I find the idea of 'society' or the government banning consenting adults from entering into voluntary agreements with each other 'disgraceful' and 'dishonourable' (particularly bedroom related issues). While you may find these forms of relationships disgraceful, I may find finding these forms of relationships to be disgraceful itself a disgraceful act, as well as any attempt to ban them to be a disgraceful act. This line of argument can get us nowhere, we all find different things to be disgraceful. If you wish for something to be criminalised, or remain criminalised, your arguments have to have more substance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2_weYjuOU4

I have no issue with letting people do what they want sexually, but legalising it is a different matter. You change the very fabric society substantially by actively enacting legalisation.

No, friend. I like things the way they are.

(October 28, 2012 at 4:05 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: No, friend. I like things the way they are.

"I will not rest until the government passes legislation allowing polygamous, Bipolar asexuals to have families!" --President of Atheist Forums

(October 28, 2012 at 4:15 am)Spectrum Wrote:

(October 28, 2012 at 4:05 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: No, friend. I like things the way they are.

"I will not rest until the government passes legislation allowing polygamous, Bipolar asexuals to have families!" --President of Atheist Forums

And that's what I oppose. At least for my own country. Let the Americans delve in whatever strange notions of family they have in mind, we rather have a clean, traditional society over here.

(October 28, 2012 at 5:51 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: And that's what I oppose. At least for my own country. Let the Americans delve in whatever strange notions of family they have in mind, we rather have a clean, traditional society over here.

I don't blame you. I wouldn't want that for my country either.

The government shouldn't decide who can marry who. So if you want to marry more than one man or one woman (or a few men and women if you like) and they all agree, you should be able to so.

Of course all the participants must be able to understand what they're doing, which means that they must be older than a certain age* and with no major cognitive problems.

*Which age? I'm not sure. I'd say older than 18, to be safe.

(October 28, 2012 at 7:03 pm)Kirbmarc Wrote: The government shouldn't decide who can marry who.

----


*Which age? I'm not sure. I'd say older than 18, to be safe.

Contradiction.

(October 28, 2012 at 7:03 pm)Kirbmarc Wrote: The government shouldn't decide who can marry who.

^^^this!

Because governments & religious institutions have, historically, controlled marriage as a means of engineering societies, those societies have been successfully indoctrinated to assume that the government has some sort of right or obligation to do so.

This is bollocks.

I've never heard a rational argument in favour of government/religious institutions getting involved in personal relationships; the 'pro-marriage' arguments are always supernatural or totalitarian and where they seem to be based on the human need for emotional celebration, they're simply co-opting them with no line of reasoning. Consequently I conclude that governments/religious institutions should be legislated away from relationships.

Further, I take personal insult at the accusation (inherent in the marriage ceremony) that my commitment to my partner/s is somehow not 'trustworthy' or 'valid' until ratified by a external agency who not only can not know anything about the details of the relationship but can have no access to any information which might actually qualify them to pass judgement on it.

(October 29, 2012 at 6:30 am)Ben Davis Wrote: I've never heard a rational argument in favour of government/religious institutions getting involved in personal relationships;

There is just one - if one of the participants is not in the relationship out of his/her own volition.

(October 29, 2012 at 6:30 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Further, I take personal insult at the accusation (inherent in the marriage ceremony) that my commitment to my partner/s is somehow not 'trustworthy' or 'valid' until ratified by a external agency who not only can not know anything about the details of the relationship but can have no access to any information which might actually qualify them to pass judgement on it.

That is the case with most of the social contracts. The validity in this case does not refer to emotion or commitment on your side but to whether the contract is enforceable by law.