Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Kurska

(5,739 posts)
Thu Feb 12, 2015, 01:04 PM Feb 2015

"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.

22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"If we have same-sex marriage today, we'll have incest and polygamy tomorrow" Good (Original Post) Kurska Feb 2015 OP
There are legitimate medical issues around incest COLGATE4 Feb 2015 #1
Those same issues exist for many couples with recessive genes for terrible disorders. Kurska Feb 2015 #3
well the concept of harmful recessives, but the argument is a false slippery slope HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #22
So, there is no... 3catwoman3 Feb 2015 #2
Not everything in life can be conducted according to numbers. Nor should it be. randome Feb 2015 #4
And whose place is it to decide whether than individual has the maturity Kurska Feb 2015 #5
Hence, loan sharking should be legal....? LanternWaste Feb 2015 #7
Trying to equate economic regulations on interest rates Kurska Feb 2015 #13
Why compare marriage to loan sharking? LittleBlue Feb 2015 #18
Because if people can marry who they want then Kurska Feb 2015 #21
There is no straightforward answer. A community often decides. randome Feb 2015 #8
The state's job isn't to sanction one type of relationship over the other. Kurska Feb 2015 #15
The bedrock of this sanctioning, however, is, of course, money. randome Feb 2015 #17
Which is exactly why it is discriminatory to give sanction to one type of relationship Kurska Feb 2015 #19
From what you have written, it sounds like you... The_Commonist Feb 2015 #6
It's only your body if society says so. closeupready Feb 2015 #9
Less than a decade ago in places in our society I could get tossed in jail for being gay Kurska Feb 2015 #11
Absolutely agree with you on this. closeupready Feb 2015 #12
Ahh I understand eom Kurska Feb 2015 #14
Gotta keep up with the priests and the Mormons, eh? longship Feb 2015 #10
Good thread. That mentality denied gay people marriage recognition LittleBlue Feb 2015 #16
Well, I don't have anything scheduled for tomorrow... brooklynite Feb 2015 #20

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
1. There are legitimate medical issues around incest
Thu Feb 12, 2015, 01:09 PM
Feb 2015

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)
3. Those same issues exist for many couples with recessive genes for terrible disorders.
Thu Feb 12, 2015, 01:11 PM
Feb 2015

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)
22. well the concept of harmful recessives, but the argument is a false slippery slope
Thu Feb 12, 2015, 07:50 PM
Feb 2015

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.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
4. Not everything in life can be conducted according to numbers. Nor should it be.
Thu Feb 12, 2015, 01:17 PM
Feb 2015

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)
5. And whose place is it to decide whether than individual has the maturity
Thu Feb 12, 2015, 02:02 PM
Feb 2015

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.

Kurska

(5,739 posts)
13. Trying to equate economic regulations on interest rates
Thu Feb 12, 2015, 02:57 PM
Feb 2015

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)
18. Why compare marriage to loan sharking?
Thu Feb 12, 2015, 03:12 PM
Feb 2015

Not seeing the connection. OP is arguing for more freedom to marry, not less regulation on loan sharking.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
8. There is no straightforward answer. A community often decides.
Thu Feb 12, 2015, 02:16 PM
Feb 2015

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)
15. The state's job isn't to sanction one type of relationship over the other.
Thu Feb 12, 2015, 03:01 PM
Feb 2015

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)
17. The bedrock of this sanctioning, however, is, of course, money.
Thu Feb 12, 2015, 03:12 PM
Feb 2015

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)
19. Which is exactly why it is discriminatory to give sanction to one type of relationship
Thu Feb 12, 2015, 03:31 PM
Feb 2015

It is literally a matter of livelihood.

The_Commonist

(2,518 posts)
6. From what you have written, it sounds like you...
Thu Feb 12, 2015, 02:10 PM
Feb 2015

...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...

Kurska

(5,739 posts)
11. Less than a decade ago in places in our society I could get tossed in jail for being gay
Thu Feb 12, 2015, 02:53 PM
Feb 2015

That was a tyranny. Society can be tyrannical, but tyranny of the majority isn't a sufficient argument to counter fundamental rights to autonomy.

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
16. Good thread. That mentality denied gay people marriage recognition
Thu Feb 12, 2015, 03:09 PM
Feb 2015

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"If we have same-sex...