Incest is a funny one. There are solid genetic reasons for that particular taboo.

Of course I meant between consenting people, because as far as I'm concerned, if there is consent, then everything's great.

Should sex between people with an age gap of more than thirty years be banned? Harold and Maude is pretty gross, you know... its disgusting to think about, so lets ban it.


That argument makes just as much sense as banning sex between ANY consenting people.

The argument swings not so much on what we say you can and cannot do in your private time, as what the government will recognize for additional perks. After all, gay marriage isn't about saying that two men or women can get it on if they want, it's saying the government has to pay them for it.

So, why should the guv'ment pay for hetero couples? Ban the lot, I say. :rolleyes:

9th....you protest an awful lot about Gay marriage.....is there something you aren't sharing with us? hmm?

Just to reiterate - you are talking about consenting siblings though, right? Because there is much more than just an age gap between parent and child, so the issue of consent is much more complex.

I have to say I have no problem with bestiality. Animals can't consent, but sex is a natural function. I honestly don't believe an animal will be psychologically or emotionally damaged just because it has been involved in a sexual act with a human being. Obviously I'm not advocating any act that harms the animal physically, but animal cruelty is already covered in law.

There are far more harmful things done to animals in the name of food - I try not to eat anything which is raised in unnatural conditions, but I wouldn't be able to swear hand on heart that I never have

Polygamy? I don't think it should be illegal if the laws are being upheld in every other way (ie no underage partnerships, child welfare looked after, no abuse etc) Or is the potential for harmful relationships the reason it was banned in the first place?

I think it had more to do with the potential for population explosion on the part of the Mormons to reduce their potential for power. Somebody with better recall of history or googelfu might be able to find out why the deal was made to make poligamy illegal when Utah was brought into the Union.

Now, this is where I become interested in the conversation. Would there be any recognized validity in the polygamy argument if it was about multiple husbands or couples and not primarily about multiple wives? I am looking for opinions, here.

I think it would be even *more* shunned if it was one woman/mulitple husbands. A paternalistic society is not terribly hip on men sharing a woman. At least when a guy has multiple wives, the prevaling male-dominated thinking can go, "yeah, sure, you can own two cars, why not two women"...

hmmm... cut back on conversation by 50%, always another guy around when yer building something, draw straws to cover the wife's companies' holiday parties, 50% reduction in crayola check off boxes... we may be on to something.

I agree. I think it really is that way and what struck me the most was the last part..."own two cars...[own] two women." I think that is what bothers me most about this idea. The idea that two people own each other or one owns the other. I know that is not the intention in most relationships. Of course, everyone has their own ideas on what a relationship should be, but why should we be able to dictate that on a legal level to the degree that if a person wants to be married to more than one person, he/she cannot?

I already explained it in the other thread, which I'm not sure how to locate now. It wasn't about out-breeding everybody else. That part of the country was filling up fast since the various gold rushes, and the Mormons had been literally at war with any other groups trying to mine or homestead in their claimed territories. The basis of their claim was theological. Before the time the whole thing fell apart, in the late 1890's, the Mormons were poised to take over the United States according to "God's Divine Plan", when Joseph Smith was supposed to return and bring Jesus with him and the rest of the world would disolve into civil war and be so busy at the time that Brigham Young and his boys would be able to slip right in. Their "infallible-talks-directly-with-God" leader had set the date but died before it arrived. The rest of them sat there in Utah waiting, and when it became obvious even to them that there was a mistake, the new leader told them it would be necessary to get themselves accepted for statehood immediately while they were at least still in control in Zion. They had previously been rejected because in Utah Territory there were no individual rights, the Mormon Church owned all the land and improvements in a theoracy, dictated the results of all trials and elections, and had a nasty habit of disappearing those who disagreed. The final sticking point was the plural marriages, which had been instigated by founder Joseph Smith because he wanted to get into the pants of a young girl living with his family. Since Smith had dictated that plural marriage was a divine state because God also had plural wives, many believers did not intend to give it up. The head of the church had the expected "revelation", polygamy was officially banned, and Utah received statehood. At this point they had the various polygamous sects spinning off, calling themselves the TRUE church of Latter Day Saints, but it was not until the late 1940's that the main Church finally quit looking the other way at the many families which still kept multiple wives and said they would excommunicate anybody found with extras. That's when a lot of these people moved way out of town, because the main Church was giving more than lip service to rooting them out. The Mormon leader always has a "revelation" whenever it appears they will be in trouble with the Federal government, because that means audits and money being cut off.

I suggest reading Under The Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith by John Krakauer (or however the fuck it's spelled). Very interesting, very insightful look at Fundamentalist Mormons.

I suspect that it had a great deal to do with the fact that in the other 44 states it was a sin.

To continue Tonchi's explanation, the Federal government came down on the Mormons in the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which was repealed, by the way, in 1978. ;)

Oh come off it DanaC, the only thing that came to your head was a sideways remark like that? Next time you have the urge to fire off such an insipid remark, do us a favor and just let it go. The funny thing is that my comment wasn't even protest, I just said that the real area of contention isn't can you or can't you do it, but whether you get the financial windfalls. Does that really even supprise you? It's written clear as day in how the reforms are worded and how the campaigns and reeducation programs are being conducted.

This might start to be the case out in the boonies, but if polygamy reached mainstream I would bet that almost all cases would simply depend on the relative social power and finanicial status of the members. Powerful women would have multiple husbands just as powerful men would have multiple wives, just as it always was (with powerful women being rare until now). It wouldn't be different in middle class situations, a single more afluent person would surround him or herself with multiple members of the opposite sex.

I don't think large groups containing multiple men and women together would ever take off because that's already been tried in numerous 'free love' sects. These always seem to degenerate into abuse of most members, with a few powerful men and women using the others essentially as slaves. With media coverage and application of law these would be forced to disband fairly quickly I think.