CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ming


No it isn't... that is an opinion held by some, but others disagree. And that's the point. It completely varies depending on the situation. Just like it does with hetero couples. There are no absolutes.
And you are arguing like it is an absolute. It isn't.

So all you are doing is cramming your beliefs down everybodies throat.

The state should sanction all or none.

I don't know about incest, but the state sanctions all others (well, there might still be a sodomy law on the book somewhere). I know of people who engaged in incest (often but not always exploitive) in communities I have lived in, but except in obvious cases of exploitation (father/daughter or older sibling/younger sibling) I haven't known the state to do anything.

This isn't a question of whether the state sanctions something or not, this is a question of whether the state encourages something or not.

And you can be out by yourself saying that there is nothing damaging about incestial relationships if you wish. But please note that the vast majority of people and experts disagree with you. If the vast majority of experts agreed with you, I would reconsider my position (on incest).

JM

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Have you even read my posts?

There doesn't have to be anything inherently unhealthy with such a relationship. (Just as there doesn't have to be anything (un)healthy about other relationships.) It will vary from relationship to relationship.

You are saying that there is necessarily an unhealthy aspect to incestual relationships. That is simply not true.

Besides, what do you think Adam and Eve's kids were doing?

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Aeson


Bigamy is the act of marrying a person when you are already married to another. So to close a gender gap where there are more males than females, it is implied that the females would marry more than one male. Bigamy and polyandry would both be suitable terms to use.

Right, right. I was mixing it up with polygyny, which is female-specific, whereas ploygamy isn't.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Aeson


There doesn't have to be anything inherently unhealthy with such a relationship. (Just as there doesn't have to be anything (un)healthy about other relationships.) It will vary from relationship to relationship.

You are saying that there is necessarily an unhealthy aspect to incestual relationships. That is simply not true.

Please refer to majority opinion among experts?

JM

[Arrian]

I still think that making bigamy legal stands a chance of actually decreasing the problems associated with it now.

-Arrian

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Please refer to majority opinion among experts?

If any "experts" say that all incestuous relationships must be unhealthy for all parties involved, they are idiots. There have clearly been cases where incestuous relationships were not unhealthy for the parties involved.

You'll find a majority of "experts" throughout our nation's history would find homosexuality "unhealthy". There was a time when a majority of "experts" would have said that black people and women were lesser beings. "Experts" and "majority" don't mean **** if you can't back up your claims.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
And you can be out by yourself saying that there is nothing damaging about incestial relationships if you wish. But please note that the vast majority of people and experts disagree with you. If the vast majority of experts agreed with you, I would reconsider my position (on incest).

JM

I didn't say that is nothing damaging about a incestial relationship. In some cases, it can be bad and damanging. In others, it isn't. Just like in normal relationships... many of them are damanged... just looking at the divorce rate proves there is no magic there either. Nothing is prefect, and people have the right to find their own happiness. If a brother wants to marry a sister (which I personally find disturbing), I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to if that's what they really want. There may be problems, and it many not last, but that is the case with any marriage.
Either way, there is a chance of high emotional damage and problems. So why outlaw one and not the other.

Now you will claim it's a matter of percentages... but guess what, the government allows us to buy cars that go way faster than we are allowed to drive them. Our chances of dying in them is far higher than if we were only allowed to buy slower cars. The government also allows us to buy unhealthy food and stuff ourselves to death... The government allows us to drink and smoke, knowing it's causing us harm... so I don't want to hear about how it's a matter of percentages. It's a matter of personal freedom and choice. If the government is going to sanction marriages, they shouldn't discriminate.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian
I still think that making bigamy legal stands a chance of actually decreasing the problems associated with it now.

-Arrian

That is the problems with a few 1000 people. It would increase the problems with 100000s of others.

It is just like heroin. For the people who are addicted to it, yeah, making it legal would help them tremdously. The only problem is if we made it legal, we would end up with a lot more people addicted.

JM

[Ming]

Originally posted by Aeson
If any "experts" say that all incestuous relationships must be unhealthy for all parties involved, they are idiots. There have clearly been cases where incestuous relationships were not unhealthy for the parties involved.

You'll find a majority of "experts" throughout our nation's history would find homosexuality "unhealthy". There was a time when a majority of "experts" would have said that black people and women were lesser beings. "Experts" and "majority" don't mean **** if you can't back up your claims.

Thank you... I was going to address that topic next, but you did a fine enough job for me.

Oh, and you left out the fact that once all the experts thought the world was flat too.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ming


I didn't say that is nothing damaging about a incestial relationship. In some cases, it can be bad and damanging. In others, it isn't. Just like in normal relationships... many of them are damanged... just looking at the divorce rate proves there is no magic there either. Nothing is prefect, and people have the right to find their own happiness. If a brother wants to marry a sister (which I personally find disturbing), I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to if that's what they really want. There may be problems, and it many not last, but that is the case with any marriage.
Either way, there is a chance of high emotional damage and problems. So why outlaw one and not the other.

Now you will claim it's a matter of percentages... but guess what, the government allows us to buy cars that go way faster than we are allowed to drive them. Our chances of dying in them is far higher than if we were only allowed to buy slower cars. The government also allows us to buy unhealthy food and stuff ourselves to death... The government allows us to drink and smoke, knowing it's causing us harm... so I don't want to hear about how it's a matter of percentages. It's a matter of personal freedom and choice. If the government is going to sanction marriages, they shouldn't discriminate.

The government, to my knowledge, allows you to have sex with your sibling (as long as both of you are old enough/etc) as much as you wish.

What it doesn't do is provide benefits for the relationship (I actually think that it would be correct in penalyzing it, based on my understanding of psychology).

It is like food stamps. The government only supports you getting good food (well, what they say is good food). You can't use food stamps to buy alcohol or tabacco (or even some foods). This is government providing benefits. Very different from government allowing something.

You are allowed to shack up with as many people as you want. Just the government shouldn't be required to provide the benefits you want for something that isn't in it's interest to encourage.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Aeson


If any "experts" say that all incestuous relationships must be unhealthy for all parties involved, they are idiots. There have clearly been cases where incestuous relationships were not unhealthy for the parties involved.

I have never heard nor observed any such. I have seen many many many exploitative.

My concerns aren't even about exploitation. There is something wrong with someone who wants to have sex with their sibling. They shouldn't be allowed to get married to their sibling, rather they should go to counseling.

You'll find a majority of "experts" throughout our nation's history would find homosexuality "unhealthy". There was a time when a majority of "experts" would have said that black people and women were lesser beings. "Experts" and "majority" don't mean **** if you can't back up your claims.

I am not a psychologist. Talk to some of them, please.

And my understanding is that they have evidence. I agree that any study of the mind is a young field, but that doesn't mean that it is as baseless as saying black people and women are lesser beings.

Trying to change culture to fit your ideals without any base in reality is the exact opposite of science and enlightened thinking.

If science starts to back up the idea that siblings should be able to get married, then expect a change. Experts have backed the idea that there was nothing inherently unhealthy about homosexuality. It is only after this that we begin talking about homosexual marriage.

JM

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Just the government shouldn't be required to provide the benefits you want for something that isn't in it's interest to encourage.
JM

If it's primary purpose is to encourage stability and happiness, there is no reason why it should just sanction marriages for hetero couples. Group marriages can offer both... so can gay marriages... and so can relatives getting married... Any of them have the possibility of going wrong. Why should the government only limit it to what you feel is right based on your opinions or religious beliefs.

You have still offered up no real and absolute proof on why it should only sanction one or the other.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I have never heard nor observed any such. I have seen many many many exploitative.

And I have seen many hetero marriages that totally bad and abusive... so we shouldn't allow them?

My concerns aren't even about exploitation. There is something wrong with someone who wants to have sex with their sibling. They shouldn't be allowed to get married to their sibling, rather they should go to counseling.

Now we are getting to the heart of it... the only reason why you are against is it s because YOU think it's wrong.
Others may not share your opinion.

And my understanding is that they have evidence. I agree that any study of the mind is a young field, but that doesn't mean that it is as baseless as saying black people and women are lesser beings.

They thought they had evidence that the world was flat... that blacks and women were lesser beings, and it would be bad if people from different races married... and they were wrong.

Trying to change culture to fit your ideals without any base in reality is the exact opposite of science and enlightened thinking.
JM

But you are the one that thinks the people who don't agree with you should seek professional help. Many might think the same of you since they don't agree with you.

[Jon Miller]

Umm, I have refered to the many reasons that group marriages aren't stable or mentally/emotionally healthy.

On all the counts that I brought up, homosexual and heterosexual marriage passes, and all others fail.

I am not refering to some idealist logic, but rather to reality. In reality, group marriages among free and indivualistic people don't last long. This is logical (3 bonds for 3 people instead of 1 bond for 2 people). Additionally, far more group marriages are exploitative and unhealthy than standard marriages... this is also fact. Not like your fantasies.

I have pointed out the problems over and over again. I have discussed (but not referenced, as I don't have them on hand) studies and situations which show you to be wrong.

I have further pointed out the difference between allowing something and encouraging it. Legal marriage is encouraging, not just allowing. Since the majority of time marriage is good for the state, and the vast majority of the time incestal and bigamist relationshios are bad for the state, the state should not support incestal and bigamist relationships. In fact, I think it shuold censor them (which it doesn't do currently, at least in practice).

Currently there is nothing stopping you and rah and your wifes and some of your freinds from getting together and having a group relationship. However, the government isn't interested (and shouldn't be interested) in supporting such an endeavor.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ming
And I have seen many hetero marriages that totally bad and abusive... so we shouldn't allow them?

I have already addressed this.

Now we are getting to the heart of it... the only reason why you are against is it s because YOU think it's wrong.
Others may not share your opinion.

My understanding of psychology is that this is true. If I am wrong, please link me and show me (and not just one wack job).

They thought they had evidence that the world was flat... that blacks and women were lesser beings, and it would be bad if people from different races married... and they were wrong.

But gravity exists, and objects in motion tend to remain in motion, and all sorts of other obvservations are true. If you are going against what is currently understood about reality it is your job to show where the models/theories/observations are wrong. It isn't correct to say "oh, logic says they are wrong" when it doesn't at all. You can be logical and include the observations regarding incest being mentally/emotionally bad.

But you are the one that thinks the people who don't agree with you should seek professional help. Many might think the same of you since they don't agree with you.

The community of experts agree with me. They don't agree with you.

There seems to be a whole lot of people here who aren't grounded at all in reality. Reality comes first, ideals and logic build up from there. Positions held by people aren't of equal value, the one that is in agreement with reality has precedence.

Of course, I am a scientist and most of you aren't.

JM