The other ones

[Laura]

I see a lot of abuse with legalizing polygamist marriages. What is to stop a man from marrying twenty women (or vice versa) - all of which gain marriage benefits - just so each party can get those advantages. But I'm certainly not an expert on how each state sees marriages, so perhaps my opinion isn't too well-founded.

[magekillr]

Lol wtf, I made a thread about this probably like a year or so ago and it got locked because the content "wasn't suitable and inappropriate." It was titled, "Incest, Bestiality, and Polygamy". Venomai and I had many conversations about this in private, and I'll post his thoughts for starters. I have them because after the conversation was locked, we sent messages back and forth

 

Shame the topic was locked. Very interesting stuff to debate about, and it seemed like it was all being handled pretty maturely.

 

Are you honestly saying that you support the rights of adults to have sex with young children if the child "consents" to it?

No. See below.

 

The point is that it's a disorder, and I believe it to continue to be a disorder because I don't think the harm comes from a "social stigma."

Why? What makes you think that it would still be distressing/harmful to the individual if there was no social stigma against it?

 

but what are you arguing for if not a condoning of this act?

I am arguing for the distinction between pedophilia (as a sexual orientation) and child sexual abuse (CSA). Even here, you assume that since I am arguing for pedophilia as a sexual orientation, I must also be "condoning the act" of CSA. Assumptions like these contribute to an unnecessary social stigma and deter objective research on the topic.

 

It's crucial for the public to understand that the vast majority of convicted sex offenders (including those on the news) are not actually pedophiles. The assumption that the term pedophile denotes an "aggressive rapist" is as incorrect as it would be for any other group, be it homosexuals or heterosexuals.

 

One final edit: I don't think that its status should affect the fact that the act of pedophilia is a crime. I think I feel the same way as Green, but I'm not prepared to tell the APA what is and what is not a psychological disorder.

"Pedophilia" is a mental disorder (a psychological affliction), as you seem to understand, and as such it should be seen as no more of a crime than psychosis, schizophrenia or for that matter homosexuality (which, might I add, was once labelled a mental disorder). Defining pedophilia as CSA is a horrible standard that most psychologists have come to avoid.

 

(Note that the same issue is often seen with the term zoophilia; laymen are quick to equate it to bestiality.)

 

The label of "mental disorder" (or lack thereof) should in no way be seen as a standard for the law. This would be a fundamental misunderstanding of the DSM.

 

Furthermore, society has always had a strong influence over what is and what is not labelled a "mental disorder" in the DSM. This influence became quite clear after the reclassification of homosexuality in the DSM.

 

This was from April 2009, so it's been a little over a year since it was locked and subsequently deleted. Have the rules changed since a year ago or something? Speaking of Venomai, I miss him.

[The Dark Lord]

Polygamy really isn't a huge deal, but I personally don't like it. Zoophilia, Paedophilia, and the latter thing are definite NOs.

 

However, I believe that 15 year olds marrying adults isn't that big of a deal, so long as the teenager's parents (along with the girl) consent to the partnership. I think the line should be drawn at 15, though.

[Giordano]

Why 15 though? A 14 year old is like a 15, no? Seriously though, I think 15 is way to low. That's like a freshman/sophmore in High school. They don't know what the hell is going on.

[Nenga]

Doesn't the age of consent refer specifically to sex? But lets just stop on that for a minute, what if it was raised to 21? People doing anything with an 18, 19, or 20 year old would then be under age. We decide what is of age and what is not. I'm just throwing that out there for some thought.

 

I see polygamy, for the same reasons most other people do. I also see zoophilia happening sometime in the future, on the argument that the animal is a living being too, and what really separates them from us. Not to say that I necessarily support polygamy or zoophilia, I just see those things happening.

 

I don't see pedophilia happening due to an underdeveloped brain/thought process. I also don't see marriage to objects happening because, 1. the object isn't alive and 2. it would be an easy way to get tax benefits.

[obfuscator]

Ahh, incest, I knew I forgot something, added to main post.

 

And @ saru - the second was my intent. I know coming from myself it's easy to assume that it was the first one, but I was and continue to be legitimately curious about the views people hold of other sexual orientations/attractions.

[Nenga]

Incest, huh. I think that'll happen too someday. It even technically fits the current "Definition" of marriage.

[Saru Inc]

Ahh, incest, I knew I forgot something, added to main post.

 

And @ saru - the second was my intent. I know coming from myself it's easy to assume that it was the first one, but I was and continue to be legitimately curious about the views people hold of other sexual orientations/attractions.

 

 

 

Yea thats what I assumed as well.

 

 

 

Incest... Ummm... I mean, the Hapsburgs ruled Europe for a long time. It worked for them.... right? #-o

[obfuscator]

Ahh, incest, I knew I forgot something, added to main post.

 

And @ saru - the second was my intent. I know coming from myself it's easy to assume that it was the first one, but I was and continue to be legitimately curious about the views people hold of other sexual orientations/attractions.

 

 

 

Yea thats what I assumed as well.

 

 

 

Incest... Ummm... I mean, the Hapsburgs ruled Europe for a long time. It worked for them.... right? #-o

 

I think the main objection most people have to incest is the possible genetic mutations. Other than that, well, if it's two consenting adults....not really any way you can object.

[Myweponsg00d]

Incest does not cause mutations...When people have bad traits in their genes (like maybe high blood pressure) this will typically be a recessive trait. This means that, unless you happen to mate with a random person who also has the same rare bad gene, the trait has a low chance of being observed. When you mate with someone who has very similar genes (aka if you have the same parents or grandparents) these traits will have a higher chance of being observed in offspring.

 

A lot of people have the misconception that incest will cause mutations because the genes are "too similar" or some nonsense. This is propaganda that gets spread by the same people who tell you that gays are mentally disabled.

 

If we want incest to be illegal due to increased chance of inheriting bad traits, then we need to start screening every couple and looking at their DNA, forbidding them to mate if they have the same bad trait.

[Pirate_Felix]

[bleep] yes, now i can finally marry the couch ive been looking at for years. <3:

 

I hope she will say yes when i ask her.

[Roberthree]

Technically, one or two cousin couples would be fine. The issue with incest is stagnating the gene pool. That happens over several generations of constant in-breeding though.

[fakeitormakeit2]

I would find it interesting if there were a psychology study done on the effects of different parental relationships in regards to their children compared to each other. I'm thinking a straight couple, an incest couple, a gay couple, a polygamist marriage, a man-rock marriage and a man-goat marriage. It's already been proven parental relationships and actions affect the behavior and habits of offspring so I wonder how differently couple types would also affect children.

 

I find incest marriages unethical as you're consciously marrying someone with similar genes which has a good chance of resulting in children who display normally recessive unhealthy genes. Incest seems not to be as large a problem as it was though because there is usually no more materialistic/titular motive.

[Omar]

 

Polygamy - The most obvious. This is a sexuality that allows men to take multiple wives (or vice versa, though that's rarely heard of)

 

Yes. Basically, for the same reasons gay marriage should be allowed, it's their business, etc.

 

Zoophilia - Similar to bestiality, so I'll lump them together. Bestiality is sexual attraction to animals (non human) and zoophilia is the love (in a spousal form) of such animals.

This is harder. Bestiality should be legal if there is no rape, but I'm not sure how this can be enforced.

A horse that's getting married does not say I do, and doesn't really know what marriage is. I'm not sure how it could get married.

 

Pedophilia - Sexual relationships with minors, usually before puberty.

No. Minors don't know what they're doing.

 

Objectum Sexuality - Sexual attraction and relations to inanimate objects.

Yeah, sure, why not? I mean, I don't think an inanimate object is going to complain. Again, I don't see how it could get married.

 

Incest - Sexual attraction to immediate family members

Yeah, for the same reasons that gays should be allowed. Procreation should be done with care to avoid messy children.

[Saru Inc]

In the Bible incest was legal as heck. And look how the human race turned out. Take it as you will.

[Laura]

Lol wtf, I made a thread about this probably like a year or so ago and it got locked because the content "wasn't suitable and inappropriate." It was titled, "Incest, Bestiality, and Polygamy". Venomai and I had many conversations about this in private, and I'll post his thoughts for starters. I have them because after the conversation was locked, we sent messages back and forth

 

This was from April 2009, so it's been a little over a year since it was locked and subsequently deleted. Have the rules changed since a year ago or something? Speaking of Venomai, I miss him.

I didn't deal with your thread last year, but yes, the boards (and the rules) have recently changed to reflect a more mature audience. If you would like any clarification you can shoot me a PM. ;)

[Zierro]

What I want to know is, where is the line? What sexualities should be considered appropriate (allowed to marry) and which should not? Please post yes/no and reasons, I'll list a few main ones.

 

If there's a victim involved, I think it's immoral. If not, then all I can hold against it is that it's icky.

 

Polygamy - The most obvious. This is a sexuality that allows men to take multiple wives (or vice versa, though that's rarely heard of)

 

As long as all of the women are fine with it, I see no problem. Some jealousy issues might arise but this one doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

 

Zoophilia - Similar to bestiality, so I'll lump them together. Bestiality is sexual attraction to animals (non human) and zoophilia is the love (in a spousal form) of such animals.

 

This one is hard because I've heard arguments that animals do imply that they are consenting, making my victim argument crumble. If the animal does consent, I guess there technically is nothing immoral about it. This one really bothers me though because even though I can't rationally verbalize why, I still feel like it's wrong. Maybe it's because I expect better from humanity than to stoop down to a primal animal's level. But that sounds too metaphorical. :-#

 

Pedophilia - Sexual relationships with minors, usually before puberty.

 

Even if they give consent at the time, children are not fully developed and shouldn't be subjected to a sexual experience which they might later regret when they do mature.

 

Objectum Sexuality - Sexual attraction and relations to inanimate objects.

 

If you really think bagels are hot, by all means go for it.

 

Incest - Sexual attraction to immediate family members

 

I have two different opinions about this:

 

1. I believe that your family should fulfill a vital role to your upbringing and sex would just taint that, in the traditional/modern family sense.

2. We're all related somewhere down the line, so I guess it's just natural.

 

So... I guess it's alright so long as they are not actually a part of your family-family (as in they have a status such as brother, aunt, grandpa, etc.).

[The Dark Lord]

To be honest, I think incest should be acceptable as long as it doesn't become a chronic tradition. (i.e. a brother marrying his sister/first cousin is fine as long as it happens sporadically every several or so generations).

 

Also, I have another idea of something that is taboo. What about furry fandom? People argue that it promotes bestiality, but should it still be acceptable since it's between two consenting adults, even though both are in an animal outfit?

[Saru Inc]

To be honest, I think incest should be acceptable as long as it doesn't become a chronic tradition. (i.e. a brother marrying his sister/first cousin is fine as long as it happens sporadically every several or so generations).

 

Also, I have another idea of something that is taboo. What about furry fandom? People argue that it promotes bestiality, but should it still be acceptable since it's between two consenting adults, even though both are in an animal outfit?

 

 

Sounds like someone has a fetish...

 

How is getting furry encouraging Beastiality? Thats like saying wearing leather is encouraging the skinning of cows?

[Alg]

Thing with furries is that they're both consenting adult humans. If it's male/female I'm pretty sure it's just as legal as any other human heterosexual relationship.

[The Observer]

Polygamy - If it's properly consented I don't see why not. People shouldn't care whether or not someone down the street has 6 wives; if consequences arise it's their own fault.

Zoophilia - It can't be properly consented and can turn into animal abuse, so I disagree with legalizing this.

Pedophilia - No because most of the time children don't have the mental capacity to give consent (because they don't have any knowledge of consequences or even the situation)

Objectum Sexuality - I don't see why this should be disallowed because it's a non-living being so consent really isn't needed. If something happens, then it's the person's own fault.

Incest - Yeah if both parties agree, but it can get messy if it happens over generations.