Incest was practiced by Egyptian royalty.

don't underestimate the mentally ill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhccYauRvww

what does a girl from alabama say when she loses her virginity?

"Get off me daddy! Yer crushin' my cigarettes!!!"

quote:

Originally posted by pianojuggler:
Y'know... I keep hearing that "slippery slope" argument againt gay marriage -- that next we will be legalizing polygamy, incest, bestiality...

But when I think about it, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with polygamy. Fundamentally unfair, but not fundamentally wrong.

I am such a product of growing up on the left coast in the 1970s.

Why do you think polygamy is fundamentally unfair? - I'm assuming that all partners are willing of course.

quote:

QuirtEvans wrote:

The issue is the genetics of procreation.

True, incestuous procreation has a higher risk of genetic disorders when all else are equal. But if a woman is old enough (say, above 40) when becoming a mother, the risk for genetic disorder becomes even higher than that of incest (when the incestuous mother is younger, say, in the 20's). Since we're not saying that it's "wrong" for older women to have kids because of genetic risk, it sure isn't consistent to say that incest is "wrong" for that reason.

quote:

Originally posted by markb:
It's mind-boggling that there are people spending lots of time and money to actively deny rights to other people that would have no real impact on themselves.

Any objections to marriage equality that are not based on secular reasons should be disregarded. That shouldn't leave much, if anything, on which to object.

Bingo.

quote:

Originally posted by OperaTenor:

quote:

Originally posted by markb:
It's mind-boggling that there are people spending lots of time and money to actively deny rights to other people that would have no real impact on themselves.

Any objections to marriage equality that are not based on secular reasons should be disregarded. That shouldn't leave much, if anything, on which to object.

Bingo.

ditto

The effectiveness of the argument in these campaigns that marriage equality will require schools to teach homosexuality as a valid lifestyle tells me that the argument that homosexuality is a choice still prevails among many people. Their fear is that if their children hear about homosexuality, they will choose it. If you don't teach about it, the children will automatically default to heterosexuality.

It is the same fear that if you have sex education in the schools, the children will be drawn to sex. If you don't teach it, they will spend their time playing Scrabble at home.

Silliness.

quote:

Originally posted by pianojuggler:
I have nothing useful to add at the moment other than to say that I voted for Ref 71 in Washington State and encouraged everyone I know (with whom I am not forbidden to discuss politics) to do the same.

Together we passed the "everything but (the word) marriage" law.

Actually, what we did was just uphold what the state legislature had already done.

PJ, good for you guys! But does the Washington law actually provide "everything but"? I seem to remember seeing, when we were going through this a year ago, a website explaining that there are many rights that marriage confers at the federal level, that the domestic partnerships can't give. Maybe I'm wrong -- can't seem to find the website now.

quote:

Originally posted by teachum:

quote:

Originally posted by pianojuggler:
Y'know... I keep hearing that "slippery slope" argument againt gay marriage -- that next we will be legalizing polygamy, incest, bestiality...

But when I think about it, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with polygamy. Fundamentally unfair, but not fundamentally wrong.

I am such a product of growing up on the left coast in the 1970s.

Why do you think polygamy is fundamentally unfair? - I'm assuming that all partners are willing of course.

The studly guys get multiple partners. Us paunchy homebodies get one -- maybe.


It does seem that in some parts of the world where polygamy is accepted today, the males spend most of their time killing each other, so maybe each guy having up to five wives does keep things fair.

quote:

Originally posted by Nan W:

quote:

Originally posted by pianojuggler:
I have nothing useful to add at the moment other than to say that I voted for Ref 71 in Washington State and encouraged everyone I know (with whom I am not forbidden to discuss politics) to do the same.

Together we passed the "everything but (the word) marriage" law.

Actually, what we did was just uphold what the state legislature had already done.

PJ, good for you guys! But does the Washington law actually provide "everything but"? I seem to remember seeing, when we were going through this a year ago, a website explaining that there are many rights that marriage confers at the federal level, that the domestic partnerships can't give. Maybe I'm wrong -- can't seem to find the website now.

I don't know.

I understand that there are issues with states not recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states, and stuff like that.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Zimmer:
It is the same fear that if you have sex education in the schools, the children will be drawn to sex. If you don't teach it, they will spend their time playing Scrabble at home.

Silliness.

In the first five years that Minnesota had its "abstinency only" sex ed program in schools, the teen pregnancy rate doubled.

I didn't realize you could get pregnant by playing Scrabble.

quote:

Originally posted by pianojuggler:

quote:

Originally posted by teachum:

quote:

Originally posted by pianojuggler:
Y'know... I keep hearing that "slippery slope" argument againt gay marriage -- that next we will be legalizing polygamy, incest, bestiality...

But when I think about it, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with polygamy. Fundamentally unfair, but not fundamentally wrong.

I am such a product of growing up on the left coast in the 1970s.

Why do you think polygamy is fundamentally unfair? - I'm assuming that all partners are willing of course.

The studly guys get multiple partners. Us paunchy homebodies get one -- maybe.


It does seem that in some parts of the world where polygamy is accepted today, the males spend most of their time killing each other, so maybe each guy having up to five wives does keep things fair.

Just checking - I thought I detected a hint of humor there. I think the kind, intelligent, funny ones would get multiple wives as well, which would count you in. But seriously, would you really want to have several women in the house all bossing you around. I think it's way more fair to the wives. They get to split up the work and gang up and plot against the man.

quote:

Originally posted by teachum:
But seriously, would you really want to have several women in the house all bossing you around. I think it's way more fair to the wives. They get to split up the work and gang up and plot against the man.

You don't need polygamy for that. Just have daughters.

Does anyone know of a society, past or present, where women are allowed more than one husband? And if so, was it/is it as common a practice as multiple wives are?