US stands up for gay rights at the UN

[GhostWriter16]

Polygamy I think. Less icky than incest so will enjoy more support, and also fully consensual.

Incest can be consensual as well. Though remember, polygamy is a key reason Soc Cons use to justify banning gay marriage.

Personally, I see no reason in theory such a relationship (Polygamous) should be illegal, so it should be allowed, but with the current tax system I don't think it should be recognized.

Incest I'm not sure about what point should be allowed. We should allow the experts to judge based off chance of fetal defect, and it should be banned at such a point that it would be specifically dangerous (Probably should be allowed after 55 though, then there's no risk.)

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, we had a thread on incest recently.

(Clue: it wasn't this one)

 

[Arwon]

I don't disagree with your points. My point is that there were once equally vaid arguements against homosexuality. But over time opinions - including scientific opinions - have changed.

So you don't like Ped or incest. What do you think the next fight will be?

In terms of sexuality and gender, more marginal groups in the extended GLBTQI acronym.

Decriminalisation of homosexuality and legalisation of gay marriage is far from the be-all and end-all of sexual equality.

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah it's probably important to stress here that although this is a great move by the US, the reality is that it was seen fit in the first place to exclude the 'sexuality' descriptor from the protected minorities list, despite all previous statements including it.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Though remember, polygamy is a key reason Soc Cons use to justify banning gay marriage.

Hence why I don't take such people seriously and hope they commit a crime of some sort so we can strip them of their right to vote.

Personally, I see no reason in theory such a relationship (Polygamous) should be illegal, so it should be allowed, but with the current tax system I don't think it should be recognized.

Tax-wise, you should at least be able to claim one of the partners in a polygamous relationship.

I've heard the best argument against polygamy isn't moral, but legal, simply because of how it would throw our current system into disarray.

That's just an argument for changing the system though.

Incest I'm not sure about what point should be allowed. We should allow the experts to judge based off chance of fetal defect, and it should be banned at such a point that it would be specifically dangerous (Probably should be allowed after 55 though, then there's no risk.)

It would be a very touchy issue, since it's a balance between the rights of the unborn and the rights of individuals to privacy/consensual relationships. Full legalisation endangers the unborn, criminalisation infringes on one's right to be in a consensual relationship, and legalisation with regulation is squeezing into the bedroom.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Well, you already know I don't see "Killing because of hate" as any "Worse" than any other totally unjustifiable murder. And of course, you know this isn't going to change anything.

That said, I certainly am in favor of people NOT being killed because of their sexual orientation.

What did you expect me to say?

And we can only get involved in so much...

Basically this+"but it doesn't matter anyway because the UN is just a waste of time." You're getting to be too predictable, Dommy.

 

[NovaKart]

It won't make a difference in countries that persecute gays but at least we don't have to cave in to their delicate sensibilities. They can be called out on what they do. If only Africa would focus more on their real problems and stop panicking about gays.

 

[bhsup]

Bout damn time. I wonder how the fundies (excluding Dommy, as I already know exactly what he's going to say) think of this measure.

Well I'm none to keen on Matthew Shepherd getting killed in Wyoming because he was gay. It being a UN measure, it's toothless and meaningless, but I'm not opposed to the intent behind it (assuming there isn't some weird wording for some other meaning hidden in it...)

 

[GhostWriter16]

Hence why I don't take such people seriously and hope they commit a crime of some sort so we can strip them of their right to vote.

Really T-Fox, first of all, you can commit a non-felonious crime and not lose the right to vote, second of all, drug use being a felony is stupid, third of all, pretty much any other felony they could commit would hurt someone

Tax-wise, you should at least be able to claim one of the partners in a polygamous relationship.

Well, yes, one, but not more than one. Meaning you'd only ACTUALLY be allowed to marry once. I wasn't suggesting to actually arrest people who sleep around

I've heard the best argument against polygamy isn't moral, but legal, simply because of how it would throw our current system into disarray.

That's just an argument for changing the system though.

Marriage should be divorced from taxation, as should most other things.

It would be a very touchy issue, since it's a balance between the rights of the unborn and the rights of individuals to privacy/consensual relationships. Full legalisation endangers the unborn, criminalisation infringes on one's right to be in a consensual relationship, and legalisation with regulation is squeezing into the bedroom.

Yeah, I don't think it should be a crime worthy of being locked up certainly, though there's a strong chance you need psychological help if you are in such a relationship.

However, legally speaking, the rights of the unborn is what needs to be considered when its legality/illegality is considered. And if its illegal for opposite sex couples, it should be illegal for same-sex too in the name of fairness. So maybe first cousins would be legal (Though highly immoral) but no closer than that.

Basically this+"but it doesn't matter anyway because the UN is just a waste of time." You're getting to be too predictable, Dommy.

 

[Mango Elephant]

However, legally speaking, the rights of the unborn is what needs to be considered when its legality/illegality is considered. And if its illegal for opposite sex couples, it should be illegal for same-sex too in the name of fairness. So maybe first cousins would be legal (Though highly immoral) but no closer than that.

If we're banning it because of birth defects, than people with sickle cell, hemophilia, trisomy 21, colorblindness, and all the rest shouldn't be allowed to have sex either because that could result in problems for unborn children who didn't do anything wrong. Also, dumb people shouldn't procreate either.

And if its illegal for opposite sex couples, it should be illegal for same-sex too in the name of fairness.

And I presume you're for gay marriage also, otherwise hypocrasy.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Really T-Fox, first of all, you can commit a non-felonious crime and not lose the right to vote, second of all, drug use being a felony is stupid, third of all, pretty much any other felony they could commit would hurt someone

I'm an ends justify the means person.

Marriage should be divorced from taxation, as should most other things.

Marriage sure, but not the family unit. We should encourage people to couple together, even non-romantically, for the simple fact it's fiscally wise.

The family unit is the basis of our society. My family unit may be different from the usual people who say that line, but the point stays.

Yeah, I don't think it should be a crime worthy of being locked up certainly, though there's a strong chance you need psychological help if you are in such a relationship.

Of course. But disagreeing with something personally should never be the basis for any law.

However, legally speaking, the rights of the unborn is what needs to be considered when its legality/illegality is considered. And if its illegal for opposite sex couples, it should be illegal for same-sex too in the name of fairness. So maybe first cousins would be legal (Though highly immoral) but no closer than that.

We need to determine what the closest relation one can be without significant risk of defects is. Though defects generally come from repeated inbreeding a la what royal families tend to do.

The closest relation without significant risk should be where full legality is allowed. Special provisions must exist for anything closer to protect the unborn. Preventing a birth is pretty much the goal. Sounds rather statist, but this is to protect the unborn.

 

[bob bobato]

You know darn well that pedophilia and homosexuality aren't comparable by any means for one reason: consent.

As for incest, that's probably banned to protect the well-being of the unborn.

If there's anything we've learned from the gay marriage debate's its the fact that it is perfectly legal and morally inobjectable to be in love or be married without planning to procreate. If we're going to protect the well-being of the unborn, then instead perhaps it should simply be illegal for relatives to reproduce, if that would be possible to legislate. There are alternative ways for them to have children.

 

[say1988]

It would be a very touchy issue, since it's a balance between the rights of the unborn and the rights of individuals to privacy/consensual relationships. Full legalisation endangers the unborn, criminalisation infringes on one's right to be in a consensual relationship, and legalisation with regulation is squeezing into the bedroom.

The bigger issue in my eyes is that, particularly in close relations, one individual often holds considerable power over the other (the parent/child relationship is probably most like this, but often further apart as well). This often exists to the point that individuals wouldn't have a reasonable ability to resist if incestuous relationships were legal and acceptable.

As for polgamy, I am all for it as long as something is done about the taxation issue. The bg problem right now is that groups that practice polygamy have a history of marginalizing and abuse of women. Most notably fundamentalist Mormon groups (such as Bountiful, BC).

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm an ends justify the means person.

Even radical Soc Cons can do good things however. For instance, someone shouting for the execution of homosexuals, but is unable to get this to happen, might vote for the same person I'd vote for. They are still an idiot, but their vote isn't the problem, because its utilization is far more limited then what they'd like to do.

Marriage sure, but not the family unit. We should encourage people to couple together, even non-romantically, for the simple fact it's fiscally wise.

I wouldn't agree with that, though I do support tax breaks for having kids, since they are the future of society.

The family unit is the basis of our society. My family unit may be different from the usual people who say that line, but the point stays.

You do know how ironic this is coming from you right?

Of course. But disagreeing with something personally should never be the basis for any law.

I don't understand your meaning. Being illegal /=/ going to jail even now, and we overuse jail a lot currently...

The closest relation without significant risk should be where full legality is allowed. Special provisions must exist for anything closer to protect the unborn. Preventing a birth is pretty much the goal. Sounds rather statist, but this is to protect the unborn.[

Yes this is correct.

 

[Machiavelo]

Very good news!

 

[Joecoolyo]

I don't understand your meaning. Being illegal /=/ going to jail even now, and we overuse jail a lot currently...

He means that laws should never be based on personal beliefs. Such as, even though you may find homosexuality icky, doesn't mean you make it illegal. There are plenty of people who don't find having sex with the same sex icky.

 

[GhostWriter16]

He means that laws should never be based on personal beliefs. Such as, even though you may find homosexuality icky, doesn't mean you make it illegal. There are plenty of people who don't find having sex with the same sex icky.

I agree homosexuality should be allowed anyway.

But incest potentially causes danger to fetuses. Which is why I'm not sure it should be allowed. Not totally sure it shouldn't either. But I wasn't sure what his point applied to my post.

 

[NovaKart]

Incest and homosexuality are vastly different things, why does the incest subject always have to come up?

 

[Arakhor]

Because ignorant/judgemental people always conflate non-normative sexual activities with illegal varieties. It's similar to what might be termed as mental disabilities - you mention that you have William's Syndrome and people might start thinking that you're a sociopath.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Wow. First the US finally signs a UN resolution calling for the rights of aboriginal people, and now this? What's next? The US doesn't veto a condemnation of Israel?