The Glade 4.0

New, in the sense of new to the thread.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I haven't claimed you'd promoted or condoned the practice of incest. I've said that your preferred course of action permits incestuous "domestic unions" or whatever the name is.

You've repeatedly said you don't want to regulate sex. Do you think **** your sister should be legal? I'm not asking if you think it's a good idea, moral, socially acceptable, or anything you'd want to be up to; I think it's fairly clear you do not personally approve of incest and for the record, that isn't what I've said either.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Can can not condone or promote something and still say it shouldn't be illegal. Should you **** your sister? No, but I really don't think it's my business if you and her get freaky. Please don't tell me about it though.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Since when has permitting domestic unions equated to legalizing **** your sister?

The whole point of creating a domestic union arrangement is to *decouple* the notion of who's **** whom from the law's eyes entirely.

You know what? If a brother wants to **** his sister, he doesn't need to marry her. It's still illegal. And changing marriage to be a religious label and creating a new contract for the law to recognize that doesn't care whether you and your partner want to **** each other doesn't suddenly legalize incest, either.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

No one said it was legalizing **** your sister. It's legalizing marrying your sister, which is exactly what a domestic union is no matter what kind of salad dressing you try to put on it. People who want to marry their sisters want to because they want to **** their sisters, not because they want to be able to adopt kids together. Where are all these mysterious people that are being oppressed by not being allowed to marry their sister or brother but who don't actually want to have sex with them?



So in other words, the whole notion is to make it acceptable to marry your sister. Married people **** each other. I am not buying this idea that there's some significant population of people out there that want to marry close relatives but aren't into incest, and even if it does exist, that doesn't change the fact that incestuous couples are going to want this domestic union. And then what? "You can have the domestic union but you still can't **** each other!"? How's that going to work? Going to inspect their bedrooms! Oh no! We've got to keep government out of the bedroom! Therefore we just will not worry about what they do in private. In other words, you just legalized incest by simply making an end run around it.



So what happened to "decoupling it from the law's eyes"? You guys are all over the place. You're so obsessed with the idea of getting the law out of it for the sake of getting the law out of it that you can't even realize when you're blatantly contradicting yourself.

If this isn't how things are supposed to work, try explaining it. As in, without ranting about how I'm not getting it because I'm to "authoritarian" or whatever other excuse you like to use for why your ideas don't generate instant agreement. I'd seriously love to know, because I ahve a hard time believing any of you are OK with incest, but it sure as hell looks like you're attempting to legalize it, or at least don't give a **** if that's a side effect.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye:

It doesn't legalize marrying your sister anymore than it legalizes marrying your father, mother, or some other blood relative currently prohibited by law based on the reproductive consequences of incest. That said, if you continue to conflate legality, social taboo, and a consequence-based prohibition, I doubt anyone will bother to respond.

You're also arguing from a falsely stated position. First, there exists a number of reasons beyond sex or legitimizing sex that someone might enter into a domestic partnership with a close blood relative that involves no sex. You're specifically excluding possibilities you've not experienced for a rather grandiose red-herring. Second, the legal benefits currently attached to marriage are in some cases unique to the state of marriage. That's rather problematic for a lot of people, even if they actually have no desire to have sex with anyone.

_________________

I'm not "conflating" anything. I just explained how it does exactly that. Your fiat declaration otherwise is meaningless.



What exactly is this supposed to mean?


All of which are theoretical and none of which in anyway preclude a domestic partnership that does involve it.



BZZZT. Wrong. I have not excluded them; I have said people actually interested in them are either vanishingly rare or nonexistent, and that the existence of those people does not preclude the existence of other people who will behave exactly as I predict.



Exactly. Hence, why it is not merely a matter of it being a contract.



So what? That doesn't mean ****. If it's problematic for them, they need to either convince the rest of society to adopt their views, deal with not being able to get those benefits, or change their situation.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

My post means exactly what it means. Your position is falsely stated, because you don't want us to challenge your actual assumptions; it also means the incest is an intentional red-herring.

1. Nothing prevents the government from maintaining an incest prohibition for whatever contractual, non-marriage union Kaffis or anyone else supports. In fact, because the incest taboo originates pre-law (as best we know), and because the incest taboo originates in reproductive consequences, incest is illegal for those purposes. The current state of law and prohibition has probably done nothing to mitigate or end the egregious offenses you think would suddenly multiply in the post-union state.

2. You are indeed conflating legality, social taboo, and a consequence-based prohibition. You're using the social invocation of incest to chafe people and appeal to emotion; you're also implicating that psychic response in the legality of incest and the broader reasoning behind its prohibition so as to morally encumber the subject. I mean, if you really want to suggest that incest invalidates their position, I'd point out that other than the reproductive consequence you have little or no rational basis for the objection or taboo at all that does not begin with an assumptive moral position.

3. You'll need to demonstrate whether or not Kaffis's proposal changes actual behavior or just visible behavior. Because the incest taboo is one of the oldest and few universal taboos, it stands to reason that anyone involved in breaking it keeps it rather obfuscated. Even if the technical legality of Kaffis's suggestion made possible the union you suggest, social stigma would keep the parties involved from pursuing for fear of ridicule and difficulty in the process anyway.

4. It's curious that you discount entirely the number of people who might have legitimate legal and personal reasons to entire into a non-sexual union; yet, you're certain there exists a significant enough number of incestuous pairs out there to problematize the concept for everyone.

So, again, since it apparently wasn't clear to you:

Incest is a red-herring: its legality and prohibition have nothing to do with marriage; nor, for that matter, is it a valid consideration in any discussion regarding the legality or nature of marriage or replacement contract unions. It falls outside the scope and intent of the discussion. Incest will be illegal until such a point as it has no genetic consequence and society has no problem with it; or, it'll just stay illegal and be a non-issue because it's such a rare deviance.

_________________

Again, this means nothing. How is my post "falsely stated"? As for not wanting assumptions challenged, neither you, nor anyone advocating a "get the government out of marriage" position (except Leshani) has a leg to stand on in that regard.



You have no factual basis to think current law has not mitigated it.



I'm not appealing to emotion at all. By claiming that I am, all you are doing is attempting to place the problem of incest out-of-bounds for the discussion. Essentially, you are poisoning the well.

I have not suggested that incest "invalidates their position". I have suggested that incest is not equivalent to homosexuality, nor, for that matter, is polygamy. The fact that you are asserting this indicates you have either not read, or not comprehended my argument. However, since this thread is long and confusing that's understandable, so let's put that canard to rest:

I'll call your attention to Arathain's OP. He is torn because he feels that if this gay marriage bill is passed, then there will no longer be sufficient attention to the matter to ever satisfy the desires of other people that might like to get married in a civil fashion; essentially they are too much in the minority to matter. Those groups, based on his examples, would include polygamists and people wanting an incestuous marriage. In fact, I have seen no other example of any other group cited, except groups such as these theoretical people that want, for example, to have a marital-like relationship with a sibling but are not sexually interested in them. I have seen no evidence such people exist at all, or that if they do, their numbers are beyond the completely trivial.

Understanding that, I have pointed out that two groups known to exist that would take advantage of a civil arrangment open to "any 2 consenting adults" include the incestuous and polygamists, and that neither group is equivalent to homosexuals in terms of either actual fact or public morality, and in point of fact neither the polygamous, nor the incestuous, nor any hypothetical other person that would want a marital relationship not fitting into the concept of hetero- or homosexual, would still be afforded equal protection because they could engage in marriage under the same conditions as anyone else.

If you'd like to contest that, then let's see what you have. As I said, it seems you have misunderstood my position.



I need to demonstrate what the actual effects are of a proposal that hasn't happened? No, actually I don't. You are correct, incest is likely to remain underground regardless due to social stigma. However, by creating a "sanctuary" where the people involved are able to openly engage in every other aspect of the relationship yet still insist they are not actually having sex, we greatly increase the opportunity to actually engage in incest.

The problem with your assertion is that while no law is likely to change the desire to engage in incest, law certainly does affect available opportunity. Creating a loophole like this essentially renders the law pointless.



I can find people on the internet openly complaining that their incestuous relationship is not accepted by society; I do not believe it would be acceptable to link to them here, but a simple search for "incest" just to bring up the Wikipedia page ont he topic reveals the prominence of this underground. Moreover, the continuing problem and regularity of sexual abuse indicates that incest is common, and it is very hard to believe it magically stops at age 18 just because that is our designated time for adulthood to begin. Meanwhile, no one has provided me any evidence whatosever of the actual existence of these other people, what their relative unumbers might be, and most importantly how their existence somehow is relevant. Yes, they might exist. However, the bottom line is that their existence does not dispel the existence of incestuous or polygamous people, and none of them are being treated unfairly in any case.



Yes, as a matter of fact it is a valid consideration. I have explained why. You are in no position to say anything is out of bounds. You are completely out of line to suggest such a thing.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

DE - your entire argument appears to be little more than a resistance to change out of some sort of unsubstantiated fear that it will lead to some degradation of society.

I can't support this, and don't see this as reason enough to restrict access to a contract and benefits.

Your entire argument seems to be an unsubstantiated fear that equal protection will somehow be violated.

I can't support this, and don't see this as a reason to dictate to society.

So, fair enough.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

...

_________________

Right. I want to dictate freedom and equality.

/boggle

I don't think DE is actually against allowing same-sex marriage. I think he's just pro-authority, for the establishment and the system and the idea that everything "lawful" is also fair and equitable, simply because it's law.

I've heard it said that "making peace with the establishment" is a part of growing up.

This, of course, is bullshit. I believe that opposing the establishment and wanting to completely rip it down is pretty much the greatest political virtue a person can possess. It doesn't matter what the establishment is, or what it is like...because human authority over humans is always unjust, and can always be improved. King Solomon was right when he said "man ruleth man to his hurt."

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

That's exactly what you want to do. You're talking about "Getting government out of marriage" but you then want to turn around and create an all-new "civil union" or whatever you call it structure that would be entirely the creation of government, plus you want to "solve the problems" that I brought up.

I'm sure people favoring affirmative action think they're not "dictating freedom and quality" too.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's got nothing to do with being pro-authority or for any "Establishment". Tearing down the establishment is all cool when it's only a political attitude, and you can talk about how great it is on the internet but don't have to get into the messy business of actually tearing it down.

In point of fact, simply allowing marriage to be defined by the preferences of the people of a given state is anything but pro-authority. Marriage wasn't invented by government, rules for it haven't been imposed against the wishes of society by government. The only thing government ever did was create rules that reflected the view of society, and promptly forgot all about the matter until about 10-15 years ago when societal attitudes towards homosexuality changed to the point that allowing same-sex marriage was a real possibility. Government has not been imposing or restricting same-sex marriage against the will of the people; for the most part it is appearing in states in roughly the order of how tolerant of homosexuality the people that live there are, or, in 2 cases, because the people there simply don't agree with regulating it. (Iowa and New Hampshire).

Trying to "Get government out of marriage" is what's authoritarian. It involves A) dictating to society that marriage is entirely religious, whether society likes it or not and B) dictating that a new civil union structure must exist that is entirely new and would be created entirely by government, and C) pretending that this is not marriage regardless of how much it might resemble what previously was marriage because by damn the government says so. All so that a few people can be satisfied the government is not violating their personal preferences as to what ought or ought not to be regulated.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'll give 7.8 million USD (your take home earnings) for your wife, Diamondeye; after all, that's surely more than you paid her father for her ...

Or did he pay you to be rid of her?

_________________

Wrong. WRONG. Yet another bad analogy.

First, yes, there is a role for government in providing for and assisting in disputes surrounding property, finances, next of kin issues, etc, and there's a responsibility for government to ensure that caretakers are properly providing for the rights of minors when children are involved. All of this involvement is needed in setting up a framework for such a partnership and defining the benefits and government response to the contract (i.e. what is standard when a partner dies). Establishing this framework and providing the contract is a valid role of government. Much of this work has already been done, and is tied into current marriages. Separate it.

Now, we're still talking about CONSENTING ADULTS, which I'm not sure why you are struggling with. Forcing people to do business with minorities under affirmative action policies is not analogous.

Basically, I'm promoting relaxing the requirements so that people are MORE FREE to contract with whomever they want, and you used the exact opposite scenario in your analogy.

No, not wrong at all. That analogy is exactly accurate. You're basing your idea of fairness based on the results some people might want, rather than whether the law provides equal protection. People advocating affirmative action do the same.



Marriage involves a lot more than just a contract. It isn't a matter of them being free to contract with whomever they want.

Second, yes, you're in favor of relaxing the requirements. So what? I am too; I want people of the same sex to be able to do so.

The reason you were originally torn is that you think somehow relaxing the requirements for the same sex mandates relaxing all the requirements other than "consenting adults". I object to this, and I see no good reason to relax any other requirements until and unless society wants to. Society is not obligated to fix the problems just because of your concerns about imaginary consistency problems.

As for "being forced to contract with minorities" that is not what that analogy was about. People who think affirmative action is about fairness and equality think they're not "dictating" either, and it's just a matter of basic fairness. They're wrong, and so are you for the same reason. You're both basing your idea of fairness on what people want, rather than whether they are being treated equally. This is just like RD's quote about the law not allowing the rich to steal bread. No, they aren't. The fact that the rich don't need to steal bread doesn't mean that laws against stealing are unfair to the poor.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Funny ... you keep ignoring the fact that marriage is still a bill of sale of a significant portion of this world and for far more of man's history than even the definition you're trying to invoke with your "Appeal to Tradition." You don't get it both ways, Diamondeye ...

_________________

After taking the time to read through this entire thread, being initially opposed to the argument presented by Arathain, I have come to agree with it.

Well presented.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20