View Poll Results: What say you?

Voters
97. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. All humans should be protected under the law.

    27 27.84%
  • No. Marriage is between one man and one woman, period.

    20 20.62%
  • No. Only homosexuals and heterosexuals should be allowed to marry.

    6 6.19%
  • I donít care what they do as long as they stay out of my business.

    34 35.05%
  • My catís name is Mittens.

    10 10.31%
Page 37 of 73 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 725

Thread: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

  1. #361
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    usually....... not always. If you can prove that is the case, then it shouldn't be allowed...on a case by case basis. and you are talking extremes. how many father/daughter or mother/son cases do you really think there would be anyway?

    I'm talking more along the lines of cousins
    Well, if incestual marriage was made legal (which is basically what you are arguing for here), then you would put limitations on which family members it applies to? Well now, isn't THAT interesting? I thought it was all good.

    Actually, I think that genetic mutations can occur with cousins too, first cousins anyway.

    Besides, if you're gay, then you're gay. However, you DO NOT have to sleep with a family member.

  2. #362
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    what part of



    is so difficult for you to understand?
    WTH?! ANYONE can have anal sex. That activity is NOT limited to gay people. What don't YOU get about that? Even incestual couples can have anal sex. That is totally OFF point.

    So it isn't GAY sex you have a problem with? It's ANAL sex! You want to ban anal sex!

  3. #363
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    I wonder how many men who are against gay male sex are also against lesbians? I think that is a very good question because men REALLY seem to enjoy lesbian sexual activities. Also, what about bisexuals? Some people are sexually attracted to both sexes.

  4. #364
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Well, if incestual marriage was made legal (which is basically what you are arguing for here), then you would put limitations on which family members it applies to? Well now, isn't THAT interesting? I thought it was all good.
    the only limitations I would put on it would be IF it could be proven that the child had been molested and/or groomed.

    Actually, I think that genetic mutations can occur with cousins too, first cousins anyway.
    actually, genetic mutations can occur with anyone. I have a cousin who married a non-relative and their second son has Williams Syndrome..a genetic condition.

    Fears of cousins who marry having children with birth defects are exaggerated. Simply marrying within your own race increases the odds of birth defects. Marrying within your own town further increases your chances. Cousin couples have only a slightly higher incidence of birth defects than non-related couples.
    the US is the only western country that has any restrictions on cousin marriage. and in 26 US states it is already legal to marry your first cousin

    Besides, if you're gay, then you're gay. However, you DO NOT have to sleep with a family member.
    you do not HAVE to sleep with anyone. I simply choose to think that adults should be able to sleep with whoever the hell they want, as long as that other person is also an adult.

    as I said much earlier.. if some dude wants to marry his pet goat....what business of that is mine?
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  5. #365
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    the only limitations I would put on it would be IF it could be proven that the child had been molested and/or groomed.
    Obviously, you aren't very familiar with that particular subject matter. It is extremely difficult to prove. A lot of children are too afraid to say anything, and yes, that carries over into adulthood because by that time, they are ALL effed up.


    actually, genetic mutations can occur with anyone. I have a cousin who married a non-relative and their second son has Williams Syndrome..a genetic condition.
    Well derp! Incest only multiplies those risks. It's bad for the human gene pool.


    the US is the only western country that has any restrictions on cousin marriage. and in 26 US states it is already legal to marry your first cousin
    You cannot make these claims to me without proof and links to valid sources. Otherwise, they will be disregarded as garbage.


    you do not HAVE to sleep with anyone. I simply choose to think that adults should be able to sleep with whoever the hell they want, as long as that other person is also an adult.


    as I said much earlier.. if some dude wants to marry his pet goat....what business of that is mine?
    I don't care in any other case, except when it increases potential for abuse, and most incest relationships are abuse or at least stem from abuse.

  6. #366
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,011

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Gay sex and interracial sex have ALWAYS happened and have not always been socially unacceptable in all cultures. The same cannot be said of incest, which is taboo for a good reason. Anyone who can't understand that should speak to a shrink ASAP.
    What are you talking about? It was perfectly acceptable in several cultures especially among the nobility. Granted we can use those examples to highlight the problems of breeding within a closed group. But still it shows your argument to be false.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    BS. Name some with links. I have work, but I'm going to be checking back.

    So basically, you are supportive of incest, is what you're saying?
    One does not have to support a position to point out an untrue argument. For example I did not support Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, but I pointed out the error of people arguing that he hadn't been in office long enough to earn it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Yes, only royal families did this, and this was usually between cousins only, and it led to birth defects and other such issues after generations of these practices, and that's just one reason why it's not done anymore. The people involved in such marriages normally didn't have a choice in the matter either. It's not like they were sexually attracted to one another; that was just what was expected of them. BIG difference there.
    But it was still socially acceptable which counters your previous argument. Personally desirable and socially acceptable are two different things.

    It is an unhealthy practice. THAT is the reason why it's disgusting to people. People are disgusted by things for a reason. There was also a recent study done where there were findings that the "smell" of relatives seems to be a turn off to "normal" people. Because incest is NOT natural. It's not natural to be attracted to your son, daughter, mother, father, etc.
    Go back to the previous threads on this. There was a link that showed that there is no "smell" of relatives. A father and daughter who never knew each other(mother got inseminated via a sperm bank) until she was well into her adulthood years could meet and be sexually attracted. There would be no smell that made them not attracted to each other. The incest taboo comes from having been together while the child(ren) grow. In India, where the child bride of an arranged marriage is sometimes sent to live with the child groom's family until the children are of legal age to marry, the children more often than not do not desire each other and react via the incest taboo.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    No it cannot. That is completely different than having sex with your sister or your father. Plenty of people are turned on by anal sex and anuses.
    And plenty of people are turned on by the concept of incest as well as are turned on by people who they are not aware of being related to. What's your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Because polygamy is sexist and wrong and incest is the cause of genetic defects in offspring and child abuse.
    We have decided to include gays in our standards for marriage because it is the right thing to do. It does not mean we have abandoned all standards.
    You can't cause genetic defects if the couple are same gendered or if one or both are sterile. Child abuse occurs regardless of whether incest is involved or not. Since the qualifier is consenting adults the child abuse issue is not part of the argument. Now the grooming idea put forth by Roguenuke would be since that encompasses the consenting adult part.

    The standard changed to include interracial when no one thought it would ever happen. Then it changed to include same gendered couples. So why wouldn't it change to include incest and (to try to keep on the topic) polygamy?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Perhaps not, but they aren't hurting anyone else or their offspring (either immediately or down the road) with possible genetic defects either. Incest messes with the gene pool. That is why it is such a disgusting thing to even think about. It's supposed to be disgusting to you.
    As I pointed out before there is no messing with the gene pool if children are not produced. Birth control are highly effective, but I do concede not 100%. However, sex between same gendered couples and between couples where one or both are sterile ARE 100% effective in not producing offspring, risk of defect or not. Yet you would deny them as well. Not only that you would NOT deny a couple who have a HIGHER chance of producing a child with birth defects than any random incestuous couple. Quite hypocritical to me.

    And this is off topic anyway. The topic is polygamy, not incest.
    You kept this offshoot going. I said from the beginning I didn't want to thread jack and that I was just pointing out that your statement that you support the right of consenting adults to make their own decisions was simply not 100% true. Then I pointed out how the arguments that you were using were also used before on interracial marriage and SSM and are currently being used on polygamy, thus staying on topic.

  7. #367
    Sage
    Geoist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,916

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Pretty much my thinking too. So far many of the arguments I've seen against it revolve around the abuse of minors and women, which sounds more like an argument against how the marriage is conducted than against polygamy in and of itself. It seems if you're going to argue against polygamy because of the treatment of women and minors, you'd have to come down on two-partner marriages because domestic abuse exists in some marriages.
    Exactly. Might as well ban all marriage if one is going to make that argument. I will go on record to say that I think polygamy is a generally bad choice for 98% of people. But freedom should mean being able to make poor decisions, along with good decisions.
    "Men did not make the earth ... it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/

  8. #368
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,011

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoist View Post
    Exactly. Might as well ban all marriage if one is going to make that argument. I will go on record to say that I think polygamy is a generally bad choice for 98% of people. But freedom should mean being able to make poor decisions, along with good decisions.
    Plus why should it be restricted from those for whom it would be a good decision? There are many successful poly families out there. Why should they have to take expensive legal go arounds?

  9. #369
    don't panic
    marduc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,301

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    So if a man marries two women, are those two women also married? And could one of those women take another husband? Would that mean the fist man is married to the second man?

    Polygamy requires same-sex marriage to be legal. But same-sex marriage doesn't require polygamy to be legal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    No.

    When a man marries two wives, the man is in two separate marriages. Each marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no such thing, has never been, and can never be, as a marriage that is not between a man and a woman. That is what marriage is, by definition. The two wives are not married to each other; it is nonsense to suggest that they are. Should one of the wives take a second husband, then that would mean that she is in two marriages; again, each marriage is between that woman and a different man, and does not mean that the two men are married to each other.
    Reading this exchange got me thinking a bit on the implications. It seems there are two different views, and two different ways of going about defining what a polygamous marriage is or would be. The first is laid out by spud, namely that all parties are intermarried and it is one big blanket marriage for all. The second is as Bob Blaylock describes where there are numerous separate marriages.

    If - and this is one huge hypothetical if that I will carry through for the rest of my post - polygamous marriages were allowed then polyandrous marriages would be as well (equal protection, male cannot be the only one to choose to take on more than one spouse). This opens a whole new range of complications, especially if it were legally defined as multiple individual marriages. We have male spouse A with 5 marriages and 5 wives, we have Female spouse B with 5 marriages (one wife and 4 husbands), female spouse C who has 5 husbands (one of which is also married to female D) ect. This is just one nightmare tangled web of marriages that could potentially increase exponentially until there is some crazy 6 degrees of separation issue - kind of like a pyramid scheme for marriages. Everyone is intermarried and households are completely muddied and blurred. There just would just be one huge tangle of interwoven chainmail-esque marriages - entire communities all intermarried, and potentially infighting (screw potentially - inevitably). There is no way to keep track of this and to deal with it.

    In the one huge happy blanket marriage scenario we would have all current individuals under one umbrella marriage who would have to come to a consensus as to whether or not to take on a new spouse into this arrangement (contract). This would at least serve to encourage limits to the size of the marriages, but what is to stop one group, one organization, or one community to decide to have one monstrosity of a marriage that covers thousands of individuals? If there were to be multiple individuals allowed under one blanket marriage it would have to be unlimited as to how many this could be - how is it that it could be legally argued to instate some arbitrary upper limit on this without also encountering the counterpoint that if this is to be the case that the arbitrary upper limit should be set to 2 people?

    Both are absolute legal nightmare scenarios, I see no issue with a marriage as a contract between 2 people - that is at least so long as the government is inextricably tied up in the business of marriage and recognizing and granting benefits based upon a marriage contract.

    Personally I would rather that the government stayed completely out of the marriage issue and just allowed every adult to be able to specify 1 adult individual that they wish to (I cannot think of a good term for this) grant special privilege to - regardless of who that person may be, a spouse, a best friend, a child (provided the child is not a minor), neighbor, favorite rap artist.. whatever.
    Last edited by marduc; 06-26-13 at 06:15 PM.
    Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
    Drugs are bad, prohibition is worse

  10. #370
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    What are you talking about? It was perfectly acceptable in several cultures especially among the nobility. Granted we can use those examples to highlight the problems of breeding within a closed group. But still it shows your argument to be false.
    It was not "socially acceptable." It was something that only royalty was known to do because they were too snobby to let anyone without "royal" blood into the family. Also, among regular "society" they knew that the royal families were a bit odd. People wrote about it all the time. And this didn't happen ALL the time either.

    One does not have to support a position to point out an untrue argument. For example I did not support Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, but I pointed out the error of people arguing that he hadn't been in office long enough to earn it.
    If you are saying that you think incestual couples should be able to be married, then you are supporting it.



    But it was still socially acceptable which counters your previous argument. Personally desirable and socially acceptable are two different things.
    Nope. It was not socially acceptable among most people.


    Go back to the previous threads on this. There was a link that showed that there is no "smell" of relatives. A father and daughter who never knew each other(mother got inseminated via a sperm bank) until she was well into her adulthood years could meet and be sexually attracted. There would be no smell that made them not attracted to each other. The incest taboo comes from having been together while the child(ren) grow. In India, where the child bride of an arranged marriage is sometimes sent to live with the child groom's family until the children are of legal age to marry, the children more often than not do not desire each other and react via the incest taboo.
    You go back to post #351 (I think). Roguenuke posted a very informative article about it. There is scientific evidence that even when people grow up separately, there is "something" that turns them off in a normal situation.



    And plenty of people are turned on by the concept of incest as well as are turned on by people who they are not aware of being related to. What's your point?
    Perhaps, but if they found out? They would most likely be immediately disgusted. Because some things are just WRONG.


    You can't cause genetic defects if the couple are same gendered or if one or both are sterile. Child abuse occurs regardless of whether incest is involved or not. Since the qualifier is consenting adults the child abuse issue is not part of the argument. Now the grooming idea put forth by Roguenuke would be since that encompasses the consenting adult part.
    Child sex abuse is more common to happen by a child's own family member. THAT is a fact. I also mentioned the grooming idea. When abuse has happened for a child's whole life, this would carry over into adulthood too. They would be messed up people by then.

    The standard changed to include interracial when no one thought it would ever happen. Then it changed to include same gendered couples. So why wouldn't it change to include incest and (to try to keep on the topic) polygamy?
    People were against interracial marriage and things like that because they were ignorant. Same gendered couples are NOT family members, neither are interracial couples or polygamous couples.

    As I pointed out before there is no messing with the gene pool if children are not produced. Birth control are highly effective, but I do concede not 100%. However, sex between same gendered couples and between couples where one or both are sterile ARE 100% effective in not producing offspring, risk of defect or not. Yet you would deny them as well. Not only that you would NOT deny a couple who have a HIGHER chance of producing a child with birth defects than any random incestuous couple. Quite hypocritical to me.
    Straight, gay and any couples can be sterile. That is a pretty WEAK argument.



    You kept this offshoot going. I said from the beginning I didn't want to thread jack and that I was just pointing out that your statement that you support the right of consenting adults to make their own decisions was simply not 100% true. Then I pointed out how the arguments that you were using were also used before on interracial marriage and SSM and are currently being used on polygamy, thus staying on topic.
    YOU brought it up.

Page 37 of 73 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... 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
  •