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 8 of 45 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 447

Thread: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

  1. #71
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    The fact is, it's none of your business what consenting adults do with each other. You don't get to decide what's normal and what's not, then base laws off your opinions.
    Sure I do. We call that "representative government".

  2. #72
    Sage
    DDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Republic of Dardania
    Last Seen
    05-06-17 @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,173

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    The population of man and woman is close to be equal but it is not entirely. It is usually more men than women, but this various from country by country. Based on such data I'd say polygamy is ok, depending on which gender population is more gets to have more of the other gender in marriage, this should vary from country to country, and lastly it should be among consenting adults.

    All this assuming if marriage must be included in access to long relationships and sex. Nowadays people may get to live with one another till death without marriage. In such a case polygamy I think would be alright as mentioned above but without marriage instead.
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.
    The Republic of Dardania is the proper name for: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...ification.html

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-26-14 @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,032

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post

    I don't see how they will escape it. The ratio of marriageable men to women has been thrown off so drastically.
    That is what happens when you encourage single child families and thus, naturally, encourage male offsprings rather than female offsprings. Traditionally, sons have always been more valuable to a family than daughters due to economic reasons mostly, but also societal motives too. Ofc, in the western world, this is no longer the case. But in most of the rest of the world... this is sadly the case.

  4. #74
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,563

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    This has nothing to do with liberty. And I told you but lets counteranalyze your statement shall we. And then we get to the bottom of things.

    You are saying that I bring the same arguments the anti-gay marriage people have.

    Fine, you can say that but the cases are different.
    But if you claim that what consenting adults do, its nobody's business, then you open the door to... incest. Brother and sister decide to get married and have incest. The reason we don't permit it is because there are harmful side effects. Not for them. They'll be fine. But for the children that will result of that... union. We don't permit it because it's messed up and it is an aberration proven by science. It is nothing to do with freedom or liberty. Or if you decide to make this, polygamy, about freedom and liberty for two consenting adults to do whatever they want, then you must provide the same argument and benefit for incest.
    It is the exact same argument being made against gay marriage. A man and a woman raising a child is the natural way of things, therefore we should ban gays getting married. Think of how much damage a gay couple could do to a poor little straight kid, right? Sound familiar?

    Incest is in another ballpark to consider it because it actually causes GENETIC issues. The only issues you can find is that you believe the kids won't be well adjusted. Personally, I'd rather see a kid with too many parents than not enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    Society cannot exist on unlimited freedom and liberty. There has never been a model of society that has existed that way because human nature desires limits. We need limitations as much as we need freedoms and liberties. There is a line in the sand that can't be crossed because you end up in a horrible, horrible place.

    Monogamy reduces major social problems of polygamist cultures UBC Public Affairs

    This is just one of many studies that show that monogamy is superior to polygamy. It is in our best interest, as a society, to promote it. And we don't have to do a lot of work in promoting monogamy really, it is the natural way of things. Most people are drawn to monogamy and desire it. It is a desirable thing.
    Let's go find a study that skinny parents raise better kids than fat ones. That should be a good reason to ban fat people getting married. Human history has shown that healthy parents have raised better kids, so we should use the force of the state to prevent them from marrying, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    The ones who want polygamy, don't really want polygamy, they just want to have affairs. And that's the catch, you can, in our society. Because as I said.
    I'm glad you know every person on the planet and their reasons for it. You run around talking about liberty and what not, but it's bull****. You only like liberty if it fits what you view is normal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    "Freedom and liberty come with the right for you to marry and divorce whomever you want as many times as you want. Freedom and liberty means that you can do adultery and not be criminally tried. Freedom and liberty have to do with you being able to not get married and have sex with multiple women and have illegitimate children and whatever. That is all freedom and liberty."

    EDIT: Oh. And history and human nature proves me right in this because the freest nations in the world adopt monogamy as the standard. It is why polygamy only exists in places where there is a superior power to enforce it. Like state, religion, cult, etc.
    So to you it's actually not about the kids, because you admit that anyone could marry and divorce any amount of people as often as they like, or have sex with as many people as they like, married or not. The only thing that matters to you is that they can't be officially married to more than one person at a time. That makes it very obvious that it has nothing to do with the kids, you're just against anything that you find abnormal in society. You're simply arguing to preserve the classical definition of marriage, nothing more.

    You're positively no different than those who refuse to let gays marry. Every argument you've made has been identical.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Sure I do. We call that "representative government".
    The government's job is to prevent violence and coercion between citizens, not run around being the morality police between consenting adults who want to enter into a voluntary contract.
    Last edited by RabidAlpaca; 02-09-13 at 04:34 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  5. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-26-14 @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,032

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    It is the exact same argument being made against gay marriage. A man and a woman raising a child is the natural way of things, therefore we should ban gays getting married. Think of how much damage a gay couple could do to a poor little straight kid, right? Sound familiar?

    Incest is in another ballpark to consider it because it actually causes GENETIC issues. The only issues you can find is that you believe the kids won't be well adjusted. Personally, I'd rather see a kid with too many parents than not enough.


    Let's go find a study that skinny parents raise better kids than fat ones. That should be a good reason to ban fat people getting married. Human history has shown that healthy parents have raised better kids, so we should use the force of the state to prevent them from marrying, right?


    I'm glad you know every person on the planet and their reasons for it. You run around talking about liberty and what not, but it's bull****. You only like liberty if it fits what you view is normal.


    So to you it's actually not about the kids, because you admit that anyone could marry and divorce any amount of people as often as they like, or have sex with as many people as they like, married or not. The only thing that matters to you is that they can't be officially married to more than one person at a time. That makes it very obvious that it has nothing to do with the kids, you're just against anything that you find abnormal in society. You're simply arguing to preserve the classical definition of marriage, nothing more.

    You're positively no different than those who refuse to let gays marry. Every argument you've made has been identical.

    .
    There are hardly further arguments to be made. These however are the sufficiently valid enough to not let this go ahead. History and human nature validate this claim and hence, it is the correct one.

  6. #76
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,563

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    There are hardly further arguments to be made. These however are the sufficiently valid enough to not let this go ahead. History and human nature validate this claim and hence, it is the correct one.
    It has nothing to do with human nature, you said it yourself, they can still do EVERYTHING with each other as if they were married, you're just against them having the actual title of being married. That is the ONLY difference. You believe the state should have a monopoly on marriage, and should divy out who can and can not be married.

    There's nothing you can do to stop a group of people from living together, ****ing each other, and having kids together. So good thing you're there to make sure they don't call it a marriage.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-26-14 @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,032

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    It has nothing to do with human nature, you said it yourself, they can still do EVERYTHING with each other as if they were married, you're just against them having the actual title of being married. That is the ONLY difference. You believe the state should have a monopoly on marriage, and should divy out who can and can not be married.

    There's nothing you can do to stop a group of people from living together, ****ing each other, and having kids together. So good thing you're there to make sure they don't call it a marriage.
    Because there is a difference between depravity and an institution. marriage is an institution. Not a religious one per se, but a state one since we live in a secular society. You don't permit marriage to be a depraved institution for the same reason that you don't like it when politicians are corrupt assholes.

    If people want to live and love each other in a gangbang house, fine by me. They are free to do so. There is no law preventing a man or a woman to be a complete slut. But that doesn't mean that we need to validate that behavior by adopting it into our civic lifestyle as a society.
    And if you are to put it to a referendum in any civilized country, I will bet you that the vote will overwhelmingly go against polygamy.

    And yes, it has something to do with human nature. If it were in human nature for people to be polygamous, we would have adopted that as a desirable thing and marriage would be that. But since it is recognized that such behavior is pretty much an aberration, a deformity from the standard, we don't permit it.

    Again. Having person liberty and being free from prosecution to be a bad husband or a bad wife, to cheat and to do adultery, does not mean that we need to reward such behavior or validate it in our society.

  8. #78
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,563

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    Because there is a difference between depravity and an institution. marriage is an institution. Not a religious one per se, but a state one since we live in a secular society. You don't permit marriage to be a depraved institution for the same reason that you don't like it when politicians are corrupt assholes.

    If people want to live and love each other in a gangbang house, fine by me. They are free to do so. There is no law preventing a man or a woman to be a complete slut. But that doesn't mean that we need to validate that behavior by adopting it into our civic lifestyle as a society.
    And if you are to put it to a referendum in any civilized country, I will bet you that the vote will overwhelmingly go against polygamy.

    And yes, it has something to do with human nature. If it were in human nature for people to be polygamous, we would have adopted that as a desirable thing and marriage would be that. But since it is recognized that such behavior is pretty much an aberration, a deformity from the standard, we don't permit it.

    Again. Having person liberty and being free from prosecution to be a bad husband or a bad wife, to cheat and to do adultery, does not mean that we need to reward such behavior or validate it in our society.
    Bahaha, at least you've made it clear that it actually didn't have anything to do with protecting children. The only way you would've been able to remain consistent with that is if you made the actual acts illegal.

    It turns out to be exactly as I said, you're only concerned with protecting the title of marriage, that is all.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-26-14 @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,032

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Bahaha, at least you've made it clear that it actually didn't have anything to do with protecting children. The only way you would've been able to remain consistent with that is if you made the actual acts illegal.

    It turns out to be exactly as I said, you're only concerned with protecting the title of marriage, that is all.
    Dude. I didn't feel the need to protect the role of marriage in concern to children because it is self-evident. Pointing that out in every single comment would mean that I don't trust your memory.

    Now. This being said, the quality of the parents in any family is more important than the kind of family. This is why there have been gay marriage studies in regards to homosexual couples raising children, and it turned out that being raised by a decent homosexual couple doesn't screw the kid on any psychological level. In other words, if the parents are good, it doesn't matter if they are a normal couple or a gay couple.

    That being said. It is preferable for children to be raised by a normal couple because that way they have both a female and a male influence in their life. And it is pretty much no risk of society falling apart if homosexual couples adopt children who have been deserted by irresponsible parents. It is a much better outlook than a state orphanage or whatever.

    That being said... polygamy doesn't fall in the same area as gay marriage unless you make it polygamous gay marriage. But lets talk a straight polygamy thing. So a child raised there will mostly have 1 father and multiple moms and step moms. There may be really no risk to the child as he grows up if the people are decent people and raise the kid well. However, pure math tells us that the more variables you put in an equation, the more chances there is for risk and the more chances you have to get things messed up. So does this present a greater risk to the child? Perhaps. It also depends on the environment the child grows in. And since the only place where you find polygamy acceptable and enforced is in islamic countries and mormon families, then the child is raised in an environment that promotes this. so it will seem "normal" to him. So lets look at the results of polygamy in islamic societies. What did you get? Well, the result of polygamy seems to be an intollerant, anti-women society in many countries in the islamic world. This is the result of polygamy, among other factors. Do you want that in the West? I don't.

  10. #80
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,563

    re: polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    Dude. I didn't feel the need to protect the role of marriage in concern to children because it is self-evident. Pointing that out in every single comment would mean that I don't trust your memory.

    Now. This being said, the quality of the parents in any family is more important than the kind of family. This is why there have been gay marriage studies in regards to homosexual couples raising children, and it turned out that being raised by a decent homosexual couple doesn't screw the kid on any psychological level. In other words, if the parents are good, it doesn't matter if they are a normal couple or a gay couple.

    That being said. It is preferable for children to be raised by a normal couple because that way they have both a female and a male influence in their life. And it is pretty much no risk of society falling apart if homosexual couples adopt children who have been deserted by irresponsible parents. It is a much better outlook than a state orphanage or whatever.

    That being said... polygamy doesn't fall in the same area as gay marriage unless you make it polygamous gay marriage. But lets talk a straight polygamy thing. So a child raised there will mostly have 1 father and multiple moms and step moms. There may be really no risk to the child as he grows up if the people are decent people and raise the kid well. However, pure math tells us that the more variables you put in an equation, the more chances there is for risk and the more chances you have to get things messed up. So does this present a greater risk to the child? Perhaps. It also depends on the environment the child grows in. And since the only place where you find polygamy acceptable and enforced is in islamic countries and mormon families, then the child is raised in an environment that promotes this. so it will seem "normal" to him. So lets look at the results of polygamy in islamic societies. What did you get? Well, the result of polygamy seems to be an intollerant, anti-women society in many countries in the islamic world. This is the result of polygamy, among other factors. Do you want that in the West? I don't.
    Polygamy goes both ways, homie. There could be 5 fathers and one mother. The reason you don't see much polygamy is because it's only legal in Utah, and even there under only certain circumstances. 99+% of people won't do it just because it's legal, so why do you care what some random group of people you've never met do? Your argument is essentially that by adding more variables we're increasing the kid's risk of being abused, which is ridiculous. A kid with 4 parents is more likely to get the attention he or she deserves vs having 1 or no parents. Besides, nothing you've suggested would even remotely prevent such a scenario, just that the parents wouldn't be legally married, but in every other practical aspect were married.

    That's all it comes down to for you, you see a social construct that you don't like, and you want to use government force to enforce your views. This isn't a new tactic, the radical christians here in the US do this all the time. They do it with gay marriage, drugs, alcohol consumption on sundays, prostitution laws, etc. etc. If you're really against it, then don't marry a bunch of people.

    Having the government monopolize marriage, then divy it out to only people they want to is not only ridiculous, but extremely overstepping of their boundries. I'd like to know what part of the US constitution granted the federal government the power to control and define all marriage.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

Page 8 of 45 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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
  •