View Poll Results: must polygamy be legalized ?

Voters
77. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes ,because it is a matter of freedom and it must be legalized

    30 38.96%
  • it must be legalized for only men

    1 1.30%
  • it must be legalized for both men and women

    16 20.78%
  • no ,it is a kind of perversion and it has nothing to do with freedom

    10 12.99%
  • it is just a marginality which may harm society

    4 5.19%
  • it was a tradition in many ancient cultures and defending it doesnt seem so liberalal

    9 11.69%
  • being against it is a bigotry and l defend polygamy as an enlightened person

    5 6.49%
  • it is better than monogamy

    1 1.30%
  • l dont care

    20 25.97%
  • others

    14 18.18%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 11 of 45 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 447

Thread: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

  1. #101
    Sage
    Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Turkey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    38,069

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    Yes, the practice of abortion also needs to end.

    Good job going waaaay off topic on your own thread.
    no off topic

    on the contrary it is a chance to talk somebody into defending every kind of freedom if he is really a liberitarian
    "Sovereignty is not given, it is taken." ATATÜRK

  2. #102
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Are you unfamiliar with word CONSENSUS? After 16,000 posts I'm really surprised that you're unfamiliar with that terminology. So, today, you will learn a new word!

    Consensus decision-making - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Originally Posted by specklebang
    Consensus of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    So a majority of the parties can alter the terms of the minoritys' contract without the minoritys' consent?

  3. #103
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by Medusa View Post
    no off topic

    on the contrary it is a chance to talk somebody into defending every kind of freedom if he is really a liberitarian
    As a libertarian, I think you should be to enter into a voluntary contract to jointly own property with another human or other humans as you and the other consenting parties see fit.

    As a libertarian, though this is far from exclusive to any one ideology, I do not think that you should be able to enter into a contract whereupon one human hires a second human to aggressively kill a third human. The act of killing another human in aggression should always be illegal. Currently, it is not always illegal.


    It is simply a matter of putting the non-aggression principle into action. The former involves no harm. The latter involves direct and obvious harm.

  4. #104
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,601

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    So a majority of the parties can alter the terms of the minoritys' contract without the minoritys' consent?
    Yep. That accounts for just about all of our laws. Perfect examples are "sin" taxes placed on alcohol and tobacco, soon to be extended further for firearms onwership, sales and transfers. BTW, nobody is proposing bigamy, or forced polygamy; note that mutual consent is still required for a marriage contract.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  5. #105
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    Are you unfamiliar with word CONSENSUS? After 16,000 posts I'm really surprised that you're unfamiliar with that terminology. So, today, you will learn a new word!

    Consensus decision-making - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Yes, I understand the term. It means "general agreement", not "unanimous agreement"

    And how does the "freedom to enter a contract" work together when there isn't unanimous agreement? If I and another male are "married" to two females, each of us having 25% ownership in property, liabilities, etc, and I meet someone I want to enter into a contract with, but the others do not? Does my freedom of contract allow me to shift half of that (ie 12.5%) to this other person, thus altering the relationship with the pre-existing three (w/o their consent), or are we saying that there are limits to our freedom to contract (which is the basis of allowing polygymous marriages)?
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  6. #106
    Sage
    Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Turkey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    38,069

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    As a libertarian, I think you should be to enter into a voluntary contract to jointly own property with another human or other humans as you and the other consenting parties see fit.

    As a libertarian, though this is far from exclusive to any one ideology, I do not think that you should be able to enter into a contract whereupon one human hires a second human to aggressively kill a third human. The act of killing another human in aggression should always be illegal. Currently, it is not always illegal.


    It is simply a matter of putting the non-aggression principle into action. The former involves no harm. The latter involves direct and obvious harm.

    you may think it is not ethical but you have no right to dictate your moral belief to women and decide for them although you have no possibility to be in place of them .but thats why you dont feel any empathy for those women that have to struggle with lots of difficulties in the life .do you think women who usually have maternal instinct are always willing to abort their babies ?

    if you can tolerate a legalized polygamy ,please try to understand why a woman may have to abort his baby........

    the second one is not a perverse pleasure , but just a necessity................
    "Sovereignty is not given, it is taken." ATATÜRK

  7. #107
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    The advantage of polygamy is that it required a much more thought out agreement than traditional marriage. Traditional Marriage (TM) often occurs for the stupidest reasons. Do you know people come here (Vegas) get dunk and decide to get married at 2 AM? No contract, no agreement just tie the knot.

    Polygamy requires a far more complex written agreement. So, your question is one of the issues that will have to be agreed upon by the original founders or subsequently, additions may or may not have a say depending on the effective Constitution of the marriage.

    General agreement is effectively the same thing as unanimous agreement. Let's not let semantics to over-rule our discussion.

    Freedom is not an unlimited term. That's why thousands of rulings are made every year about its definition.




    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Yes, I understand the term. It means "general agreement", not "unanimous agreement"

    And how does the "freedom to enter a contract" work together when there isn't unanimous agreement? If I and another male are "married" to two females, each of us having 25% ownership in property, liabilities, etc, and I meet someone I want to enter into a contract with, but the others do not? Does my freedom of contract allow me to shift half of that (ie 12.5%) to this other person, thus altering the relationship with the pre-existing three (w/o their consent), or are we saying that there are limits to our freedom to contract (which is the basis of allowing polygymous marriages)?

  8. #108
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by Medusa View Post
    you may think it is not ethical but you have no right to dictate your moral belief to women and decide for them although you have no possibility to be in place of them.
    Yes, I have every right to want to live in a society with a government that protects human rights with a rule of law. I want laws against theft, I want laws against assault, I want laws against fraud, and rape, and yes, I want laws against murder. I want to live in a society where the law is enforced equally, no matter the age of the victim.


    And you're wrong. I am quite capable of being in the place where a lack of respect for human rights would be helpful, where being morally capable of killing others could result in personal benefit. Most folks are capable of being in those circumstances. They just don't do it.




    On the contrary, there is no reason whatsoever for a voluntary contract of joint property to be prohibited by law. There is no harm involved, no aggression. No ones rights are abridged in such a situation.

  9. #109
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    The advantage of polygamy is that it required a much more thought out agreement than traditional marriage. Traditional Marriage (TM) often occurs for the stupidest reasons. Do you know people come here (Vegas) get dunk and decide to get married at 2 AM? No contract, no agreement just tie the knot.

    Polygamy requires a far more complex written agreement. So, your question is one of the issues that will have to be agreed upon by the original founders or subsequently, additions may or may not have a say depending on the effective Constitution of the marriage.

    General agreement is effectively the same thing as unanimous agreement. Let's not let semantics to over-rule our discussion.

    Freedom is not an unlimited term. That's why thousands of rulings are made every year about its definition.
    I'm not being "semantic" (the proper term is "pedantic") about it. I'm concerned with what you actually mean (which is both "semantics" and a legitimate concern when disccussing something with another person). I don't care what you call it. What concerns me is that one party can become personally liable for the actions of another even though they at no time agreed to take on such a burden.

    To me, this seems like the antithesis of freedom.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  10. #110
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    ..and this differs from TM how?

    Let's say that 6 of us have entered into a polygamous marriage contract. One of us (probably you) commits murder. Other than disappointment, this affects the rest of us how?

    Let's say one of us wins the lottery (probably me). Then, it depends on the financial structure of our contract. Maybe it goes into our marriage account, maybe I keep all of it and give you a box of chocolates.

    How can you say that you didn't agree to these burdens? You did - or you didn't. You're liable or you aren't. Please refer to the 3rd Amendment of out Polygamous Marriage contract (PM). Oh, look, it says that I keep any lottery winnings. Touth titty said the kitty.

    Where did freedom come into this anyway? TM or PM are sacrifices of certain freedoms to create a group situation.

    And please put your shirt on. You look like you're freezing.




    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    I'm not being "semantic" (the proper term is "pedantic") about it. I'm concerned with what you actually mean (which is both "semantics" and a legitimate concern when disccussing something with another person). I don't care what you call it. What concerns me is that one party can become personally liable for the actions of another even though they at no time agreed to take on such a burden.

    To me, this seems like the antithesis of freedom.

Page 11 of 45 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •