicing homsexuals, we’ll be getting the Chuck and Larry situations. Women will marry women, not out of love but for the material gains which is why the label “civil unions” exists. It’s just that. A union between to civilians, not really a marriage at all.
 
fbl9 said:
this is a bit off but since we are discussing plural marriages and such here goes…say 2 women married to the same man have intimate relations with each other only… are they committing aduldtry?if so how? they are in the same relationship with the same man.
Click to expand...
I don’t quite understand the confusion. Adultery would be having sex with people other than one’s spouse/spouses.
 
that1dude said:
I don’t quite understand the confusion. Adultery would be having sex with people other than one’s spouse/spouses.
Click to expand...
I guess the question is, do the wives who share one husband think themselves each others’ spouses or just in a joint partnership sharing ONE spouse?
 
Naztakuan said:
I guess the question is, do the wives who share one husband think themselves each others’ spouses or just in a joint partnership sharing ONE spouse?
Click to expand...
Oh. That IS a good question. I would imagine it varies. Seems like most plural marriage derives from an artificial/religious paradigm, wherein the parameters of the arrangement are dictated by “revelations” and interpretation of “gospels”. I couldn’t find any anecdotes that would shed light on this situation. But one way to look at is that even marriages involving only two people are complex and snowflakey.
 
you must have forgotten your own post.

“What is the arguement against same sex incest?”

given that…what is the SPIRIT that would motivate someone to be attracted to the same sex. and what is the fruit of expressing that attraction compared to heterosexuals?

in case you have no understanding of what i am asking?

read romans 1, galatians 5, matthew 7

Matthew 12:33
"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.
 
feetxxxl said:
you must have forgotten your own post.

“What is the arguement against same sex incest?”

given that…what is the SPIRIT that would motivate someone to be attracted to the same sex. and what is the fruit of expressing that attraction compared to heterosexuals?

in case you have no understanding of what i am asking?

read romans 1, galatians 5, matthew 7

Matthew 12:33
"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.
Click to expand...
.in an “ss” relation there is no phyisical fruit when compared to “hs” relations.at the most generous position to "ss"couples they would be compared to the fig tree that Jesus cursed,good foliage yet no fruit…this would only be applicable to consenting adults… where are you trying to go with this idea may i ask?refering to the ss incest .
 
you’re going to have to read the scriptures to understand the fruit of the spirit…esp gal5
 
the people of noah and sodom procreated and god had no problem wiping them out. not only them. but every living that was of them.

procreation is not the most important thing, as providing a loving (love that is god) nurturing environment for raising children.

homosexual committed couples provide loving nurturing homes equal to that of a heterosexual married couples, and some have opened them to rejected, abandoned children from heterosexual unions for adoption.
 
feetxxxl said:
the people of noah and sodom procreated and god had no problem wiping them out. not only them. but every living that was of them.

procreation is not the most important thing, as providing a loving (love that is god) nurturing environment for raising children.

homosexual committed couples provide loving nurturing homes equal to that of a heterosexual married couples, and some have opened them to rejected, abandoned children from heterosexual unions for adoption.
Click to expand...
Of course. Only the most evil, hateful, and/or ignorant people would deny homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or asexual people from nurturing children. My grandmother seems to have lost all sexuality, but somehow she is still able to nurture some ****ing kids.
 
feetxxxl said:
the people of noah and sodom procreated and god had no problem wiping them out. not only them. but every living that was of them.

procreation is not the most important thing, as providing a loving (love that is god) nurturing environment for raising children.

homosexual committed couples provide loving nurturing homes equal to that of a heterosexual married couples, and some have opened them to rejected, abandoned children from heterosexual unions for adoption.
Click to expand...
Its not a loving environment because you are placing children in a fairtale world that is completely contrary to reason. They will grow up believing that nonsense of homosexual relationships being considered normal.
 
East_and_West said:
Its not a loving environment because you are placing children in a fairtale world that is completely contrary to reason. They will grow up believing that nonsense of homosexual relationships being considered normal.
Click to expand...
They will grow up knowing that homosexual relationships are completely normal. Read a book. Gain some knowledge about the natural world. But barring that, at least you have to admit that force cannot be used to keep ANYONE or ANY group of people from lovingly rearing a child. In your fantasy world, wherein homosexuality is somehow “unnatural”, at least the children of gay couples would be reared to understand that sexual orientation does determine ones ability to have love and compassion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top