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

Bob Blaylock said:

No, it is not, it never had been, and it never will be. It is a sickness and an evil, an abomination against God and against nature. It is a sick mockery of the sexual union that God intended to bind a man and his wife in a sacred intimacy. No amount of so-called “enlightenment” will ever change this fundamental, unalterable truth.

Click to expand...

Of course it's normal, Bob. We know that you have no knowledge on this topic. Your morality is, as it always is, irrelevant to scientific fact. I am very happy to point out how badly you are wrong each and every time I see you post.

Polygamy is a very different issue to gay marriage.

Not entirely sure how you get there but in any case... as long as it's consenting adults I see no reason to discriminate.

But the interesting part is that absolutely no country that has legalized Gay Marriage have made any attempt whatsoever to discuss legalization of polygamy, bestiality or adult - child marriage.

And yet Extremist Far Right Wingers (because face it, that's what they are at this point) believe these things are moments away and that the country has ended... what you're seeing is the bursting of the Social Conservative Bubble.

The unwillingness to accept that times change and that theirs is a dying ideology.

As a brave Starfleet Captain once said...

"It's about the future.

Some people think the future means the end of history.

People can be very frightened of change.

But I don't think we've run out of history just yet".

Click to expand...

iguanaman said:

If you believe God created man then you must believe he created homosexuals too. That's what makes your so amusing.

Click to expand...

By that logic, I must also believe that God created thieves and murderers and rapists and child molesters and such, and therefore have no cause for any “righteous indignation” against any of them.

Bob Blaylock said:

By that logic, I must also believe that God created thieves and murderers and rapists and child molesters and such, and therefore have no cause for any “righteous indignation” against any of them.

Click to expand...

You know that bunching gays into that group is exactly what Hitler did. You are in good company at least.

iguanaman said:

You know that bunching gays into that group is exactly what Hitler did. You are in good company at least.

Click to expand...

Godwin's Law invoked. I don't know that if Hitler really did what you claim, but it's not impossible. I'm sure that even Hitler was right once in a while.

ernst barkmann said:

look closer.....becuase your wrong.

Click to expand...

How can I be wrong? I asked a question. You have been known to use an SS soldier as your avatar in the past, so it's hardly out of line to ask if you are returning to that particular choice.

Bob Blaylock said:

Godwin's Law invoked. I don't know that if Hitler really did what you claim, but it's not impossible. I'm sure that even Hitler was right once in a while.

Click to expand...

Probably about the homosexuals, huh?

Wiggen said:

How can I be wrong? I asked a question. You have been known to use an SS soldier as your avatar in the past, so it's hardly out of line to ask if you are returning to that particular choice.

Click to expand...

Lol"......typical of left idelogly demonize those who suppose your ideas

CaptainCourtesy said:

Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Complete diversion.

Click to expand...

Yes it does, and no, it isn't. You're peddling a rip off version of marriage to a devout adherent of traditional marriage, which is a total waste of my time. What I am doing is inviting you to join me at the end of your argument.

Dooble said:

Yes it does, and no, it isn't. You're peddling a rip off version of marriage to a devout adherent of traditional marriage, which is a total waste of my time. What I am doing is inviting you to join me at the end of your argument.

Click to expand...

No, you are diverting the issue since your knowledge on the topic is absent... and you won't admit it. It's a waste of MY time to discuss a topic with someone like you who doesn't understand it.

Bob Blaylock said:

Godwin's Law invoked. I don't know that if Hitler really did what you claim, but it's not impossible. I'm sure that even Hitler was right once in a while.

Click to expand...

Bob, Bob...tsk tsk. Sure, even a broken clock is right twice a day, but using it for that purpose is counter-productive. Invoking Godwin's Law was right on the money, but the tail end of your reply?? You are better than that.

ernst barkmann said:

Lol"......typical of left idelogly demonize those who suppose your ideas

Click to expand...

SS avatars - and frankly SS forum names - deserve demonization. By the way, your post made no sense, either grammatically or in terms of content.

Cardinal said:

Since the topic of legalized polygamy has always been hopelessly muddled with the topic of gay marriage, I've never actually seen a clean set of arguments for and against it. To be honest I'd be very happy if this were to be such a thread.

Click to expand...

:shrug: polygamy is socially destructive. By creating larger populations of young unmarried and unlikely to marry males, it increases violence and destabilizes society.

And then, I agree with what Captain Courtesy says about the provision of stable rearing environments for children with the final exception of:

Captain Courtesy said:

Polygamy as a reaction to homosexual marriage is a smokescreen and an invalid comparison

Click to expand...

Where I continue to point out that - because SSM advocates rather than seeking to convince the populace of the rightness of their definition seek to create a universal right to marriage, there by negating the right of the majority to define marriage in ways that minorities disapprove of or refuse to live by, that the comparison is valid and created by the choice of a judicial, rather than a legislative path for SSM implementation.

Jetboogieman said:

But the interesting part is that absolutely no country that has legalized Gay Marriage have made any attempt whatsoever to discuss legalization of polygamy, bestiality or adult - child marriage.

Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of a country called "Great Britain"?

You can't get married to your second or third 16 year old cousin in the country, mind. You have to fly back to ole homeland Pakistan for that. But then? Show me the money, baby.

UK legally recognises multiple Islamic wives

Polygamous marriages conducted by Muslims outside the UK are reported to have been given legal recognition by the British government, even allowing husbands who bring more than one wife to the country to claim welfare benefits.... Four governmental departments - the Treasury, Department for Work and Pensions, HM Revenues and Customs and the Home Office - were involved in the review, launched by ministers in November 2006 after it had emerged that some families benefited financially from the arrangement....

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has issued new guidelines for income support which state: "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate... The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently 33.65 pounds ($66.41)."

If the family agrees, income support for all of the wives may be paid directly into the husband's bank account. A husband with many wives may also be eligible for additional housing benefit and council tax benefit under the deal agreed by ministers, in order to reflect the larger property needed for his family....

Click to expand...

Agreeably, Great Britain has yet to legalize SSM - the bills are pending. But does anyone honestly thing it is anything but foregone?

Wiggen said:

SS avatars - and frankly SS forum names - deserve demonization. By the way, your post made no sense, either grammatically or in terms of content.

Click to expand...

lol... your continued obsession with me, is very delightful, i see it leaves with something of substance talk about.

cpwill said:

:shrug: polygamy is socially destructive. By creating larger populations of young unmarried and unlikely to marry males, it increases violence and destabilizes society.

Click to expand...

You are obviously quite ignorant on this topic and the word itself. Quit allowing yourself to be influenced by highly visible wackos and really research the poly community. Our families are just as likely to consist of a female with multiple males as well as groups of multiple of both genders. Violence in not a hallmark of our families. It is a notable trait of the fringe religious kooks. Otherwise it's no more common than among monos. Using groups like the FLDS's to judge all of the poly community by is like using skinheads to judge all Caucasians by.

maquiscat said:

You are obviously quite ignorant on this topic and the word itself. Quit allowing yourself to be influenced by highly visible wackos and really research the poly community. Our families are just as likely to consist of a female with multiple males as well as groups of multiple of both genders. Violence in not a hallmark of our families. It is a notable trait of the fringe religious kooks. Otherwise it's no more common than among monos. Using groups like the FLDS's to judge all of the poly community by is like using skinheads to judge all Caucasians by.

Click to expand...

I didn't bring up the FLDS's - you did. Everything I said remains fairly well-based in our historical experience. The idea that there is an equal likelihood of polygamous society being polyandrous a polygynous is (as near as I can tell) neither based in human nature, nor a study of human history. Polygamous societies do produce relatively large populations of young men for whom there are no women, decreasing social stability, increasing rates of violence, and decreasing innovation and growth as effort is turned towards competition with other males. Within the families themselves, Captain Courtesy is correct - competition for favor and resources produces a less stable environment for the rearing of children.

As for those religious kooks - you may want to be nicer to them. If this is really a policy goal of yours, they are actually your best bet.

cpwill said:

I didn't bring up the FLDS's - you did. Everything I said remains fairly well-based in our historical experience. The idea that there is an equal likelihood of polygamous society being polyandrous a polygynous is (as near as I can tell) neither based in human nature, nor a study of human history. Polygamous societies do produce relatively large populations of young men for whom there are no women, decreasing social stability, increasing rates of violence, and decreasing innovation and growth as effort is turned towards competition with other males. Within the families themselves, Captain Courtesy is correct - competition for favor and resources produces a less stable environment for the rearing of children.

As for those religious kooks - you may want to be nicer to them. If this is really a policy goal of yours, they are actually your best bet.

Click to expand...

I doubt that would ever become a problem here in the US. I doubt if enough people would be having polygamous relationships in our country. There are probably so few that actually practice polygamy in this country that it's not even worth the trouble it might be to legalize it.

Dooble said:

Should Plural Marriage be legalized too?

Click to expand...

sure

consenting adults engaged in activities that hurt no one should be legal

CaptainCourtesy said:

No, you are diverting the issue since your knowledge on the topic is absent... and you won't admit it.

Click to expand...

Homosexuals cannot create their own families. Not together. Not naturally.

CaptainCourtesy said:

It's a waste of MY time to discuss a topic with someone like you who doesn't understand it.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's a waste of your time to peddle the notion of gay marriage to a Christian Conservative.

Dooble said:

Homosexuals cannot create their own families. Not together. Not naturally.

Actually, it's a waste of your time to peddle the notion of gay marriage to a Christian Conservative.

Click to expand...

Sure we can. It is called surrogate.

maquiscat said:

You are obviously quite ignorant on this topic and the word itself. Quit allowing yourself to be influenced by highly visible wackos and really research the poly community. Our families are just as likely to consist of a female with multiple males as well as groups of multiple of both genders. Violence in not a hallmark of our families. It is a notable trait of the fringe religious kooks. Otherwise it's no more common than among monos. Using groups like the FLDS's to judge all of the poly community by is like using skinheads to judge all Caucasians by.

Click to expand...

But you have to admit that the FLDS has brought a problem with polygamous marriages to light. How would you deal with groups of polys that insist on "marrying" each others children at as young an age as possible? It seems to me that polygamy would attract pedophiles and if it was legal we would have little we could do about the child abuse. Marriage is legal in some states at as young as 14 with parental consent.

cpwill said:

I didn't bring up the FLDS's - you did. Everything I said remains fairly well-based in our historical experience. The idea that there is an equal likelihood of polygamous society being polyandrous a polygynous is (as near as I can tell) neither based in human nature, nor a study of human history. Polygamous societies do produce relatively large populations of young men for whom there are no women, decreasing social stability, increasing rates of violence, and decreasing innovation and growth as effort is turned towards competition with other males. Within the families themselves, Captain Courtesy is correct - competition for favor and resources produces a less stable environment for the rearing of children.

As for those religious kooks - you may want to be nicer to them. If this is really a policy goal of yours, they are actually your best bet.

Click to expand...

Being a group discussion, the FLDS have already been brought up. I said groups like them noting that they are not the only groups that fit the criteria you are describing.

I'm not sure what you are talking about as far as a polygamous society at least in the context of the laws of the US (which is where most of this seems to be centered. Allowing legal recognition of polygamy would not turn our society into a polygamous one. We would still be a mostly monogamous society. As far as history goes, I'd like to see any studies on older societies where polygamy produced large populations of young men without access to women. Now I can understand that as a concern for more modern societies as our male mortality rate is way lower then when our tech and medical knowledge didn't allow the life saving and extending that occurs today. Also in today's society, as opposed to the past, we are less patriarchal and as a result, we have same sex pairings as well as larger numbers of individuals who never marry, or wait till their older. Throw in there the fact that multiple marriages (not polygamy) is rather a norm in today's society, availability on the long term scale is not going to be that much of an issue. Add on top of that, that modern US practice (on a non-legal basis) is shifting to highly mixed groupings (multiple males and females) any strain on the inaccessibility of one gender to another would be minimal at best.

Competition for favor and resources occurs in monogamous families as well. If a couple have several children, competition would high. Adding additional adults actually provides the children with more resources.

ChrisL said:

I doubt that would ever become a problem here in the US. I doubt if enough people would be having polygamous relationships in our country. There are probably so few that actually practice polygamy in this country that it's not even worth the trouble it might be to legalize it.

Click to expand...

I really don't get this about you as far as these kinds of topics go. You take failed arguments from related issues and apply them to others. That argument was used before with interracial and same sex marriage as well. That aside are you actually saying that a right should be denied when there are only a few would make use of that right?

Dooble said:

Homosexuals cannot create their own families. Not together. Not naturally.

Click to expand...

Sterile people cannot create their own families. Not together. Not naturally. Not even with another non-sterile person.

iguanaman said:

But you have to admit that the FLDS has brought a problem with polygamous marriages to light. How would you deal with groups of polys that insist on "marrying" each others children at as young an age as possible? It seems to me that polygamy would attract pedophiles and if it was legal we would have little we could do about the child abuse. Marriage is legal in some states at as young as 14 with parental consent.

Click to expand...

Child abuse is child abuse is child abuse. When we can get evidence that FLDS members are sexually abusing underage children we go after them. If polygamy was so attractive to pedophiles why aren't they already flocking to FLDS communities? The concept of polygamy in no way leads to the concept of child abuse. Child abuse, sexual or otherwise, occurs regardless of the marital status of the abuser; single, monogamous, divorced, or polygamous.

maquiscat said:

Being a group discussion, the FLDS have already been brought up. I said groups like them noting that they are not the only groups that fit the criteria you are describing.

I'm not sure what you are talking about as far as a polygamous society at least in the context of the laws of the US (which is where most of this seems to be centered. Allowing legal recognition of polygamy would not turn our society into a polygamous one. We would still be a mostly monogamous society. As far as history goes, I'd like to see any studies on older societies where polygamy produced large populations of young men without access to women. Now I can understand that as a concern for more modern societies as our male mortality rate is way lower then when our tech and medical knowledge didn't allow the life saving and extending that occurs today. Also in today's society, as opposed to the past, we are less patriarchal and as a result, we have same sex pairings as well as larger numbers of individuals who never marry, or wait till their older. Throw in there the fact that multiple marriages (not polygamy) is rather a norm in today's society, availability on the long term scale is not going to be that much of an issue. Add on top of that, that modern US practice (on a non-legal basis) is shifting to highly mixed groupings (multiple males and females) any strain on the inaccessibility of one gender to another would be minimal at best.

Competition for favor and resources occurs in monogamous families as well. If a couple have several children, competition would high. Adding additional adults actually provides the children with more resources.



I really don't get this about you as far as these kinds of topics go. You take failed arguments from related issues and apply them to others. That argument was used before with interracial and same sex marriage as well. That aside are you actually saying that a right should be denied when there are only a few would make use of that right?




Sterile people cannot create their own families. Not together. Not naturally. Not even with another non-sterile person.



Child abuse is child abuse is child abuse. When we can get evidence that FLDS members are sexually abusing underage children we go after them. If polygamy was so attractive to pedophiles why aren't they already flocking to FLDS communities? The concept of polygamy in no way leads to the concept of child abuse. Child abuse, sexual or otherwise, occurs regardless of the marital status of the abuser; single, monogamous, divorced, or polygamous.

Click to expand...

I'll tell you what, if you want to quote me, then quote JUST me. I refuse to sift through all of your BS just to reply to one of your long and boring posts for one stupid little question.

captainawesome said:

Sure we can. It is called surrogate.

Click to expand...

Of course you can't. It's called simple math: Husband's sperm + husband's sperm = zero children. Wife's ovaries + wife's ovaries = zero children.

Conclusion: Gay parenting through surrogacy or adoption = further confusion for children.