CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Wittlich]

Well, a saying comes to my mind:

"As California Goes, So Goes the Rest of the Nation" (in time)

[Jon Miller]

In fact, link me to one paper in pyschology about how incestal relationships are good, and I will go and check to make sure that the majority of psychologists hold my position.

I have just made it a lot easier for you.

JM

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
... Of course, I am a scientist and most of you aren't.

JM

Well, I'm an information analyst - does that count?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Wittlich


Well, I'm an information analyst - does that count?

To my knowledge you haven't been arguing that there is nothing wrong with incestial relationships.

JM

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
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.

That's your cultural bias. Remove the bias about sex with a sibling, and there may be nothing wrong at all with such a person. They may just find their sibling attractive and react naturally as anyone would to an attractive person.

Much of what is "unhealthy" about such a relationship is the stigmas society attaches to them. This becomes very clear in cases where couples didn't know they were related until after they were together. Before the stigma was attached, there was no "unhealthy" result, but after they become aware, guilt and shame, or ostracization, are often a result. That suggests that there is nothing inherently wrong with the relationship, but rather, a social construct which says it's wrong creates the problem.

This is even clearer when you look at the variation between cultures. In some cultures cousin-cousin relations are viewed as taboo. In others, first cousins are perfectly acceptable. In the cultures where it's not taboo, there aren't the unhealthy side effects of guilt and shame.

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

You're the one making the arguments here. Either you can back it up, or you can't. If you are admitting you can't, fine, no need to talk to you about this.

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

Where have I suggested changing culture? All I am saying is your claim that incestuous relationships are necessarily unhealthy is bogus.

Trying to change reality to fit your lack of understanding about what I said is the exact opposite of discussion and debate

If science starts to back up the idea that siblings should be able to get married, then expect a change.

It's not really a scientific question. There is no qualitative way to determine whether 2 people will have a happy and healthy relationship together. If there were, someone would have gotten extraordinarily wealthy off of matchmaking. (And no, eHarmony.com isn't it...)

Compatibility is up to those involved to figure out for themselves. Because it essentially comes down to what they want, and they are the only "experts" on that topic.

(Whether or not they should have kids is much more of a scientific question, but a separate issue.)

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.

If you want to be one of the sheep being herded around, feel free. In the past it clearly would have lead to you being a bigot.

[Ming]

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

But you ignore that they can be and that there have been successful ones. And you also ignore the fact that tradional marriages can be unstable and mentally/emotionally unhealthy. There are problems with any type of relationship.

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.

Yep... some don't... and what is the divorce rate again for normal couples?

Additionally, far more group marriages are exploitative and unhealthy than standard marriages... this is also fact. Not like your fantasies.

So... are all group marriages exploitative and unhealthy? Again, there are many eploitative and unhealthy hetero marriages. Just because a couple gets married doesn't mean they are going to live happily ever after... that is your fantasy.

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.

You have only stated that some experts disagree... and again, remember the experts once thought the world was flat, homosexuality was bad, blacks were inferior and so were woman.

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).

You have yet to prove on why one is good for the state an the other isn't. All relationships can provide the stability and happiness the state should encourage...
In addition, you even show your bias by saying the state should censor them solely because of your beliefs and personal opinion.

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

While I personally have no interest in doing as you suggest... you have yet to prove why the government shouldn't be interested in supporting such an endeavor, if indeed that relationship created happy, productive and a stable relationship... because that is the ONLY reason you give for why the state should sponsor any relationship.

Try again Jim... and leave your opinions and religious beliefs behind. Because remember, you are the one that stated that people that disagree with your beliefs should get couseling.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


To my knowledge you haven't been arguing that there is nothing wrong with incestuous relationships.

JM

Actually, after catching up with the thread, I too feel that incestuous relationships are unhealthy (birth defects, etc.).

Polygamy is something that is rather foreign for me - as it relates to my own personal view. However, my own view still does not stop others from having a different view.

[Jon Miller]

Are you saying that there is no science to psychology? I admit it isn't very well developed.

And my statements about incest being bad is based on a few reviews I have had. If you have heard differently, please link that to me. And not some wack job please.

Debate and dicussion don't exist in a void. That is just intellectual masturbation. My memory is that psychologists say incest is mentally/emotionally bad. As I hold the generally held position, it is up to you guys to show that psychologists have changed. And you can't just use 'logic' and debate. Evidence is required.

If you want to be one of the sheep being herded around, feel free. In the past it clearly would have lead to you being a bigot.

You guys can ignore observation and reality all you want, in the past it would lead you to beleive the earth was flat. Or that we didn't land on the moon.

You are ignoring that there are far more ways that a group marriage is unstable and unhealthy than a standard marriage. You are also ignoring the statistics that they are less healthy/stable. You are ignoring the observations that they are less stable/healthy.

You can't ignore all these problems, just by saying that occasionally normal marriages have problems also. I have given models/constructs/reasons for why they would have increase problems, you haven't given any reason why these are wrong. You can't make pluralistic marriages be good for society by saying that they will be. Or by saying that normal marriages occasionally have problems. You have to show reasons why they would be better for society than not allowing them, when they clearly haven't been in previous cases.

The divorce rate for couples who have never been divorced before is 30 +/- 10% (probably on the lower side, I don't remember exactly but you are much more likely to get a divorce if you have already had one and the overall divorce rate is aruond 50%). Pluralistic relationships fail much more often and much more quickly than the corresponding 2-person relationsihps. This is from statistics, not from personal experience.

If one type of relationship generally increases health and is stable, and another type generally decreases health and is unstable, then it is in the states interest to encourage the one and discourage another. And in the cases of incest and bigamy, if you encourage them they are in direct competition with 2-person marriage (while homosexual marriage is not, or is very very slightly).

And please stop misrepresenting what I said Ming, I said that if you want to have sex with your sibling/parent you should go to counseling.

JM

[Wittlich]

I have no problems with your analysis Jon, and I concur with them...it is just that there are other viewpoints concerning incest and polygamy.

I guess what I am saying is that having an open mind that is open to other viewpoints is a good thing. (I know, spoken like a true SF liberal)

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by snoopy369
People in American society can follow the rules designated by America. If they prefer not to, they can leave and go somewhere where they can follow their own rules. I don't think this is an entirely new concept...

Yeah every Jew should swim back to the Old World with two ******s to his right and left!


The American dream.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming

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

Those evil scientists and their evolutionary ways!!! We must stop them cramming their beliefs down everyone's throat!!!

[Wittlich]

To clarify:

Concerning Incest: If it is between two consenting adults and no one is being hurt/abused - who am I to say if it is right or wrong?

Concerning Polygamy: If it is between 3 (or more) consenting adults and no one is being hurt/abused - who am I to say if it is right or wrong?

I know of a few homosexual couples here in "The City" who have "open relationships" (ie, both parties can date other men). I myself could never have an open relationship with my partner (I am a jealous b!tch) ... but if it works for them, who am I to say differently?

People are people after all.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Ming
Snoopy.... One more time, we place NO SUCH RESTRICTIONS on people with genetic disorders who are MORE LIKELY than relatives to have children with birth defects. The state allows them to get married and have children who are at high risk to have birth defects.
This is no different. To allow one and not the other is simply discrimination.

QFT


Ming is the voice of reason in this thread, I endorse his views fully.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Are you saying that there is no science to psychology? I admit it isn't very well developed.

I am saying that there's no current science that will tell me who I want to spend my life with. Maybe at some point in the future we will unravel what it is to be conscious, and map out people's thought processes to the point we can say, "Yah, you two would like each other and have a healthy relationship together (at least for now)"... but even then we can't predict the future. Various environmental factors could change the couple's outlooks over time, and thus influence the health of their relationship.

And you can't just use 'logic' and debate. Evidence is required.

I brought up cultures without taboo. I have mentioned cases where siblings were married without being aware of their relation.

You have... run away and hid behind hypothetical "experts" instead of address those issues. You pretend you are referencing reality, but you are simply ignoring any facts that don't agree with you.

You are ignoring that there are far more ways that a group marriage is unstable and unhealthy than a standard marriage.

I haven't even mentioned group marriage. Why the hell do you quote me and then babble on about something completely unrelated? I think you meant to talk to Ming, yet you can't even get that right.

You clearly show your inability to differentiate between subjects in that you:

a. group the people you are replying to, even though they are saying different things.

b. pretend that your status as a "scientist" somehow is applicable to this debate even though it's not dealing with the area you study.

c. cannot comprehend how individual relationships can vary from one another. Instead, you offer absolutes about how relationships of various nature must be.

d. can't understand that an argument against your statement of absolute nature of a type of relationship isn't an argument of whatever the hell you instead treat it as. In this case, you pretended like I was arguing to change society. Which I clearly have not done.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Reasons why the state supports heterosexual marriage:

Children
Stability
Health (sexual/mental/physical/emotional)

Reasons why the state should support homosexual marriage:

Stability
Children (if adopted)
Health (sexual/physical/emotional/mental)

For incest:

There is already a stable relationship?
They shouldn't have children together.
Most agree that these relationships are negative emotionally/mentally.

So the state should not support incestal relationships.

It is not that simple. These other relationships don't provide what the state wants to provide. If you are quite about it, the state won't interfere if you are having sex with your siblings (and might not even interfere if you are open about it?). But it has no cause to support it.

By the way, for bigamous relationships:

Not stable.
Children (OK, that one works, as long as they aren't married away when they are 16 or 18)
Not healthy for all parties emotionally/mentally.

JM

Who made you grand arbiter of what is healty and what is unnatural? You do know homosexuallity was considered a mental illness untill the 80's right?

What everempovers the majority to limit the rights of a minority. Democracy must not degenerate into mob rule that is why we have human rights, well we sort of have them.


We humans are so inconsistent when it comes to ethics. I say in for the penny in for the pound. I prefer to be logical and have intellectuall integrity on all subjects rather than chery pick which behaviours I like and which not and completley ignore reason in the procces. If you do that then you are morally no better than someone who defended slavery or someone who supported strict sodomy laws.