87 replies to this topic

[castiel]

 

 

incest probably never.

 

people would have said the same about gay marriage 100 years ago.

 

True, but there's definitely a difference.

Polygamy? It's just our monogamous culture that makes it such a taboo. 

Incest? We've seen throughout history what happens when you engage in incest and reproduce. Genetic deformities. By the time we can overcome that, the question of whether there will even still be a need for physical sexual intercourse will be asked.

 

That's an argument against incest with intent to reproduce.   Not against incest itself.   Naturally or artificially sterile couples do not have the possibility of reproduction, nor do homosexuals.   Even those who're not sterile can use contraceptives, and if you're not against abortion, use abortion as a last resort in case of failure of contraceptives.

 

And as said, what about those with serious genetic diseases?  Do you also by virtue of this, and consistency, oppose their reproduction and believe it should also be restricted?   The same question I ask for all those who followed with medical reasons, or "THINK of the children" responses.

 

I would make incest legal long before I would make polygamy legal. I think there is generally a natural aversion to incest, so If it were legal I doubt that their would be an increase in the number of siblings or parents and offspring wanting to have sex or get married. For the few people that really do want to have sex and/or get married to their parent, adult child, adult brother or adult sister, then I suppose letting them do so is only harming any potential offspring they might have, and isn't harming any current members in society. Polygamy on the other hand, is not something that people naturally have an aversion to, so legalizing it would most definitely lead to an increase in its practice. Polygamy, unlike incest, does impact other members of society in a negative way. Creating an imbalance between available females and available males has negative side effects. When available females are in short supply, there is an increased competition for females which increases violence and destructive behavior among males. Polygamy groups in Utah have more domestic violence, and young men in fringe Mormon groups, who fail to get married, or get kicked out of their community, often engage in destructive behavior (crime,alcoholism, drugs, ect.).  Countries where polygamy is legal, or commonly practiced have more violence. Likewise creating a short supply of available males also has negative effects. Women in  African American communities, where significant portions of the male population are in jail, engage in sexual activity at younger ages, are less likely to use condoms , and more likely to raise children as a single parent. The short supply of available males encourages females in these communities to be more promiscuous and engage in more risky sexual behavior in order to win over a male, men who are not in jail in such communities have less incentives to be committed to their partner sense other females are readily available.   In short, legalizing polygamy would destabilize society. 

 

 

A license to reproduce, and better automated security could deal with all of that.  So we might have to wait a bit until it is viable.   But you shouldn't restrict relations between consenting adults on the basis of what happens to the rest of society.

[TSM]

 

And as said, what about those with serious genetic diseases?  Do you also by virtue of this, and consistency, oppose their reproduction and believe it should also be restricted?   The same question I ask for all those who followed with medical reasons, or "THINK of the children" responses.

 

 

 

 

That's an excellent point that I wish I had thought of.  If incest should be illegal because of the chance of the children having genetic disorders, then by that logic it should also be against the law for people with genetic diseases to reproduce.  

[Nerd]

I'm okay with polyamoury/ploygamy (as long as people aren't cheating on their partners and they all know about it) but incest, uhh..... yeah, that's a bit weird. I know love doesn't necessarily mean sex, but I think IIRC that incest will mess up babies due to their genetics.

[Raklian]

I have a question... are otakus inherently in favor of incest?

[TheComrade]

Another ancient thread revived... but i still think the same:

 

Polygamy - 

Incest - 

[Pisiu369]

What is exactly defined as Incest? Just brothers/sisters or anyone in your family?

[Alislaws]

I think incest is somewhere to tread carefully especially cross generational!

 

You can talk all you like about consenting adults, but if a parent and child start getting it on (however 18 the child might be at the time they get physical) how the hell do you figure out if the parent's been laying the foundation for this since the child was born or whatever?

 

There is a huge amount for room for subtle coercion/abuse etc and it would be really hard to prove that its rape, because the child was taught from age 1 that this was normal and what they're going to do when they grow up.

 

Without society going "nah kid, that is sick and messed up don't bang your dad" then they're just going to think its fine and normal.

 

With siblings its less open to abuse, although older siblings taking advantage of younger siblings still has that same element of seriously weird power dynamics.

 

The genetic argument is just people trying to find a rational reason to justify their knee jerk revulsion though.

 

Polyamoury will be mainstream eventually i think, the basics are that if 3 people love each-other very much, they should be able to be together. Sure, those relationships might be harder to find, maybe they'll be more or less stable etc. and you're going to have lots of guys who are fine with 2 wives, but will go nuts if anyone suggests any more husbands and the other way around as well, but i don't think there's any real moral justification to it beyond "i don't like the idea of non monogamous relationships, so no one else should be allowed to do it"

[caltrek]

When I first read the title of this thread my immediate knee jerk reaction was "of course not."  

 

With respect to polygamy, I am no longer quite so sure.  What has changed?

 

Well I just finished re-reading Irving Stone's Men to Match My Mountains. This is basically a book about the 19th century history of the mountain west, including Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and California.  As such, it covers a great deal of history  concerning the issue of polygamy in Utah among the Mormons.  For those not familiar with that history, the Mormons did practice polygamy.  They were more or less forced to stop that practice by the federal government.  In fact, it is probably not an exaggeration to say that Utah was denied statehood until polygamy in that territory was stamped out by the feds. It very much took an enormous use of force by the feds to finally stop such practices.  A show of force that included prison time for male offenders.

 

So, given the growth of libertarian feelings and the development of that ideology, I can see a time where at least certain states decide that polygamy is not so bad and the feds decide to let such states go their own way.  Maybe not in my lifetime, but someday. 

 

Of course, there are some inherent problems (pardon the pun).  One being how does one split up an inheritance, particularly where there is no will.  Doe the first wife (or her children) get all. Is it split depending upon how much each of the wives earned in jobs?  Is it evenly split?

 

Then there is the problem of divorce.  Again, how does a court arrive at a fair settlement if one of the wives files for a divorce?

 

There is also the question of consent.  Sure, a first wife might sign a document consenting to subsequent wives, but is that really fair if she is financially dependent upon her husband?  

 

There is also the issue of jealousy between wives.

 

Yet, with all that said, the Mormons seemed to have actually pulled it off, with relatively minor injustice done to first wives.  In fact, many first wives actually encouraged marriage to second and third wives and so on.  For them, such marriages were sometimes a form of polyamoury, although presumably sexual encounters were still strictly heterosexual in nature.  Out in the middle of nowhere, the husband having a second wife could bring some welcome adult company.  It could also help with the division of labor "you don't mind doing the laundry but hate milking the cows?  No problem, I hate doing the laundry but don't mind milking the cows."   Some mothers were also more natural at rearing children while others preferred bookkeeping or were more business minded in nature.  And so on and so forth.

 

So, yes, at some time in the distant future I can see the possibility for polygamy occurring.

 

For reasons discussed by others, incest strikes me as far more problematic.