General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"If we have same-sex marriage today, we'll have incest and polygamy tomorrow" Good
Last edited Thu Feb 12, 2015, 03:34 PM - Edit history (2)
Sometimes I wonder at the people in this nation, left and right, who seem to lose considerable sleep thinking about the possibility that other consenting adults might be engaging in sexual behaviors that they do not approve of. I think about how they seem to lay petrified in their bed, looking concerned at their lover as this thought dominates their mind "How can I love you if I can't enforce our exact sexual behaviors on a nation of 300 million through force of law?".
We see this again and again in our society. There appears to be an overwhelming and to me frankly bizarre desire of many people to micromanage the intimate relations of others. I understand in a way where they are coming from. They are disgusted by the idea that someone could be engaging in anal, incest, a relationship with multiple partners, bondage or a myriad of sexual behaviors that aren't sex in the missionary position for the purpose of procreation. That point seems beyond denial, this desire is driven by disgust at the thought of the action. It is simply an urge to crush that which they do not like and enforce their standards on others.
They have their alternative explanations. They say it is for good of society (where they got permission to engage is social engineering related to the sex lives of others still alludes me). They claim it violates some sort of natural law as they wear clothing, eat processed foods and zoom around in the sky in planes at speeds factors of 100 higher than any human was "evolved" to travel.
In comes down to this, consenting adults can form any kind of relationship they want to. You may find it disgusting or unnatural, but it isn't about you. It was never about you. You have zero right to ever dictates the terms of two consenting adults sexual behaviors. You do not have a right to engage in social engineering. My sex life is sovereign territory over which I demand exclusive domain. Until I directly, physically and without consent interfere with the domain of another's body, your opinion simply does not matter.
I'm gay myself, but I think gay rights is a merely part of a larger struggle against the sexual tyranny that has existed in most human societies. I like and predict that it will be part of the spear tip that will finally and blessedly slaughters this terrible beast.
My body, my rules.
This is a lesson both the left and the right could do well to learn.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)which can't be brushed away lightly. Polygamy, however seems to not have been a problem in other cultures and times, up to and including today's radical members of Latter Day Saints who have communities practicing polygamy. Wouldn't bother me to see it legitimized rather than being 'hidden in plain sight'.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Yet we don't demand genetic testing prior to the issuance of a marriage certificate.
Well some people have, those people are called eugenicists and they have been rightly run out of society.
Keep in mind this issue is entirely irrelevant for homosexual incest.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)there is no connection between same sex marriage and polygamy
there is not connectionbetween same sex marriage and incest.
Yes, it's part of people interest in managing 'deviance' from cultural standards, but first of all it's a shitty argument.
3catwoman3
(24,023 posts)...incest now?
randome
(34,845 posts)The numbers we have in place now are guidelines. They don't magically confer maturity to an individual.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
Kurska
(5,739 posts)to make decisions about their sex life once they reach the age of majority.
So no, I reject your premise. Barring some kind of catastrophic and demonstrable physical deficit that bars an individual from even living independently. It isn't your place to determine if they are "mature" enough to engage in sexual behaviors you don't like.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Hence, loan sharking should be legal....?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)To private human sexual behavior is not an apt analogy.
Tell you what, go after the predatory banks who used and abused poor minorities, entrapping them in destructive and doomed to fail loans. Actually throw those people in jail and THEN we can maybe wonder if my private sexual conduct has any effect whatsoever on your life (highly doubt it).
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Not seeing the connection. OP is arguing for more freedom to marry, not less regulation on loan sharking.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)something... something.. social chaos.
randome
(34,845 posts)The community can be wrong just as a jury can be wrong. But if there is some infallible method to determine whether or not an individual is mature, I'm not aware of it.
How would you judge whether or not someone is mature? How much of that judgment would be biased in favor of your own experiences and expectations?
But I do agree that one's own sexual or relationship preferences should be outside the domain of the law. The only 'right to interfere' is with minors and the only point I'm trying to make (perhaps badly) is that it's often unclear when a minor might be mature or not.
Well, that and incest and polygamy being okay. Actually, no one could care less if you live with multiple partners, it's only when you want to avail yourself of the state's help in extending the definition of 'wife' or 'husband' that it becomes a problem.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Either it needs to extend benefits to all types of consenting adult relationships or it needs to get out of the game of recognizing relationships for legal purposes.
There is no middle ground.
randome
(34,845 posts)And society prefers there to be some sort of regulation to make clear who gets to inherit what. Otherwise, survivors can easily fall into fighting and hating one another.
If you have kids, you want them to get what you leave behind. That's mainly why we have birth certificates, too: money.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
Kurska
(5,739 posts)It is literally a matter of livelihood.
The_Commonist
(2,518 posts)...are the "Master of your Domain."
But seriously, good stuff, and completely right on.
There was that state legislator from Montana the other day who wanted to outlaw yoga pants and nipples, and it just made me think that these people really are simply sex-obsessed, troubled minds with nobody who loves them and nothing to give meaning to their shallow, boring lives. It would be sad and nothing else, if the rest of us didn't have to deal with so many of these idiots, and their authoritarianism.
And for the record, I spent many years in a polyamorous hippie commune, where I had 8 "wives" and shared them with 6 other "husbands." So I feel like I have a dog in this fight, even though at the moment, I'm happily monogamously heterosexually married, and intend to stay that way. It's nobody's business but my own...
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)That was a tyranny. Society can be tyrannical, but tyranny of the majority isn't a sufficient argument to counter fundamental rights to autonomy.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)100%.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Over time, I think polygamy will be normalized. Reality shows about polygamists already exists.
There is a strong trend toward people being less judgmental about sexuality. It's only a matter of time.