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 43 of 45 FirstFirst ... 334142434445 LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 447

Thread: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

  1. #421
    Sage
    Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Turkey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    38,066

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Euthanasia IS being killed with consent. You can't say that one does not have the freedom/right to be killed by another if he gives consent, and then say that euthanasia is allowable. That's like saying you can't have any kind of canine, but you are allowed to have a dog.


    That was the wrong argument to use, as it is already against the law to have more than one spouse. The logical step from your response is that polygamist have to follow the law of having only one spouse.

    I believe that you meant that any poly marriage would still require all participants to be at or over the age of consent.



    As much as I hate to say it, they are comparable in the context given because we are talking about actions/whatever, that should be allowed by consenting adult individuals as long as no harm is imposed upon any non-consenting or non-adult individual.



    You keep ignoring the AGE of consent argument. When we keep saying that the choice needs to be available for consenting ADULTS, and you bring up children, then you are being dishonest at worst or using a red herring argument at best.



    If you can't see it Chris, then you are more optimistic than most of the poly community. Most of us realize that these legal hurdle are present.



    Neither I nor, I'm sure, MD disagrees with you per se', except to note that even your suggestion has to be codified into law.



    The argument for what the age of consent should be is a separate issue from poly marriages. In the course of world history the age of consent has been as young as 11. But age of consent is irrelevant to the issue of poly marriages, because we are discussing marriages between 2 or more individuals above the age of consent. Do not move the goal posts that we are not even heading for.



    You know, and I don't mean this in any negative manner, but I think there are key point from both sides here that are getting lost in translation.



    I think I just figured it out! Medusa, are you automatically equating polygamy as being an adult male with underage females? If such is the case then you are sorely mistaken. Just like the legal act of sex in general is illegal with an underage individual, so would the conceptually legal act of poly marriages be illegal if it involved any underage individuals



    Ok Dan chill a bit. While I would credit Medusa with confusion or even improper premises, she has at no point shown herself to be lying. That is to say, she has done nothing that exhibits that she is telling an untruth, knowing what the truth is and intentionally intending to deceive.



    But the arguments are misapplied. You're basically telling us something can't be blue because it's round. The two have nothing to do with each other.



    As much as I hate pitching for the other side of the argument...

    Yes the laws CAN change. Would they? Most likely not, but Medusa seems to be under the impression that they will, or if I am correct about the assumption of polygamy she has that I mentioned above should, at least as far as if you allow this one act by perverts (as she is seeing poly) then you need to allow the other acts of perverts (pedophilia, at least at the teenage level).

    Secondly, since we are talking about the legal impact of poly marriage, it is indeed to a point the business of anyone potentially affected by changes in the law. It's not our business of whom they decide to marry or even if they decide to marry, but changing the laws on how many can enter into a single marriage contract can impact the rest of us.



    Many of us are probably misunderstanding you. You keep using consent as a noun when it is a verb. 17 year old girls are not consent, they either or giving or withdrawing consent or they are below, at or above the age of consent. As I said earlier, I think the translation issue is causing misunderstandings i both directions.



    WOW. You are late to the game on that aspect. The poly community is quite spread out across this country and around the world. The vast majority of us are NOT like the Mormon sects out Utah/Arizona way. We don't believe in children being part of the marriage, although they are part of the family just like in mono marriages. We don't believe in interbreeding. And there are plenty enough of us out there, that we really don't need to. If you go to Fetlife, and look up poly as an interest, there are over 1,000 people alone there. And that's just the tip of the iceberg because many of us list poly in our relationship status or just in our profile wording and never add it to our interest list, because we don't see poly as a fetish, but as a lifestyle. And that is just the tip of an even larger iceberg because it's just a small percentage of polys who bother being part of Fetlife.

    As for the expected to marry 3 of them statement, you are applying an Islamic practice/tenant, again an extreme minority among all polys, to the rest of us. First off, as polys we don't expect any given number within a given marriage group. A vast majority of us tend to stick to triads or v's. Group families as you see on Sister Wives are on the large side.

    The problem with the perception of polys is that you get the Islamists and the fundie Mormons who are abusing their women and of course are put front and center into the public eye. Most polys, realizing that we are a minority among the overall population, tend not to advertise our lifestyle. It's similar to mixed race marriages/relationship before the civil rights movement or same gender relationships until relatively recently.

    l can say ,because not everybody can have the right to be consent to be killed! .euthanasia is very different issue .one of my realtives who was cancer patient committed suicide because she couldnt get over the pain she had to suffer during radiotherapy sessions .who can be killed depends on the conditions. and please dont quote lots of posts.l dont have to try to look for your responses..and your marginal ideas have no validity .
    "Sovereignty is not given, it is taken." ATATÜRK

  2. #422
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by Medusa View Post
    l can say ,because not everybody can have the right to be consent to be killed! .euthanasia is very different issue .one of my realtives who was cancer patient committed suicide because she couldnt get over the pain she had to suffer during radiotherapy sessions .who can be killed depends on the conditions. and please dont quote lots of posts.l dont have to try to look for your responses..and your marginal ideas have no validity .
    My ideals have every bit as much validity as yours do. Most of both of our ideas and ideals are opinion based and thus are equally valid.

    You really should take the time to look through the posts and the parts of my longer posts. I've defended you against the accusations of lying. I believe that there is a major difference between being wrong, or misunderstanding or even misspeaking and lying. You've never shown me any indication that you are intentionally trying to mislead people by making untrue statements.

    I also posted a couple of ideas as to why you don't seem to be getting other people's points and why we are not getting your points.

  3. #423
    Sage
    Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Turkey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    38,066

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    My ideals have every bit as much validity as yours do. Most of both of our ideas and ideals are opinion based and thus are equally valid.

    You really should take the time to look through the posts and the parts of my longer posts. I've defended you against the accusations of lying. I believe that there is a major difference between being wrong, or misunderstanding or even misspeaking and lying. You've never shown me any indication that you are intentionally trying to mislead people by making untrue statements.

    I also posted a couple of ideas as to why you don't seem to be getting other people's points and why we are not getting your points.
    sorrry ,l must have missed them .l didnt read everything

    thx .)

    but if a person doesnt want to understand
    ,he will never understand as you know
    as you said ,i wasnt lying .......
    "Sovereignty is not given, it is taken." ATATÜRK

  4. #424
    Sage
    Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Turkey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    38,066

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    but consent is also a noun

    consent noun - definition in British English Dictionary & Thesaurus - Cambridge Dictionary Online

    l hate teaching you your own language .))

    l know what you mean ,l wanted to play with words
    "Sovereignty is not given, it is taken." ATATÜRK

  5. #425
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by Medusa View Post
    sorrry ,l must have missed them .l didnt read everything

    thx .)

    but if a person doesnt want to understand
    ,he will never understand as you know
    as you said ,i wasnt lying .......
    Doesn't mean that you were saying true things either, per se'. If you grew up and all anyone ever told you was the the sky was polka dot pink, and you then tell everyone on DP that the sky is polka dot pink, when we all know it's actually blue, you aren't lying because you are not intentionally telling us a untruth with the intent to deceive. Likewise, stating an opinion based comment isn't lying because there is no one truth to an opinon. And most importantly here, because of the language translation barrier, miswording and different applications of a word in different areas, can lead to a statement that is untrue in one area and not another. "Torch" and "crackers" and even "fag" are words that are completely different between the US and England. IF a Brit and an American are standing together and the Brit says, "I need to go out and drag a fag" the American might accuse him of being a homophobe. The Brit will think the American is lying about him, while the American will think that the Brit is lying in his denial.

    If I remember correctly (it's a long thread, I'm not going to go back and look them up) you did some accusing of others lying as well. Maybe they were saying one thing that you took as something else, and while it was untrue by your understanding, it wasn't by theirs?

    As to people not wanting to understand, such a label can be applied to you as well. Most of us here are trying to get you to understand that simply because a few whackos are using polygamy as an excuse to have sex with underaged girls or to abuse women, it doesn't mean that that is what the majority of polys do. I can understand that you find 3+spouse families perverted. But I've seen you defend SSM and same gender sex before. Other people find that perverted. You don't, it seems. But trying to compare it to another perversion, or perceived perversion, simply doesn't work. Another person might say, "Well if you are going to allow the perversions of polygamy and polyandry, you should then allow the perversion of same sex marriage!" DO you see how that doesn't make sense to one who doesn't see SSM as a perversion. It's the same here. We don't see poly marriages as perversions. Even many who have argued against it as a legal status, are still saying that in and of itself it's not a perversion, just logistically hard to put into law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Medusa View Post
    but consent is also a noun

    consent noun - definition in British English Dictionary & Thesaurus - Cambridge Dictionary Online

    l hate teaching you your own language .))

    l know what you mean ,l wanted to play with words
    OK you got me on that one. I was referring contextually and I failed to point that out. Hard Cider is on me tonight!

  6. #426
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    That was the wrong argument to use, as it is already against the law to have more than one spouse. The logical step from your response is that polygamist have to follow the law of having only one spouse.

    I believe that you meant that any poly marriage would still require all participants to be at or over the age of consent.
    That is what I should have said. That's what I meant by "laws."

  7. #427
    Sage
    Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Turkey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    38,066

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Doesn't mean that you were saying true things either, per se'. If you grew up and all anyone ever told you was the the sky was polka dot pink, and you then tell everyone on DP that the sky is polka dot pink, when we all know it's actually blue, you aren't lying because you are not intentionally telling us a untruth with the intent to deceive. Likewise, stating an opinion based comment isn't lying because there is no one truth to an opinon. And most importantly here, because of the language translation barrier, miswording and different applications of a word in different areas, can lead to a statement that is untrue in one area and not another. "Torch" and "crackers" and even "fag" are words that are completely different between the US and England. IF a Brit and an American are standing together and the Brit says, "I need to go out and drag a fag" the American might accuse him of being a homophobe. The Brit will think the American is lying about him, while the American will think that the Brit is lying in his denial.

    If I remember correctly (it's a long thread, I'm not going to go back and look them up) you did some accusing of others lying as well. Maybe they were saying one thing that you took as something else, and while it was untrue by your understanding, it wasn't by theirs?

    As to people not wanting to understand, such a label can be applied to you as well. Most of us here are trying to get you to understand that simply because a few whackos are using polygamy as an excuse to have sex with underaged girls or to abuse women, it doesn't mean that that is what the majority of polys do. I can understand that you find 3+spouse families perverted. But I've seen you defend SSM and same gender sex before. Other people find that perverted. You don't, it seems. But trying to compare it to another perversion, or perceived perversion, simply doesn't work. Another person might say, "Well if you are going to allow the perversions of polygamy and polyandry, you should then allow the perversion of same sex marriage!" DO you see how that doesn't make sense to one who doesn't see SSM as a perversion. It's the same here. We don't see poly marriages as perversions. Even many who have argued against it as a legal status, are still saying that in and of itself it's not a perversion, just logistically hard to put into law.



    OK you got me on that one. I was referring contextually and I failed to point that out. Hard Cider is on me tonight!
    will you keep pointing out my language in almost every post ?

    l must say it is disturbing..
    "Sovereignty is not given, it is taken." ATATÜRK

  8. #428
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    I don't see why.

    The person who wants to leave the marriage of course. It's not so confusing.

    I don't see what that has to do with any laws at all.

    Biological of course. If it is an adopted child, then those arrangements would probable be worked out during the adoption process.

    Of course all spouses would be entitled to the same medical decision rights as any other spouse in any other marriage.

    It really doesn't. I don't see it being that big of deal or very expensive at all.
    Not everyone is going to agree with your answers to these questions.

    Answering the questions at all kind of misses the point I was trying to make though. My point with these questions was to illustrate that there are a lot of ways that our current marriage laws don't account for more than 2 people. And if we wanted them to, someone would have to look through every law regarding marriage that exists throughout the country (which there are lots of) and determine whether those laws need to be changed to account for more than 2 people. That by itself is a lot of work. And then, there would be numerous things that needed changed, and people wouldn't agree on how exactly to change them.

    I think you're really underestimating what an undertaking it would be.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  9. #429
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    Not everyone is going to agree with your answers to these questions.

    Answering the questions at all kind of misses the point I was trying to make though. My point with these questions was to illustrate that there are a lot of ways that our current marriage laws don't account for more than 2 people. And if we wanted them to, someone would have to look through every law regarding marriage that exists throughout the country (which there are lots of) and determine whether those laws need to be changed to account for more than 2 people. That by itself is a lot of work. And then, there would be numerous things that needed changed, and people wouldn't agree on how exactly to change them.

    I think you're really underestimating what an undertaking it would be.
    Maybe I am. Now marriage/divorce between consenting adults IS something that could be looked at on a case-to-case basis. That's all I was thinking.

  10. #430
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Honestly, I think if we allowed poly people to define their own marriage arrangements via contract and then was as a society simply gave legal recognition to those arrangements, a lot of these "difficult" questions would have fairly simple solutions.
    I think this would definitely be the best route to take, since it would put most of the effort, time, and money required on the shoulders of the people who actually want the benefits.

    Some things can already be done, such as medical power of attorney and wills. Those can be set up among three or more people as easily as two.

    Child custody would be a big one, and I actually just read a news article that California has a bill going through the state legislature that would allow children to have more than 2 legal parents in some circumstances.

    Doing it that way I'd have no real objections.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Page 43 of 45 FirstFirst ... 334142434445 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
  •