To preface, this is not me attacking or lambasting progs, just my curiosity! 1. Gay marriage is now allowed, will you now persue legalizing polygomy, interfamily (including gay brothers/sisters, straight kin or even mother son etc)? Interfamily reproduction, is of course, more prone to genetic defects, but lets say they may or may not try for kids. 2. Also, it seems the hardcore gun control advocates are proglibs, i really want to know the rationale behind gun control? It seems, a very few people who ignore and abuse the laws is no justification to strip 300+million people of their constitutional rights. By this standard, i think the constitution would become obsolete in a rather quickly. Laws dont protect us by being there, but by deterring others from submitting to their proclivities. So, what is your perspective on this? Thanks for taking the time to read and perhaps respond. I know most of us from any color of the political spectrum have a somewhat common goal just differing opinions on how to achieve them. Lets keep it civil!
I need to preface that I'm not sure if I fall in the category of your title description, because I don't agree with proglibs, but i'll weigh in just for kicks. I think that drawing a trajectory line between gay marriage and inter family reproduction is a huge stretch, and I for one wouldn't agree to any of the conclusions that you suggest. On your point of gun control, I again don't agree with the proglibs, but I don't think that the current gun management system that is in place is working today or how it can get any better, with the least amount of cost to society. Given that the libs want more control and the gun lobby wants a gun in every hand, can there ever be an agreeable balance? Does anyone know where there is a death rate list by gun model? As if to say how many US civilians have been killed by what gun, not just "assault rifle" (which I think is a bullshit term also)
I'm not really a prog lib (more of a libertarian, if anything) but i'll weigh in. Polygamy is someones choice, they should be allowed to pursue it if they want to. interfamily is a bit of a stretch, it sounds a lot like the "being allowed to marry animals" argument. As far as guns, give them to us. They are ours. We want them. Making something illegal doesnt solve the problem, it creates a black market. I'd rather have a gun in my house to shoot the guy who comes through the door then get shot. Not advocating violence, just saying, i want to be protected.
You may have missed what i was getting at. Im saying if you redefine marriage to include certain people, being a proglib, why stop at homosexual marriage? Seems like polygomy would be more easily justified. And for interfamily, i wasnt drawing a line, im asking where do the proglibs draw the line and why not include those people too? And i qualified the interfamily issue by taking out the issue of reproduction. Why wouldnt 2 men and a woman be just as qualified as just two men? Thanks for the response already!
not sure I fit in there, first time I heard it was from cara santa maria on joe rogan's podcast, but I'll go ahead. 1. I'd be down with polygamy, obviously with consenting adults, but interfamily I'd draw the line. even though, just instinctively speaking, we shouldnt need a law that say dont fuck and impregnate your sister or you'll have a retarded baby, however people tend to be morons especially when the parents are morons. 2. I think most legal gun owners would honestly not mind doing a mental health screen to get a gun/license. this way you're not fucking over responsible legal gun owners just cuz some dumbfuck who was mental goes off. guess I'll include your question "Why wouldnt 2 men and a woman be just as qualified as just two men?". actually thought this was a parenting question, but after reading it over multiple times I have no idea what you're asking. so I'll answer like it is about parenting, in which case I dont think it matters how many parents you have. it comes with some pros/cons, a pro being you have more people to teach you more, the con of that is more of a chance someone fucks the kid up instead of helping.
1. It shouldnt be allowed. Marriage laws should open the up. Mary a goat for all I care. 2. Gun control is self control. I think we should just enforce who has them and person to person sales
1. While I don't think having children with close genetic relatives is a good idea, the idea that anyone should control whom a person reproduces with is absolutely absurd. I see no reason why polygamy or interfamily relations shouldn't be legal. Hell marrying your third cousin is legal in Washington 2. People should be able to defend themselves with guns. There should be (in a perfect world) some sort of authority looking at where big manafactures are sending there guns, you know so they don't start funding private armies or just selling weapons all over and being like Nicholas Cage I'm not a liberal but whatever YOLO!!! 3.
I'm not really your target audience for this question but I support gay marriage. There's a huge difference between gay relationships and polygamous or incestuous relationships. Polygamy violates American cultural norms because it inherently treats women as inferior, and incest is enormously problematic. It opens up the possibility for pedophilia and sexual abuse because children will go along with what their parents tell them is normal: if the kid is raised to believe incest is natural then police will have no way of verifying abuse. Best case scenario, you wind up with two consenting adult relatives who are attracted to each other, and even that scenario can cause severe birth defects in any children that may result from their relationship. Meanwhile, the only objections to gay marriage are "my religion says it's wrong and you have to follow my beliefs", "we've never done that before and society can never change", and "ew, yucky!". Bottom line, they're not comparable. And frankly, gay marriage is like marijuana: the burden of proof should be on the people trying to keep it illegal. If you want to outlaw something in a free and democratic society, you should be able to demonstrate why it's wrong. Your argument shouldn't be "well it's illegal now: prove to me that a lot of good and absolutely no bad will come from reversing that decision". As for gun control, I think there should be regulations in place to prevent psychopaths from arming themselves like Rambo, but the anti-gun movement is a hysterical overreaction to sensational gun attacks. A lot of people think that if guns are outlawed, these attacks will stop. Given the emotions associated with tragedies like Newton, you can almost see where they're coming from, but they're wrong. Here's a depressing read: School attacks in China (2010 Ten attacks on children in Chinese schools over the past 2 years, killing or wounding dozens of children (some as young as pre-schoolers), none of them involving guns.
To preface. I don't really identify with any side. But here are my personal views 1. Polygamy. Sure bring it on. What's the big deal? Really. If we are talking about mature consenting adults, why have laws based on religion restrict people from a type of family structure that works for them? Interfamily relationships.... Well. It's happened before. And again. People are all wired differently. It's part of nature. So I say let them have it too. If it's true love I mean. Who am I to judge. 2. Gun bans. Yeah this is just media hype. It'll blow over soon. I hope.
Thanks for all of the replies. Ill try to do a sweeping response to most of you. For the interfamily, i dont think it can be likened to marrying animals. Interfamily would still be two consenting humans. Polygamy doesnt necessarily mean one man marrying all the women he wants, it could be one woman with several other women or men. And also, with interfamily, im distinguished that they may or may not reproduce, so the incest problem wouldnt be a factor. Just as homosexuals, they would adopt or artificially inseminate or even have someone else carry for them. I purposely left out marrying animals because i think that really has a clear distinction that the ones i brought up do not. And 'grimm' i think you are right, i kind of subconciously addressed the parenting issue when it was intended to be stricly about adults/relationships/marriage. It seems no one who responded is a proglib, is progliberalism just a construct of the media, which doesnt really reflect much of the populations positions?
Well if humans used guns for just sporting activities rather than trying to kill other humans and animals, it would be okay! I'd be like, fuck it! yeah... guns! But that just isn't the case...
Well it seems to me that kind of reasoning leads to totalitarian dictatorships. It favors safety over freedom. 'one idiot abused the system, to prevent that, we must regulate X'. Id rather my opponent be a deranged citizen than a multi billion dollar monster we call the government. Liken it to hate speech and free speech zones eroding our freedom of speech. The solution isnt taking away our rights. And the framers didnt secure our 2nd ammendment right to kill animals for food or trophy but to be able to protect ourselves namely from government. Governments tend toward dictatorships as history shows, and the PEOPLE revolt and set up better governments. Take the power from the people and the result is obvious. Your take?
1. Polygamy is fine by me. Incest should remain forbidden because any potential off spring could be damaged by inbreeding. 2. Banning guns is a bad idea. It's always the first step for every genocide (see Holocaust) or police state (see China).
actually 1 woman with many men is called polyandry, and while I have no problem with it, naturally it makes no sense for humans to do it other than an increase of males generally mean increased protection.
Because you titled this "Questions for Progressive Liberals", you are obviously picking a fight, and I can't take you seriously. Plus, for what it's worth, I'm not a liberal, but rather a libertarian, or rather, Anarcho-Pimitivist. But, I'll play along... 1: I opt for the complete abolishment of marriage, as far as legal stuff and taxes go. It should be kept as a religious ceremony, or secular tradition between two people who love each other, and therefore be moderated by the appropriate agents within each respective community, not by the government at all. 2: I entirely agree that one should have the right to own and carry with him, wherever he goes, whatever weapon he chooses. That would make it harder for the criminal to assault someone, and most just aren't quite ready for a true confrontation with someone who is carrying a .357 magnum. Criminals will always find a way to get whatever weapons they want, and limiting the common, law abiding citizens ability to acquire a weapon, and charging for expensive licenses just to carry one on your person or in your vehicle only makes crime worse. Same applies to stores banning guns. The same person that doesn't bring one with them, is the same person that, had the did bring one, would act with utmost safety. And the criminal who does bring it in... Is probably going to use it. Now if all businesses allowed firearms, a robber walking into a bank or liquor store... Well it'll be like if a vegan activist walked into a BBQ. Breath... I can see people buying pistols, revolvers, shotguns, and rifles. Even semi-automatic rifles, some people like to spend way more money to defend way too well a home that they spend way too much money on... But automatic rifles, machine guns, bombs, ect. I'm not saying anything about whether or not civilians should buy those, but do we, as people, need those at all, in the first place? I think people should just fuck off away from each other and give each other some space... No one would want to fight then.
