Court:: CA gay marriage ban is unconstitutional by Geezer

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Court:: CA gay marriage ban is unconstitutional

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Thursday, February 9, 2012 18:23
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2776
PAGE 2 of 2

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 7:59 AM

Quote:
But since I've already specified adult, informed, willing consent as a criteria, that argument is moot.

As I said, for the adult parent adult child situation, I think consent might still be questionable despite the legal age of both. First, you have to consider whether this has been an ongoing thing since BEFORE age of consent, in which you could argue the adult child has been shaped by their experiences, and they are consenting to something they might otherwise NOT have consented to. And second, I know some parents that have a disturbing amount of influence over their children even when their children are grown, and it becomes even more disturbing if that influence is used get the child to "consent" to a relationship like this.

And that's not even getting into the question of whether the parent child authority issue SUGGESTS coercion, even when the child is an adult. So much of the choices that humans make are influenced by factors on an unthought level.

I mean, this is one where you'd really have to look at the consent issue on a case by case basis. And it would be so easy for the child part of the relationship to decide later that it was wrong and to retroactively rescind consent, and in that issue you'd have a criminal case for rape on your hands. I dunno. It just seems like a really bad idea.

Quote:
So would that also apply to non-related couples who either decide not to have children, or to couples in which one or both partners are unable to procreate?

The first one, potentially. Two people deciding independently to not have children then hooking up and not having children poses little problem unless one of them changes their mind, in which case the possibility for underhanded tactics to induce a pregnancy might come into play. The other problem would arise if one wanted to have kids and the other persuaded them not to, though I guess if that became unaccepted they'd just break up. For your second point, that's no trouble.

I admit that all of those problems would be present in any relationship, but it just seems like this particular case would exacerbate the problem. Especially if there's a social expectation that they don't have children.

Quote:
I would suspect that permanent methods, such as vasectomy or tubal ligation, would be desirable.

Even those aren't 100% effective. Seriously.

Quote:
I see a lot of non-related couples marriages that I wouldn't call WISE.

Inherently greater risks. Their choice to make those risks... And I'm free to call them a likely stupid risk.

Quote:
Not sure I want to play eugenics.

Hey now. I resent that. YOU'RE the one talking about how cases of incest could pursue their relationship but only if they don't have kids. I'm merely questioning whether that's a wise relationship to get involved with in the first place, not saying they should NEVER have kids (though I'd recommend having them with someone not related). I'm coming at this conversation at the angle you've presented it. If you're going to twist the conversation to reflect badly on ME when I'm trying to take you at face value, then I must suspend further discussion on this topic.

And technically because they share their DNA, I'm not even sure eugenics applies. Scientifically speaking, it's not like any children they have or don't have with each other would be a unique combination. And if having kids is even an issue in the relationship, then there are other options to explore than incest babies.

I will reply further to say only that my friend's dad took off and she confessed this to me in highschool after the fact. They don't know where he went.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 8:56 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
There is simply no reason to make something that is legal and works fine something other then what it is.

Okay. Seperate but equal it is.

On the other hand, marriage, as to legal rights and responsibilities - stuff like insurance, inheritance, hospital visitation and surgery permissions, property ownership, etc. - is already codified in law in hundreds of places.

Rather than have to go into all those laws and add amendments to include 'civil unions', why not just make marriage more inclusive?

I have the feeling you're trying hard to defend religious sensibilities without actually mentioning religion.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 9:27 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
As I said, for the adult parent adult child situation, I think consent might still be questionable despite the legal age of both. First, you have to consider whether this has been an ongoing thing since BEFORE age of consent, in which you could argue the adult child has been shaped by their experiences, and they are consenting to something they might otherwise NOT have consented to.

Child abuse. Jail.

Quote:
And second, I know some parents that have a disturbing amount of influence over their children even when their children are grown, and it becomes even more disturbing if that influence is used get the child to "consent" to a relationship like this.

Happens outside potential incestuous relationships as well. See the FLDS church and families marrying off their daughters to Warren Jeffs.

Heck. See parents pressuring their daughter to get married to someone, or most anyone, so they can have grandbabies.

Quote:
I mean, this is one where you'd really have to look at the consent issue on a case by case basis. And it would be so easy for the child part of the relationship to decide later that it was wrong and to retroactively rescind consent, and in that issue you'd have a criminal case for rape on your hands.

Happens all the time. Husband charged with rape for going ahead after the wife has wihdrawn consent.

Quote:
I admit that all of those problems would be present in any relationship, but it just seems like this particular case would exacerbate the problem. Especially if there's a social expectation that they don't have children.

It would make it more difficult, but folks get married despite difficult circumstances all the time. And if a brother/sister couple wanted children, there is still sperm donation or a surrogate mother.

Quote:
Hey now. I resent that.

perhaps I misunderstood your point. Sorry.

Quote:
I will reply further to say only that my friend's dad took off and she confessed this to me in highschool after the fact. They don't know where he went.

Too bad.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 10:06 AM

BYTEMITE

Okay, if it was just a misunderstanding.

Quote:
Child abuse. Jail.

And, if they get out and the adult child wants to continue the relationship, or goes to see them while in jail...?

It's really complicated.

Quote:
Happens outside potential incestuous relationships as well. See the FLDS church and families marrying off their daughters to Warren Jeffs.

Yes, I was thinking of the somewhat similar case of if Saffron was what she represented herself as when she was married off to Mal. Book points out that would technically have been rape.

So while it happens all the time outside potential incestuous relationships... Still a consent issue.

But what you're missing is, that one or both of these scenarios will be a concern in pretty much EVERY adult parent adult child incest case. There's only a few cases I can think of when it isn't, and that's when the dad left, then came back, and didn't recognize his daughter and vice versa. But that's mistaken identity, which is itself an issue of consent, though in that case no one could be charged for rape as it was unintentional.

Quote:
And if a brother/sister couple wanted children, there is still sperm donation or a surrogate mother.

Yeah, I was thinking about that.

On the other hand... If, say, Simon and River were to get together, I don't really think it would be okay even if they got someone else to impregnate River. Perhaps that's just the specific scenario.

I do have to wonder a little about the motivations of other brother/sister cases. Like one I heard about it almost sounded like the girl was a nympho due to a psychological problem, and the brother was taking advantage of it (or at least not saying no).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 1:20 PM

HKCAVALIER

Hey all,

Um, just because a thing is abhorrent, do we automatically litigate against it? That seems to be the issue at this point in the thread. Sibling incest is highly dysfunctional. It's developmentally stunted, exploitative--just plain old unhealthy. Such is the therapeutic concensus I am aware of. And mothers/fathers having sex with adult daughters/sons is also way off the reservation in terms of appropriate partnering. The power differential is just too vast and ineluctable, too ingrained in the psyche to make such a thing remotely wholesome. The important thing to keep in mind in such cases, and the only reason Johny Law needs to be brought into the matter, as I see it, is the fact that such relationship almost always--I mean ALMOST ALWAYS, look into it--involve abuse that stems from when one or the other (or both) of the participants was a child and therefore subject to protection by the law, 'cause the parents in such cases are obviously unfit.

That said, there are all manner of utterly deplorable things that are entirely legal. Society hasn't collapsed because of it. Y'know, some consenting adults enjoy a master/slave relationship, or beatings and play piercings and strangulation. One woman I know had a man literally nail her breasts to a wooden plank. None of that is illegal between consenting adults. I think society will survive the lack of legal consequences for adult sexual weirdness (however you care to define it) between competent, unrelated adults.

The point here is not moral. I don't believe the state should involve itself in resolving moral issues. The issue, as I see it, is child wellfare. Or it is not an issue for the state to decide. Gay marriage, no matter how you feel about it, endangers no one.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 1:51 PM

BYTEMITE

I've pretty much made a point of saying we probably can't legally do anything about it, but it's not a good idea and probably in most cases a sign of deeper rooted problems.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 2:48 PM

FREMDFIRMA

There's also that "The Law" tends to cause more problems than it solves mosta the time, but ya can't seem to hammer THAT through their thick damn heads either.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 5:37 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

This just in from Delphi: Geezer will soon try to lower the age of concent, siting that in other countries 12 year old girls marry 50 year old men so why shouldn't it be okay, our ancestors did it and they survived so why have such a high age of concent, twelve year olds are pretty smart after all.

Spare me. I will no longer listen to anything Geezer has to say about anything of a moral bent, since he doesn't seem to have any morals.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 5:59 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

I have the feeling you're trying hard to defend religious sensibilities without actually mentioning religion.
"

Much of our law comes from religion but exist independent of it. Marriage is one example, so is the President's Pardon power which can be traced back to the old testament and followed through over 2,000 years of history to our present Constituion.

Did you ever wonder why pardons must be accepted? Why must they be delivered to be valid? Because our laws and institutions were not created out of thin air, they are the product of thousands of years of cultural evolution.

Marriage is a legal relationship between a man and a woman. It has religious significance, but was codified and recognized by the earliest forms of govt. As govt evolved marriage as an institution survived almost unchanged from its basic form. One could even argue that the man-woman relationship is the first building block of ten thousand years of human history (more or less and with all due respect to fire, wheels, pointy sticks, and giant obelisks).

H.

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 7:35 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Just because people got away with stuff in the Bible doesn't mean I think its okay. They were like anyone else, if they could get away with it they would, people are notorious like that.

Parent and child is the grottiest, Geezer has sunk to a new low.

So why is incest the grottiest?

Pretty obviously, it's because of the higher percentage of physical and mental defects found in children of brother/sister and parent/child breeding. The tribal elders/priests/shamans/etc. saw that this was a problem that caused hardship for the tribe. Similarly, once pair-bonding started between men and women, adultery - trying to steal someone elses mate - became taboo because of the trouble it caused. Eventually such strictures became codified in religion, as it was an easy way to enforce them.

I would agree that incest that produces children is a bad idea. There's just too much risk of a bad outcome. If no children can be produced, say if the male has a vasectomy, there's no risk of a bad genetic outcome, so what's the problem?

As Anthony said, I figure if everyone agrees and no one gets hurt, its none of my business. I'm not promoting or suggesting any particular form of marriage, but I don't particularly care as long as my caveats about consent and lack of harm are met.

For an interesting take on the whole group marriage and incest thing, read "Time Enough for Love" by Robert Heinlein.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Pretty sure if two same-sex siblings married, there'd be no issue of birth defects, so that's a plus for them...

Also, look up a short story called "If All Men Were Brothers, Would You Let One Marry Your Sister?" by Theodore Sturgeon (not to be confused with Kilgore Trout!) that appeared in Harlan Ellison's "Dangerous Visions" collection.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 7:45 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I have no problem with polygamy either. Adults should be free to choose their relationships, and personally, I think it would be fine if legal definitions of marriage are done away with all together. Let people choose the kind of contract they want, and make it cheap to pick one off a legal rack and end all this nonsense.

I'm sure you and your horse will be very happy together.

Cheap joke, but you are right. This is a contract issue. Legally marriage has always been a contract, but it has always applied to opposite sex relations. It established rights and responsibilities between both parties and their families.

That's where you're wrong. There have been "legal contracts" - even ones consecrated by the early Christian church - which were legal AND religious ceremonies binding two same-sex partners together.

Quote:

The question then is shoud the definition of marriage be expanded to include same sex couples? No. The institution works as intended. Same sex couples simply do not qualify and there is no compelling reason to modify the existing law to grant them access. There is no discrimination, since gay persons are still free to marry opposite sex partners and heterosexual folks are likewise barred from same sex marriages.

You have curious notions of "works as intended". Are you saying your god *intended* half of all opposite-sex marriages to fail? Can you name me any other institution that fails half of the time and is still considered a roaring success and a benchmark for the world?

Quote:

This does not mean there is no remedy. The govt is free to create another legal status for same sex couples that mirrors the one that exists for marriage. In other words, Civil Unions.

Or, they can just keep calling them "marriages" and save lots of time and work, and therefore MONEY. You ARE about the government not spending money, right?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 7:59 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
This just in from Delphi: Geezer will soon try to lower the age of concent, siting that in other countries 12 year old girls marry 50 year old men so why shouldn't it be okay, our ancestors did it and they survived so why have such a high age of concent, twelve year olds are pretty smart after all.

Spare me. I will no longer listen to anything Geezer has to say about anything of a moral bent, since he doesn't seem to have any morals.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

You're reaching, Riona. Really.

Geezer is basically engaging in a thought exercise, aimed at asking pointed questions and following them with more pointed questions, all in an effort to dig down to a deeper truth. He's not lobbying for incestuous marriage to be the law of the land; he's merely pointing out that if two informed adults consent to have sex, it's really between THEM, and pretty much nobody else, as long as they aren't in other committed relationships.

And he's right about that.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 8:54 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

I'm sure you and your horse will be very happy together.

Cheap joke, but you are right. This is a contract issue. Legally marriage has always been a contract, but it has always applied to opposite sex relations. It established rights and responsibilities between both parties and their families.

The question then is shoud the definition of marriage be expanded to include same sex couples? No. The institution works as intended. Same sex couples simply do not qualify and there is no compelling reason to modify the existing law to grant them access. There is no discrimination, since gay persons are still free to marry opposite sex partners and heterosexual folks are likewise barred from same sex marriages.

This does not mean there is no remedy. The govt is free to create another legal status for same sex couples that mirrors the one that exists for marriage. In other words, Civil Unions.

H

That has already happened here with the Relationship Act. But really, I ask you, if you have a Relationship Act, why do you need a Marriage one? Why does the law need to make defintitions around relationships at all. Really there are only a couple of reasons, as stated earlier and they relate to the dissolution of relationships. One issue is how you divide/inherit property, the other is what happens with children of a relationship. And producing children is not about marriage, seeing as plenty of people do it without being married. Children is about biology and principles of care and is no longer impacted by marriage laws.

If you have legislation that covers care of children, and legislation that covers property for relationships why do you need a legal definition of marriage????

What we have in my country now is nothing to distinguish between married, defacto or gay relationships, except that we still have a legal definition of marriage that is now irrelevant.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 8:59 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hey all,

Um, just because a thing is abhorrent, do we automatically litigate against it? That seems to be the issue at this point in the thread. Sibling incest is highly dysfunctional. It's developmentally stunted, exploitative--just plain old unhealthy. Such is the therapeutic concensus I am aware of. And mothers/fathers having sex with adult daughters/sons is also way off the reservation in terms of appropriate partnering. The power differential is just too vast and ineluctable, too ingrained in the psyche to make such a thing remotely wholesome. The important thing to keep in mind in such cases, and the only reason Johny Law needs to be brought into the matter, as I see it, is the fact that such relationship almost always--I mean ALMOST ALWAYS, look into it--involve abuse that stems from when one or the other (or both) of the participants was a child and therefore subject to protection by the law, 'cause the parents in such cases are obviously unfit.

That said, there are all manner of utterly deplorable things that are entirely legal. Society hasn't collapsed because of it. Y'know, some consenting adults enjoy a master/slave relationship, or beatings and play piercings and strangulation. One woman I know had a man literally nail her breasts to a wooden plank. None of that is illegal between consenting adults. I think society will survive the lack of legal consequences for adult sexual weirdness (however you care to define it) between competent, unrelated adults.

The point here is not moral. I don't believe the state should involve itself in resolving moral issues. The issue, as I see it, is child wellfare. Or it is not an issue for the state to decide. Gay marriage, no matter how you feel about it, endangers no one.

HKCavalier

And to add to your point, I think we can have values in society without necessarily creating laws around them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2012 4:37 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
This just in from Delphi: Geezer will soon try to lower the age of concent, siting that in other countries 12 year old girls marry 50 year old men so why shouldn't it be okay, our ancestors did it and they survived so why have such a high age of concent, twelve year olds are pretty smart after all.

Nope. Earlier I set 18, same as for voting or joining the military. Strawman argument, same as the "Gay marriage will lead to men marrying boys and dogs." one.

Quote:
Spare me. I will no longer listen to anything Geezer has to say about anything of a moral bent, since he doesn't seem to have any morals.

I have morals. Don't knowingly hurt anyone. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Seems to cover it pretty well for me.

Within my lifetime it was considered immoral for a Black person to marry a White person, right here in the U.S.

There's still fathers who kill their daughters for being so "immoral" as to want a boyfriend of a different religion.

Those the morals you want?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2012 4:38 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Magons brings up a good point: what is marriage for anyway?

It was a social recognition to provide "legitimacy" and inheritance (if any) to the children of a union, and to define the rights and duties of spouses towards each other. PLEASE NOTE that marriage is a product of patrilineal societies, because in matrilineal societies there is no question who the mother is. Or, to quote my hubby: There are no bastards in a matrilineal society, and there is no marriage either. So this is about the rights of the MALE side of the family. Marriage was usually only reserved for men who had property to bequest.

Okay, so the function has got a little changed with the advent of women's property rights and the notion of romantic love, but it is still primarily an economic arrangement- a mingling of the fortunes of two people who swear fealty to each other, and a decision ahead-of-time that both parents will be responsible for children (if any). As far as I can tell, it has little to do with whether or how one is having sex, which is an entirely separate issue.

What's not to like about people being emotionally and legally committed to each other? Don't we have enough problems with isolation and atomization without forcing it on some? The only caveat I would place on marriage is the same caveat I would place on sexual relations: that one party not be so dominant that the other party cannot choose otherwise.

OTOH, you have to realize that this equality in marriage is a relatively recent phenomenon, and is not shared throughout the world even now. In many places, marriage merely cements the subservience of the woman.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2012 4:48 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Much of our law comes from religion but exist independent of it. Marriage is one example, so is the President's Pardon power which can be traced back to the old testament and followed through over 2,000 years of history to our present Constituion.

True. I used to live in a 'dry' county, because the laws were written by well-meaning temperate Christians. The laws were eventually changed when folks figured they were imposing those Christians' beliefs on everyone else (and the county noticed all the restaurant business going across the county line to the 'wet' county next door).

Quote:
Marriage is a legal relationship between a man and a woman. It has religious significance, but was codified and recognized by the earliest forms of govt. As govt evolved marriage as an institution survived almost unchanged from its basic form.

Not seeing any reason this can't be changed now, though, just like changing a county from 'dry' to 'wet' when the tenor of the times changes. Governments used to mandate church attendence and collect taxes specifically for the upkeep of the church. That's changed. Why not who can marry?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2012 4:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
As govt evolved marriage as an institution survived almost unchanged from its basic form.

Not really.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2012 4:51 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Can you name me any other institution that fails half of the time and is still considered a roaring success and a benchmark for the world?

Can't resist.

A baseball player who fails to get a hit 60% of the time would be a roaring success.

And in case Niki is reading this: ITS A JOKE!

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2012 5:16 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
This just in from Delphi: Geezer will soon try to lower the age of concent, siting that in other countries 12 year old girls marry 50 year old men so why shouldn't it be okay, our ancestors did it and they survived so why have such a high age of concent, twelve year olds are pretty smart after all.

Nope. Earlier I set 18, same as for voting or joining the military. Strawman argument, same as the "Gay marriage will lead to men marrying boys and dogs." one.

Quote:
Spare me. I will no longer listen to anything Geezer has to say about anything of a moral bent, since he doesn't seem to have any morals.

I have morals. Don't knowingly hurt anyone. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Seems to cover it pretty well for me.

Within my lifetime it was considered immoral for a Black person to marry a White person, right here in the U.S.

Not only immoral, but in many states, ILLEGAL.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2012 5:19 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Can you name me any other institution that fails half of the time and is still considered a roaring success and a benchmark for the world?

Can't resist.

A baseball player who fails to get a hit 60% of the time would be a roaring success.

Good point.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2012 5:22 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
...he's merely pointing out that if two informed adults consent to have sex...

Or more than two

.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2012 6:06 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
...he's merely pointing out that if two informed adults consent to have sex...

Or more than two .

Just so.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2012 6:31 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Spare me. I will no longer listen to anything Geezer has to say about anything of a moral bent, since he doesn't seem to have any morals.

Hello,

I hope you will someday apologize to Geezer for making such a statement about his character.

It is easy when angry or passionate to wrongly condemn someone in this way.

I won't judge you for it.

Though I should point out that you have also condemned me. I share his morality on this issue, so you should add me to the black list.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2012 6:35 AM

BYTEMITE

Actually, there are a number of arguments about pre-historic human arrangements. Some think the evidence suggests a harem arrangement, which in certain dryland areas with fewer resources makes sense from a survival standpoint. Others take their cue from the Bonobo as to how early humans might have acted, in which females were in charge and everyone was bisexual, but generally the females wore the males out before they had a chance to get into it with the other males (which is why absent females you might see situational homosexuality develop).

These arrangements begin to become problematic when you begin trade between tribal family groups or several come together to form a settlement, however, as inevitably some males would start to lust over the females of another group, which would tick off those males. The easiest way around that was to set up some rules about life-partnership, which probably previously didn't really exist. Generally those rules initially were polygamist, not monogamist, this time because now that they were no longer in self-identified tribal groups, males had to fend off rival males and predation of females became an issue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2012 10:34 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Just watching this kind of thing makes me so damn glad imma Poly and care nothing to the approval of society or the state.

IDIC!

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2012 1:39 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Anthony, I'm sorry I hurt your and Geezer's feelings, but I'm not really sorry for thinking you guys lack certain basic principles.

And Geezer, "18 is just a number", a hundred years ago the number was a little different so what's to keep you from changing your mind there, I'll be waiting and when you do I'll be here to see it. Of course I hope you don't but I wouldn't put it past you.

Maybe we could solve all these problems by not having marriage be a legal thing at all. Maybe if marriage wasn't a legal institution, but a social one, people would stop talking about this. We all know marriage has been around way back when, not arguing dates here because that will be a waste of my time, but when did it become something that the "government" of a people was involved in?

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2012 5:24 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
And Geezer, "18 is just a number", a hundred years ago the number was a little different so what's to keep you from changing your mind there, I'll be waiting and when you do I'll be here to see it. Of course I hope you don't but I wouldn't put it past you.

"Adult" is an interesting and slippery concept. I've known 14 year old folks I'd trust with my life, and 30 year olds I wouldn't trust to order me a hamburger.

You choose an age where you consider someone an adult. That'll be fine with me. No matter what age you choose there will be people of that age and older who will still make bad decisions or be swayed by a parent or partner to do things that aren't in their best interests.

Or if you can figure out a test that identifies when someone actually becomes an adult, bring it on.

Until then we'll just have to live with society setting an arbitrary age when people magically turn from children into adults, literally overnight.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2012 6:23 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BYTE Interesting point, but I'm not talking about prehistory or any sort of innate reproductive strategy (harem, lifetime monogamy, seasonal monogamy etc) but the logic of inheritance in human societies. There are extant matrilineal societies today in India, Tibet and China, as well as studies of the Iroquois, Cherokee and other native American tribes and other societies in the more distant past. The Sumerian religion even describes how Marduk (male) killed Tiamat (female, the creatrix) which is likely a remnant of when matriarachy was replaced by patriarchy.

In any case, the point is that marriage is not practiced by current matrilineal societies, and it is doubtful that it was practiced in the past either. So that should say something about the purpose and origins of marriage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE