Conservative Nightmare Fuel

[AprilStorms]

Last month, my country legalized same-sex marriage and now one triad is suing for their right to poly marriage. So people are a little freaked out here now and the "slippery slope" argument is being thrown about like confetti. So what do you all think?

Personally, my criteria for acceptance of a relationship are that no one is: underage, nonhuman, related, drugged, coerced, manipulated or otherwise abused.

But be honest and don't worry about offending me!

[allrightalready]

sounds like we line up

[Viridzen]

Kinda confused that someone would oppose polyamory, to be honest. As long as all parties have full knowledge and full consent, why not?

[Cimmerian]

Last month, my country legalized same-sex marriage and now one triad is suing for their right to poly marriage. So people are a little freaked out here now and the "slippery slope" argument is being thrown about like confetti. So what do you all think?

Personally, my criteria for acceptance of a relationship are that no one is: underage, nonhuman, related, drugged, coerced, manipulated or otherwise abused.

But be honest and don't worry about offending me!

Most of your criteria are also mine for "acceptable relationships".

I admit, I understand why some people worry... not necessarily from a moral standpoint but because there is a tendency to try and expand laws once they are on the books. History around the world holds many instances of "sloping" change; powers being expanded by government once anything is allowed and other rights or freedoms restricted/expanded as a law is made. And of course the politicians love to say, "Well, I know that's our goal but we need to start here with 'x' and ease our way there."

So, I couldn't honesty try and dissuade people who thought that gay marriage would lead to other attempts to expand marriage laws... because truthfully, I figured that it would at some point or another. Human nature tends to push until they hit a brick wall.

So yes, there will be some kind of a "slope" but I'm not sure how quickly it will happen or necessarily where it will stop. I know where my line is, but I don't know where society or the courts will stop it, so time will tell. I personally think human-human marriages with consenting adults will all eventually become legal (or should, in my opinion) and I know at least one of those would be worrisome to the most conservative sector out there. On the other hand I think eventually poly groups, at least small-ish ones, will have the right to marry but it may go the way of interracial marriage; legal through the courts and with some support, but not as publicly understood or widely supported for a while. I'm curious to see when this one will be passed.

I think the "slippery slope" is quite exaggerated in regards to the "But then people will want to marry animals and children!" angle. I can't see the first ever coming to pass; putting animals in a human-binding arrangement simply doesn't make sense, there's the consent issue, and both the left and right would throw a fit (one for moral reasons and the other for "animal rights" reasons). The second won't happen because children are one of the single issues that both sides genuinely care about and want to protect (heck, even the prison population seems to want children protected) even if they go about it in different ways.

[Confusion 0]

The only one I wouldn't be ok with is sex with kids, as it has been proven to be physically harmful. I wasn't 'grossed out' by the suggestion though. Pretty much nothing about sex has any impact on me.

With incest, people can love whoever they want. As long as they don't try to have kids, I don't mind.

Edit: By the way, pedophilia does not necessarily mean to have an urge to have sex with children. That's the dictionary definition, but some pedophiles, mainly asexual ones, don't have an urge to have sex with children. I think this slight misconception is where a lot of hate against pedophilia comes from.

[Skycaptain]

I'm in favour of the first three and against the others. I'm not in the least bit grossed out that you asked about things which are illegal here in the UK. You can't get an accurate response without asking about less permitted activities

The one point that struck me is how tolerant the responders have been about polyamory, given how taboo this is in some areas of society.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

No paedophila or zoophilia; as far as the rest go I don't care (as long as no biological children via incest due to health issues).

[Guest]

Looking at the numbers, one person both supports and opposes same-gender-relationships at the same time. Huh?

[knout]

I'm surprised incest seems to get more support than sex with animals

(I had to laugh when typing that sentence)

[praetorius]

I'm surprised incest seems to get more support than sex with animals

(I had to laugh when typing that sentence)

I don't find that surprising, given that (based on other discussion threads) most participants here use "informed free consent" (or similar variants) as the guideline for judging sexual relationships. Incest has the possibility of generally falling under these guidelines (less so if confounded by power lines between parents/children, more so if between siblings or close cousins), while animals tend to fall into far more dubious categories of coercion and ability to consent.

My personal opinions fall along these same lines: consenting adults operating freely from coercion may do as they will; sex between adults and children or animals involve grossly unequal differentials in power and ability to form "free consent," resulting in overly coercive situations that negate any nominal consent by the younger party; incestuous relations are iffy depending on the pre-existing power structures forming them (requiring more case-by-case evaluation than blanket approval/condemnation).

[Waist of Thyme]

I support same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, and polyamory.

I don't support bestiality and sex with children. (I acknowledge people can't control their attractions, I just don't think those two specific groups should act on it for obvious issues like consent and possible trauma)

Incest...as long as they don't have biological kids, I guess? I didn't check that option in the poll for support or against because there's that one iffy factor.

[MarieIsEatingTacobell]

I oppose what the majority of us seem to oppose and that's sex with animals, sex with children, and incest.

Both animals and children fall into the "protect at all costs" category to me, even talking about sexual acts with either of the two is really distressing.

I couldn't tell you why I can't support incest, though. I understand there's situations where it's consented to by two or more adults, but- I seldom hear about an incestuous relationship that's really that cut and dry. Maybe that's why. Also the biological risks that come from birthing children from an incestuous relationship.

[Rising Sun]

I voted like the majority. It seems like we're on the same page.

Looking at the numbers, one person both supports and opposes same-gender-relationships at the same time. Huh?

I guess it must be the same person who both supports and opposes interracial relationships :lol: Maybe somebody who doesn't understand English very well ?

[Absol]

Last month, my country legalized same-sex marriage and now one triad is suing for their right to poly marriage.

I have no issue with people being in poly relationships (though I would never be in one) as long as everyone is a consenting adult with the ability to choose another path if they wish (I do not agree with the cultures where they brainwash young girls into thinking it is the only option, and then marrying them off to 50 year old men with five other wives. That is just not okay.) But where I think it gets tricky is when you want to make a three (or more)- way marriage. Because for the financial benefits of marriage, like tax deductions and shared work benefits, that just wouldn't work... at what point do they draw the line?

[Ace-TheTimelordsCompanion]

Yeah, consent is the big one for me. And only human adults are capable of the required consent in this case. So absolutely no kids and no animals, that disturbs me.

I support most of the rest, including (after some soul serching) incest. Could it be abusive? Of course, but to ban all relationships that could be abusive, then you would have to ban all relationships. As for the children of incest, well we don't ban people with genetic conditions from having relationships. Most people realise what a massive workload a disabled child would be, and the pain that child would go through, and they make alternative plans if they want to have children. Would there be accidental children born of incest? Yes. But stopping everyone because of a few irresponsible people is cruel. This argument also borders on abelism, who are we to say that an accidental child of incest should not be alive.

Oh and yeah, I support the others, homo, poly, multi-racial etc.

Obviously I do not support abusive relationships or coersed relationships, of any form.

[Sisky]

Personally, my criteria for acceptance of a relationship are that no one is: underage, nonhuman, related, drugged, coerced, manipulated or otherwise abused.

This. Plus open communication about the relationship (especially if more than two people are involved) so everyone is on the same page.

Though if two people are related get into a relationship but don't find out they're related until much later, leave them be.

[Grumpy Alien]

I voted like the majority. It seems like we're on the same page.

Looking at the numbers, one person both supports and opposes same-gender-relationships at the same time. Huh?

I guess it must be the same person who both supports and opposes interracial relationships :lol: Maybe somebody who doesn't understand English very well ?

I was thinking the same. I have a hard time believing that someone here actually answered that way on purpose.

[VindicatorPhoenix]

So anyway, I voted for uhhh... never mind. I feel slightly embarrassed judging by the vote numbers. :redface: I feel like I'd get by face bashed in by a club of ethics if I go any further. Many people would call me too supportive. (dyes hair, changes name, packs bags, and runs away to get on plane to a faraway country)

[DannyFenton123]

I support everything but sex with animals, sex with children, and to some extent incsest. Incestuous relationships, however, as long as both are consenting adults and do not have children, I would be okay with. The others cross the line.

And the person who opposed interracial relationships? WTF.

[Mad Skittlez]

I'd better be supportive of interracial couples, considering I'm half white and half Indian. XD

My main conditions on this subject are that both people have to be able to give explicit, informed consent to be in the relationship. That automatically rules out animals, who can't effectively communicate with us, and kids, who aren't old enough to fully understand the consequences of being in a relationship with someone and are at risk to manipulation.

Incest is kind of a complicated subject, honestly; many of the reported cases involve adults praying on children (which as I said I'm dead against) and stem from isolated/unhealthy family situations. That said, I'm sure there are adult couples who know what they're getting into and fully consent to it, in which case possible genetic disorders in their children would be the biggest concern. I know i don't have the right to decide who can and can't have kids, but there are probably safer ways for them to be parents. Anyway, that's the one area where I'm conflicted.

[Sisky]

^ The thing with genetic disorders is, lots of legal couples have the same or even a higher possibility for those. Since it's not legally forbidden for those couples to have children, it's not a very convincing reason. It's purely a moral issue and I wish people would admit it.

I'm not against incestuous relationships between adults who know what they're doing, but with all the murky grey areas and power imbalances and potential for abuse, it's better to not legalize it. Humanity is nowhere near ready to handle that.

[Kappamaki]

Hmm... so polyamory is noticeably less accepted than same-sex and interracial relationships and incest is noticeably more accepted than sex with animals or children. Interesting.

[Cimmerian]

^ The thing with genetic disorders is, lots of legal couples have the same or even a higher possibility for those. Since it's not legally forbidden for those couples to have children, it's not a very convincing reason. It's purely a moral issue and I wish people would admit it.

I wondered if someone was going to point that out. :)

[Anthracite_Impreza]

^ The thing with genetic disorders is, lots of legal couples have the same or even a higher possibility for those. Since it's not legally forbidden for those couples to have children, it's not a very convincing reason. It's purely a moral issue and I wish people would admit it.

I'm not against incestuous relationships between adults who know what they're doing, but with all the murky grey areas and power imbalances and potential for abuse, it's better to not legalize it. Humanity is nowhere near ready to handle that.

Well, yes, that's true, but the likelihood of genetic disorders does go up the more closely related you are. Not only that, but can you imagine how much it would screw with the child's brain to know their mother is also their sister or something like that? Not a fan of putting a kid through that...

[Guest]

The only thing I don't support is sex with children.

[Sisky]

^ The thing with genetic disorders is, lots of legal couples have the same or even a higher possibility for those. Since it's not legally forbidden for those couples to have children, it's not a very convincing reason. It's purely a moral issue and I wish people would admit it.

I'm not against incestuous relationships between adults who know what they're doing, but with all the murky grey areas and power imbalances and potential for abuse, it's better to not legalize it. Humanity is nowhere near ready to handle that.

Well, yes, that's true, but the likelihood of genetic disorders does go up the more closely related you are. Not only that, but can you imagine how much it would screw with the child's brain to know their mother is also their sister or something like that? Not a fan of putting a kid through that...

That's why I said it's a moral issue. Really, if related couple A's child has a 50% chance to have a disorder and unrelated couple's B's child's is 80%, there's no logical argument to not prevent couple B from having children either. And the whole thing is also based on the assumption that the point of a relationship is having children and everyone wants them. Aside form unwanted pregnancy there's no risk of any genetic disorders if the couple decides not to have children (you know, like a lot of legal couples do), and that's not even taking same-sex relationships or infertility into account.

[Rising Sun]

And if the most ethical was simply that they shouldn't have biological children (which doesn't prevent them from having children in general) ?

[Unlabeled]

Last month, my country legalized same-sex marriage and now one triad is suing for their right to poly marriage. So people are a little freaked out here now and the "slippery slope" argument is being thrown about like confetti. So what do you all think?

Personally, my criteria for acceptance of a relationship are that no one is: underage, nonhuman, related, drugged, coerced, manipulated or otherwise abused.

But be honest and don't worry about offending me!

Change happens a bit at a time. If you try and get everything you want all at once, you'll fail. But if you turn the heat up gradually you can boil a living frog in a pot without it jumping out (not really it's just a thought-experiment heh.) Bans on smoking (as a pipe smoker myself) is my go=to example. The people who want smoking banned completely know if they try and get that they'll fail, so they do it incrementally over a span of years. And they're succeeding.

As with 'alt sex' things there's a valid case to be made for the slippery slope arguement. First we got homosexuality declassified asa m ental disorder in the late 70s, then start banning discriminatory practices in individual states, then got civil unions, then marriages, then open service in the military, etc.

Polygamy may not be next, but I'm sure it's on the agenda. As well it should be. Insofar as government and laws are concerned, marriage is only a civil contract. And if the government recognizes plural marriages, what's wrong with that? So long as the economic advantages (the 1400 or so rights afforded to married people) are only applied to the initial spouse where additional spouses would result in mutliplication of certain benefits, I have no proble with it. But if a 100 person family say gets a tax credit times 100, then there's obviously going to be a problem whereas if only the first spouse, but not subsequent ones do, that's workable. But all 100 could get non-math type benefits liek hospital visitation and whatnot.

Beastiality? Not my thing but neither's people into sniffing stinky socks. But I don't oppose them legally. Most animals are perfectly capable of expressing their displeasure and injuring or killing a human being. Besides, we're talking about things which eat their own waste, I don't think they're going "ewww, gross!" having sex with people. :)

Incest? Not all incest is child sexual abuse as not all incest involves children. Bible permits some incest as do some states (because of those permissions like RI, and NY.) If relatives wanna have consensual adult sex what business is it of mine?

Sex with children? Here I draw the line. Children should be protected by adults, not used for adult pleasure. While I htink our minor-involved sex laws need major updates and revisions, adult-child sex of pedophilic ages isn't naything I can support. Make the age of consent lower perhaps, give parents authority instead of the state maybe, but below the age of puberty isn't naything I can scientificly support let alone legally. And I certainly don't envision any organized attempt to make that legal when even European countries couldn't.

When you propose making legal something that even The Netherlands and Holland got squeamish about, just how far from the pack have you strayed? :)

[Anthracite_Impreza]

^ The thing with genetic disorders is, lots of legal couples have the same or even a higher possibility for those. Since it's not legally forbidden for those couples to have children, it's not a very convincing reason. It's purely a moral issue and I wish people would admit it.

I'm not against incestuous relationships between adults who know what they're doing, but with all the murky grey areas and power imbalances and potential for abuse, it's better to not legalize it. Humanity is nowhere near ready to handle that.

Well, yes, that's true, but the likelihood of genetic disorders does go up the more closely related you are. Not only that, but can you imagine how much it would screw with the child's brain to know their mother is also their sister or something like that? Not a fan of putting a kid through that...

That's why I said it's a moral issue. Really, if related couple A's child has a 50% chance to have a disorder and unrelated couple's B's child's is 80%, there's no logical argument to not prevent couple B from having children either. And the whole thing is also based on the assumption that the point of a relationship is having children and everyone wants them. Aside form unwanted pregnancy there's no risk of any genetic disorders if the couple decides not to have children (you know, like a lot of legal couples do), and that's not even taking same-sex relationships or infertility into account.

Well as I said originally, I'm not against incestuous relationships, just producing children via incestuous means. Personally though I think if you know you are capable of producing a child with a problematic genetic problem you should use AI to select only healthy embryoes, regardless of relation or not. I don't believe in making children suffer when we have the means to stop it.

[Rising Sun]

Personally though I think if you know you are capable of producing a child with a problematic genetic problem you should use AI to select only healthy embryoes, regardless of relation or not. I don't believe in making children suffer when we have the means to stop it.

This.

Or there is also the simpler and cheaper solution to not have biological children and to receive help from a sperm / oocyte donor. It's the solution I would use if I want to have a child in the future (as I have a genetic disorder and I very probably carry a second one as it runs in family).