On Same-sex and Extended Marriage

[NovaKart]

First, "consider" does not mean to put in practice. Second, in the case of underdeveploped and weak countries there two main reasons to follow an example of the big brothers.

1) "Cargo cults". Sometimes some countries want to become "civilized" but having no smart leaders they try to imitate "civilization" by adopted some of trendy moral thingies. For example, Japan (which is historically much less obsessed over controlling sexual urges of its citizens then Anglo-Saxon countries) introduced anti-pornografic laws to imitate Anglo-Saxons. Blessfully as Japanese are quite smart people their dropped this absurdity after several decades and now Japan is one the best examples how erotical production should be dealt with.

2) Easy way to win some sympathy and maybe some benefits. After all, why not allow some harmless sillyness if our international partners are so obsessed with? If Vietnam introduce same-sex marriage it will magickally become more democratic without really sacrificing anything important.



Well, should I then dismiss any idea I do not like on the premises that it had certainly already occured to somebody else?



Everything is separate and worthy debate with different issues. But the point is that the "debate" of same-sex marriages is not the most important, and if its proponents want to promote it in countries which are skeptical of LGBT specialness and chosenonnes they should join their forces with others who could be interested in amending of "marriage" or introducing more flexible "civil unions". Taken alone the cause of homosexuals wanting marry much less important then issue with cousine/sibling or polygamous/polyandrous marriages.



One is not prohibited by the law to make consentual sex with any relative (cousins, siblings etc) and do not risk jail for doing this. Same-sex sex is also allowed.


First cousin marriages are actually legal in most of the world. US is shameful exception in the civilized world. They should have dealt with it first before advancing to same sex marriages.

I'm not against cousin marriage but why is it so much more important than same-sex marriage? It seems like a big part of your objection to same-sex marriage is that gay people are some insignificant minority that no one should care about, but I think there are a lot more gay people than people who marry their cousins or want to.

And gay rights is about giving gay people the same rights as everyone else, not promoting "specialness and chosenonnes" I think the last one isn't even a word.

 

[Yeekim]

If Vietnam introduce same-sex marriage it will magickally become more democratic without really sacrificing anything important.

Correction: if any country introduces said marriages, part of its citizenry will enjoy remarkably larger personal freedom, without the country sacrificing anything at all.

Sounds like a win.

 

[Snorrius]

Slippery slope much?

I love when people try to disguide their hatred and bigotry behind the illusion of false logic. Just say, "I hate fags!" and get it over with!

Profane, begone from the sacred Chamber!

Seriously, you could not have it more wrong than this - I am consistent proponent of sexual freedom(s).

 

[Dachs]

Seriously, you could not have it more wrong than this - I am consistent proponent of sexual freedom(s).

Isn't your avatar a character from some rape eroge or anime?

 

[Snorrius]

Isn't your avatar a character from some rape eroge or anime?

Even more - it is from homosexual rape eroge!

Update: my avatar now is other character

 

[Snorrius]

During discussion there were some doubts on how correctly (un)importance of same-sex marriage was calculated. Those are rightful doubts, and this issue should be elaborated on. I have pointed to two issues which are in my opinion more important than homosexual unions. Let's deal with one by one.

Cousin marriages

In the so-called "first world" we have a blight on the map of sexual and marriage/union freedoms. Which is ironical this blight country often portray itself as a paragon of democracy and freedom and like to teach others how to achieve its doubtful achievements in this areas. Obviously I write about United States of America. In many of this "free" country's states one can not marry his or her beloved cousin, and sometimes it is illegal even to make sex with him or her. Yet again USA show their bigotry.

Obviously before approaching such issue as non-standart marriage such horrendous problem should have been dealt first. What marriage? They still jail adult people for consentual sex, after all! It is like Saudi Arabia of cousin relationships!

One may ask how big this problem? Is it on par with same sex marriages or not? Let's check numbers.

According to different studies there are something like 1.8% - 3.5% persents who identifiy themselves as someone from LGBT community (there are more who was involved in same-sex activity but we are primarily interested in those who are target group for same-sex marriage/union service). Average number for cousin marriages in the world is about 10%. We may suppose that this number may be lower for USA due to general unpopularity of this practice but it is at least on par in number of people who would benefit from this. Another important thing is that it would be of benefit to LGBT community as well - as they also can not marry/union their same-sex cousins until this ridiculous laws are removed.

Polygamous and polyandrous marriages

In other countries where LGBT community is often cries over being discriminated there is much more pressing issue: polygamous/polyandrous marriages.

In Russia alone we have about 15% of Muslim who could potentially use ability to form unions allowing more than standard 1 x 1 configuration, and I am sure if LGBT movement by some divine intervention suddenly gets their same-sex marriages - many of Muslims would be offended because if the state is to amend marriage laws or introduce some kind of "unions" - they have much more moral rights to be served as minority first than LGBT movement which history is quite short.

Obviously we should not cater to some (quasi)religious code be it Shariah or last trendy thing in Anglo-Saxon world or Europe. If some country is going to introduce "civil unions" or extend the meaning of "marriage" outside of it traditional meaning this should be secular solution which could be of use to many minorities and to majority as well that's why we can not be satisfied with old plain Christianish 1m x 1f way, nor with Muslim 1m x 4f. Secular solution should be more universal to fit many sizes how it should be in truly modern and free world.

I will yet again note that such unions would be useful for LGBT people as well - after all if three lesbian females want to live happily together as one family - why should we stop them?

 

[Zelig]

I consider marriage to be a secular solution.

 

[dusters]

I understand the reasoning of OP, but there is/has been a historical sequence of anti-discrimination stuff.

Here in Latvia we still struggle with hate crimes against people of colour, we have wife beatings and discrimination against disabled people. 20 years has passed since Latvia got freedom, but our LGBT organisation hasn't achieved almost anything, because the previous "minorities" in line hasn't got the rights and respect they got in Western Europe.

 

[Cutlass]

During discussion there were some doubts on how correctly (un)importance of same-sex marriage was calculated. Those are rightful doubts, and this issue should be elaborated on. I have pointed to two issues which are in my opinion more important than homosexual unions. Let's deal with one by one.

Cousin marriages

In the so-called "first world" we have a blight on the map of sexual and marriage/union freedoms. Which is ironical this blight country often portray itself as a paragon of democracy and freedom and like to teach others how to achieve its doubtful achievements in this areas. Obviously I write about United States of America. In many of this "free" country's states one can not marry his or her beloved cousin, and sometimes it is illegal even to make sex with him or her. Yet again USA show their bigotry.

Obviously before approaching such issue as non-standart marriage such horrendous problem should have been dealt first. What marriage? They still jail adult people for consentual sex, after all! It is like Saudi Arabia of cousin relationships!

One may ask how big this problem? Is it on par with same sex marriages or not? Let's check numbers.

According to different studies there are something like 1.8% - 3.5% persents who identifiy themselves as someone from LGBT community (there are more who was involved in same-sex activity but we are primarily interested in those who are target group for same-sex marriage/union service). Average number for cousin marriages in the world is about 10%. We may suppose that this number may be lower for USA due to general unpopularity of this practice but it is at least on par in number of people who would benefit from this. Another important thing is that it would be of benefit to LGBT community as well - as they also can not marry/union their same-sex cousins until this ridiculous laws are removed.

Polygamous and polyandrous marriages

In other countries where LGBT community is often cries over being discriminated there is much more pressing issue: polygamous/polyandrous marriages.

In Russia alone we have about 15% of Muslim who could potentially use ability to form unions allowing more than standard 1 x 1 configuration, and I am sure if LGBT movement by some divine intervention suddenly gets their same-sex marriages - many of Muslims would be offended because if the state is to amend marriage laws or introduce some kind of "unions" - they have much more moral rights to be served as minority first than LGBT movement which history is quite short.

Obviously we should not cater to some (quasi)religious code be it Shariah or last trendy thing in Anglo-Saxon world or Europe. If some country is going to introduce "civil unions" or extend the meaning of "marriage" outside of it traditional meaning this should be secular solution which could be of use to many minorities and to majority as well that's why we can not be satisfied with old plain Christianish 1m x 1f way, nor with Muslim 1m x 4f. Secular solution should be more universal to fit many sizes how it should be in truly modern and free world.

I will yet again note that such unions would be useful for LGBT people as well - after all if three lesbian females want to live happily together as one family - why should we stop them?

If same sex marriage is so unimportant why are people still fighting so hard to deny people equal rights?

 

[Yeekim]

I have pointed to two issues which are in my opinion more important than homosexual unions.

Whether these or any other issues are more important or not, is completely irrelevant. You can always find things, which are "more important". How about poverty or hunger in the world? Education, social security, threats to environment?

You are speaking as if making a trivial amendment into marriage law was a huge national effort, something especially taxing on country's resources.

EDIT: Also, whether LGBT marriages are more important issue than polygamous/whatever marriages or vice versa can probably be estimated, with reasonable accuracy, by looking at number of people campaigning for either.

 

[Leoreth]

I have pointed to two issues which are in my opinion more important than homosexual unions.

And neither of them precludes the others. Why not discuss everything on its own merits, separately. Even if equal rights for homosexual couples is just an Anglo-Saxon fad (which I disagree with), it is irrelevant that this is the first form of partnership to be treated equally. We can still discuss your other "more important" issues in the future, maybe when the people who desire it move to put it on the political discourse, just like homosexuals did.

 

[classical_hero]

Every society in the past that has moved away from the family unit of a man and a woman with the possibility of children has fallen by the wayside. The fact that we are finding way to try and destroy society is really depressing.

 

[Cutlass]

Every society in the past that has moved away from the family unit of a man and a woman with the possibility of children has fallen by the wayside. The fact that we are finding way to try and destroy society is really depressing.

And the name of a few such societies would be?

 

[Borachio]

Oh oh oh. There was that obscure sect in Russia did that. And disappeared. What was it's name? I can't remember. But even they stayed married to each other.

 

[History_Buff]

Every society in the past that has moved away from the family unit of a man and a woman with the possibility of children has fallen by the wayside. The fact that we are finding way to try and destroy society is really depressing.

Indeed, I'm going to have to stand with Cutlass and ask for some examples here.

Oh oh oh. There was that obscure sect in Russia did that. And disappeared. What was it's name? I can't remember. But even they stayed married to each other.

The Skoptskys? Though I don't think the government was ever cool with them either.

 

[Borachio]

Yeah. Them's the fellas.

In 1874 the sect numbered at least 5444, including 1465 women. Of these 703 men and 100 women had castrated themselves.

:wince:

 

[Leifmk]

And on the less horrible side there's the American Shaker sect, which didn't castrate themselves but only practiced (or were supposed to practice) total sexual abstinence. Well, I guess it still exists, but they're down to a handful of elderly members now as recruitment has petered out completely. But neither of these can be considered full-fledged societies in themselves.

Seriously, though, I fail to see how having some small percentage of the population in social units that do not necessarily involve children spells any kind of demographic doom for that society. Indeed counterexamples abound; for instance, look to European history with celibate clerical and monastic orders. And furthermore, same-sex marriage does not necessarily mean no child-rearing is involved -- only that they can't have children that are the biological offspring of both partners. But it's not as if heterosexual couples never raise children where a third biological party was involved. By now there's thousands of people running around who were raised by open same-sex partners and they don't seem to be doing any worse in their lives than the rest of us.

 

[Yeekim]

Every society in the past that has moved away from the family unit of a man and a woman with the possibility of children has fallen by the wayside. The fact that we are finding way to try and destroy society is really depressing.

Correction: Every society in the past ... has eventually fallen by the wayside.

 

[Borachio]

Didn't Tibet have up to 1/3 of its male population in monasteries before the Chinese invasion?

 

[Flying Mathias]

Yeah, same sex marriage is just an "anglo saxon" obsession. Doesn't get demanded or discussed or legalised anywhere else.

Who knew Vietnam, Portugal, Argentina, Taiwan, Nepal, France and South Africa were anglo-saxon. For a start.

Not to nitpick, but is South Africa not Anglo-Saxon?


More on topic....

Every society in the past that has moved away from the family unit of a man and a woman with the possibility of children has fallen by the wayside. The fact that we are finding way to try and destroy society is really depressing.

I know man, it's tough watching Canada and The Netherlands fall into social disarray as riots break out through the land.