Two consenting adults, including relatives?

[Ryantology]

It was only a matter of time before some Christian, stick firmly lodged in his anal cavity, came along and mentioned bestiality, a topic which Christians bring up so frequently in discussions like this that it makes you really wonder if it's the same game being played by the homophobic Christians who get caught soliciting blowjobs from other dudes in airport bathrooms.

I'd say the same goes for mentions of slippery slopes towards pedophilia, but we already know how the biggest sect of Christians handles that one.

[Chad32]

Ferchrissakes, Lion. Goats CAN'T CONSENT. There is much to discuss here that is socially relevant and interesting, but man-goat marriage is not one of them. You're smarter than this BS.

And neither can children.

Because you know that's where he was heading....

Who? Me? I'm not trying to say we'll be screwing kids next. I was just asking if people thought we should make an exception for relatives when we believe that consenting adults should be able to do what they want.

[Zazzy]

And neither can children.

Because you know that's where he was heading....

Who? Me?

No, LionIRC.

[_xenu_]

To each their own, so long as any relevant inheritable defects can be prevented by genetic manipulation, or reproduction is simply not permitted.

[genkaus]

While I would argue for the rights of two (or more) consenting adults to enter nay kind of sexual relationship they want, there are a few issues to be sorted out.

1. Most of the cases where incestuous or polygamist relationships currently take place are sort of a dysfunction junction. There are some deeply troubled individuals involved and legitimizing all such marriages would legitimize their "relationships" as well.

2. I'm not sure how well the "offspring of inbreeding" argument works. After all, we do not legislate the a person's right to have children if he has any genetic disorders.

3. Ofcourse, there is is the issue that in a lot of these relationships, the question of "consent" cannot be easily resolved. The idea here is that two consenting adults should be allowed to marry, but in a group relationship or familial relationships, the very act of coercion could be subtle.

All that being said, I'd still vote for the right simply because I don't regard potential for abuse as a sufficient reason to suspend any rights. Those cases need to be corrected differently.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

No, you cannot prevent people from procreating based on the idea that their babies have higher chances of getting genetic diseases or will be "less fit" just like we do not do that to people who already have genetic disorders. Preventing people from procreating against their will is simply a very bad road to walk down and it's not your place to decide who gets to procreate and who doesn't.

I think people should be able to have incestuous relationships if they so wish. It wasn't that uncommon though, people used to marry their cousins all the time and didn't egyptian royal family marry siblings to each other? As far as I know it's still not that uncommon to find people arranged to marry within families (extended families) in some muslim communities. I'm not sure about other communities.

[EgoRaptor]

I personally support legalizing it, although I still think incest is a stupid idea. As for polyamory, I think FMM would be my dream relationship, kinda a fetish of mine (I'm a guy BTW).

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

But Lion IRC, goats produce milk so you should be perfectly happy with a man/goat relationship if the goat were female. Why the inconsistency?

[The Valkyrie]

Several types of marriage law unfairly discriminate against people who just want to "get married".

*consanguinity
*citizenship/visa requirements
*committed intent/fidelity
*age
*cooling off period (advance notice)
*gender stipulations
*bigamy prohibitions
*zoophilia prohibitions

Why do the Equal Love activists demand that people have to love each other in order to meet the threshold? They are in effect, discriminating against people who want to get married for a whole host of other reasons.

There's a stigma attached to bestiality. But if a man and his goat 'wife' were able to hold up a "Legally Married" certificate, it would help break down those disgusting social barriers of bigotry and intolerance.

---

Croatians vote to ban gay marriage.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/de...referendum

Why is it that so many theists can't understand the term "consenting adults"?

I know among certain sections of the religious community that choirboys are the in thing (or should that be 'things in choirboys"?) but they're not consenting adults, either.

To answer this question myself, I'm unsure about close blood relatives getting sexually involved. I'm kinda on the fence about it. But, then again, who am I to deny happiness to two consenting adults when it doesn't affect me.

On a lighter note, to quote the late Mel Smith: "If god had not meant man to make love to animals why did he put horns on the front of the goat to hang on to? And why do zebras look like they're wearing pyjamas?"

[Lion IRC]

I don't have any problem with consensual sex of any kind among adults.

What about teenagers?
Should doctors be allowed to prescribe oral contraceptive pills to 14 year old girls?
How about all those gay school kids who deserve tolerance for their sexual behaviour? Are they having consensual sex or non-consensual?

I'm just trying to find out where True North is on your moral compass.

Can underage people who are committed and truly in love, get married if they promise not to have sex?