4 ms·

Hopefully some day I can marry multiple women. Or maybe some day hopefully a mother and son can marry. Who is to say? As long as we are all adults and love o

Hopefully some day I can marry multiple women. Or maybe some day hopefully a mother and son can marry. Who is to say? As long as we are all adults and love one another.

tryitnow 14y ago
Actually, yes, I agree with that. I have many friends who are varying degrees of polyamorous and I see no reason to deny them the right to have legal recognition of their relationships and all that entails (including joint property rights, medical visitation, inheritance, and everything else traditional families take for granted). As for mother and son, I personally find it distasteful, but why on earth should I care? Seriously? Are mother/son couples going to rise up and enslave us all, forcing us into incestuous mother-loving relationships? Why should politicians define the specifics of social arrangements? Laws should be a platform upon which people of all persuasions can develop their own ways of relating. Like an open source approach to social relations.
- jonhendry 14y ago
  The parent and adult child combination arguably has potential for coercion that don't exist in other combinations, starting with "play along or you're disowned / out of the will / thrown out of the house".
cobrausn 14y ago
I know you're trolling, but I fully expect polygamists to see support for same sex marriage as a sign that they deserve the right to marry whom they choose as well, and start campaigning for it. I seriously doubt they will gain the same progressive fanfare, but I see it happening eventually. As for the second part - the risks of incest to the children of such couplings (who certainly can't consent to being the product of incest) are well known, and it's worth a few laws and a heavy dose of shame to prevent such outcomes.
- dragthor 14y ago
  I am not trolling. People need to ask themselves - why not just redefine marriage as any two (or three or ten) people over the age of 18? There are lots of ways to prevent a child from being born. Still... any two consenting adults... brother-brother... brother-sister... sister-sister... should all be allowed to "marry". Redefining marriage is the radical point-of-view.
  - jonhendry 14y ago
    "I am not trolling. People need to ask themselves - why not just redefine marriage as any two (or three or ten) people over the age of 18?" Given the variety of marriages in the Bible (A guy, his wife, and his wife's handmaiden, etc), who's redefining anything?
    - slurgfest 14y ago
      The redefinition is relative to a variety of traditional definitions which include weird (and also Biblical) concepts like polygamy, concubines and having compulsory sex with your brother's wife. The redefinition is ultimately dictated by changes in material conditions which lead to proximate changes in people's interests.
      - jonhendry 14y ago
        "The redefinition is relative to a variety of traditional definitions which include weird (and also Biblical) concepts like polygamy, concubines and having compulsory sex with your brother's wife." If the definition includes all those, then there isn't really a definition worth the name.
        slurgfest 14y ago
        That's not true. Even just in the Jewish traditions related in the Bible, there are many very specific constraints. They just don't happen to be the same as "Leave it to Beaver." But maybe the Bible is too much of a button-pusher example. To understand, just consider one of the traditional definitions - let's take the Hindu one. It isn't at all true that there is no traditional Hindu concept of marriage, there is quite a strong one and there are a great many things it excludes. These exclusions are meaningful. The same thing is also true of many other traditional definitions. Although some traditions are a little different from others. Now as the world urbanizes many traditions are being mushed together in industrialized settings and they are forming their own new standards. So same-sex marriage is up for grabs and we see the current fight. However, there is no traditional or modern tradition which includes marriage with dead puppies. Some things are in, others are out - there were many definite concepts but each is changing and many are merging.
mrgoldenbrown 14y ago
I think it's funny that the Mormons, who were forced to give up multiple wives so Utah could become a state, are so opposed to "redefining" marriage.
- sigzero 14y ago
  I am not sure about this but I believe that is one of the rules for any State to come into the Union. My brain is fuzzy on that one though.

Hopefully some day I can marry multiple women. Or maybe some day hopefully a mother and son can marry. Who is to say? As long as we are all adults and love one another.

tryitnow 14y ago

Actually, yes, I agree with that. I have many friends who are varying degrees of polyamorous and I see no reason to deny them the right to have legal recognition of their relationships and all that entails (including joint property rights, medical visitation, inheritance, and everything else traditional families take for granted). As for mother and son, I personally find it distasteful, but why on earth should I care? Seriously? Are mother/son couples going to rise up and enslave us all, forcing us into incestuous mother-loving relationships? Why should politicians define the specifics of social arrangements? Laws should be a platform upon which people of all persuasions can develop their own ways of relating. Like an open source approach to social relations.

jonhendry 14y ago
The parent and adult child combination arguably has potential for coercion that don't exist in other combinations, starting with "play along or you're disowned / out of the will / thrown out of the house".

cobrausn 14y ago

I know you're trolling, but I fully expect polygamists to see support for same sex marriage as a sign that they deserve the right to marry whom they choose as well, and start campaigning for it. I seriously doubt they will gain the same progressive fanfare, but I see it happening eventually. As for the second part - the risks of incest to the children of such couplings (who certainly can't consent to being the product of incest) are well known, and it's worth a few laws and a heavy dose of shame to prevent such outcomes.

dragthor 14y ago
I am not trolling. People need to ask themselves - why not just redefine marriage as any two (or three or ten) people over the age of 18? There are lots of ways to prevent a child from being born. Still... any two consenting adults... brother-brother... brother-sister... sister-sister... should all be allowed to "marry". Redefining marriage is the radical point-of-view.
- jonhendry 14y ago
  "I am not trolling. People need to ask themselves - why not just redefine marriage as any two (or three or ten) people over the age of 18?" Given the variety of marriages in the Bible (A guy, his wife, and his wife's handmaiden, etc), who's redefining anything?
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    The redefinition is relative to a variety of traditional definitions which include weird (and also Biblical) concepts like polygamy, concubines and having compulsory sex with your brother's wife. The redefinition is ultimately dictated by changes in material conditions which lead to proximate changes in people's interests.
    - jonhendry 14y ago
      "The redefinition is relative to a variety of traditional definitions which include weird (and also Biblical) concepts like polygamy, concubines and having compulsory sex with your brother's wife." If the definition includes all those, then there isn't really a definition worth the name.
      - slurgfest 14y ago
        That's not true. Even just in the Jewish traditions related in the Bible, there are many very specific constraints. They just don't happen to be the same as "Leave it to Beaver." But maybe the Bible is too much of a button-pusher example. To understand, just consider one of the traditional definitions - let's take the Hindu one. It isn't at all true that there is no traditional Hindu concept of marriage, there is quite a strong one and there are a great many things it excludes. These exclusions are meaningful. The same thing is also true of many other traditional definitions. Although some traditions are a little different from others. Now as the world urbanizes many traditions are being mushed together in industrialized settings and they are forming their own new standards. So same-sex marriage is up for grabs and we see the current fight. However, there is no traditional or modern tradition which includes marriage with dead puppies. Some things are in, others are out - there were many definite concepts but each is changing and many are merging.

mrgoldenbrown 14y ago

I think it's funny that the Mormons, who were forced to give up multiple wives so Utah could become a state, are so opposed to "redefining" marriage.

sigzero 14y ago
I am not sure about this but I believe that is one of the rules for any State to come into the Union. My brain is fuzzy on that one though.