Gay marriage vs. pulygamy

[Montrovant]

The argument for gay marriage is the equal right to marry who you love. Well?

well, what?

Not that there are enough people out there really advocating for polygamy, but as long as everyone is a consenting adult, I don't have a problem with it.

I actually agree with JoeB131

Polygamy is the most natural form of relations within the Animal Kingdom, with homosexuality being the least natural.

If Homosexuality has been deemed normal and acceptable, then without any doubts Polygamy most also be considered normal and acceptable.

Let it also stand to reason that brother-sister and father-daughter incest is also more common than gaydom. That too should be normal and acceptable.

Oh wait, we should actually be arguing the merits of what it most beneficial to the growth of civilization, instead of what works best in an uncivilized state of nature: Marriage between one man and woman, bound for life, unless one breaches that contract via abandonment or abuse.

You're talking about a different definition of polygamy, I think. There isn't a lot of marriage in the animal kingdom.

If you're just talking about mating with multiple partners, that happens in humanity, too.

 

[Flopper]

The argument for gay marriage is the equal right to marry who you love. Well?

Good post! Really, if our government supports gay marriage I have three-four female candidates as my future wives. I want to marry all them. Wht's the problem?? I love them and they love me. Polygamy is my way to save America.

Work out the tax issues, the divorce possibilities and some way to protect all parties (especially the children) and go for it.

I haven't seen much opposition in this thread. Who would be hurt?

If some group made enough noise to get it considered by the courts, then you would certainly see a lot of opposition. However, in a society such as hours that has embraced sexual equality, the likelihood of a substantial push toward legalizing polygamy seems pretty remote.

Polygamy does not necessarily mean sexual inequality. It simply means more than one spouse. Things would be as equal as the people in the relationship wanted them to be. Just like in a modern marriage.

If you look at where polygamy has been embraced such as in early and fundamentalist Later Day Saints communities, cultures in northern and central Africa and the Near East, you will find all these cultures are male dominated with women basically subservient to men. That's not to say the women are necessarily mistreated, they just don't have the equally that women have in America.

Although rare, polyandry, one wife with multiple husbands do exit. However, these types of marriages are generally much different than polygamous marriage.

 

[WinterBorn]

What polygamous society has existed since sexual equality has become common, that was not a religious group headed by a single male?

That is exactly the kind of scenario that polygamy yields. You may as well be asking what fire has existed since water that did not burn something.

Not at all. You dismiss polygamy because it didn't work in religious societies run by old men or because it was male-centric is times that were almost exclusively male-centric already.

I do not see that as a reason to dismiss it any more than I see the ridiculous claims that acceptance of homosexuality was the reason for the fall of civilizations.

 

[DriftingSand]

The argument for gay marriage is the equal right to marry who you love. Well?

well, what?

Not that there are enough people out there really advocating for polygamy, but as long as everyone is a consenting adult, I don't have a problem with it.

I actually agree with JoeB131

Polygamy is the most natural form of relations within the Animal Kingdom, with homosexuality being the least natural.

If Homosexuality has been deemed normal and acceptable, then without any doubts Polygamy most also be considered normal and acceptable.

Let it also stand to reason that brother-sister and father-daughter incest is also more common than gaydom. That too should be normal and acceptable.

Oh wait, we should actually be arguing the merits of what it most beneficial to the growth of civilization, instead of what works best in an uncivilized state of nature: Marriage between one man and woman, bound for life, unless one breaches that contract via abandonment or abuse.

In the animal kingdom the dominant males mate leaving the wimps outside of the box (so to speak). If humans followed that lead then only men with dominant genes would father children which would result if far fewer Liberals and Homosexuals. I like the idea!

 

[WinterBorn]

The argument for gay marriage is the equal right to marry who you love. Well?

Good post! Really, if our government supports gay marriage I have three-four female candidates as my future wives. I want to marry all them. Wht's the problem?? I love them and they love me. Polygamy is my way to save America.

Work out the tax issues, the divorce possibilities and some way to protect all parties (especially the children) and go for it.

I haven't seen much opposition in this thread. Who would be hurt?

If some group made enough noise to get it considered by the courts, then you would certainly see a lot of opposition. However, in a society such as hours that has embraced sexual equality, the likelihood of a substantial push toward legalizing polygamy seems pretty remote.

Polygamy does not necessarily mean sexual inequality. It simply means more than one spouse. Things would be as equal as the people in the relationship wanted them to be. Just like in a modern marriage.

If you look at where polygamy has been embraced such as in early and fundamentalist Later Day Saints communities, cultures in northern and central Africa and the Near East, you will find all these cultures are male dominated with women basically subservient to men. That's not to say the women are necessarily mistreated, they just don't have the equally that women have in America.

Although rare, polyandry, one wife with multiple husbands do exit. However, these types of marriages are generally much different than polygamous marriage.

Those cultures were also very male-centric in ways that did not include polygamy. Hard to claim polygamy was the cause. And if it is not the cause, there is not reason it cannot work in a culture of sexual equality.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The argument for gay marriage is the equal right to marry who you love. Well?

no it isn't.

next

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The argument for gay marriage is the equal right to marry who you love. Well?

well, what?

Not that there are enough people out there really advocating for polygamy, but as long as everyone is a consenting adult, I don't have a problem with it.

neither do I, but the argument for polygamy could never be credibly tied the argument for same sex marriages.

issue: marriage: a civil contract between two people.

issue: there are laws about marriage contracts and same sex marriage proponents are not challenging these laws at all. as a matter of fact they are insisting they have the same guaranteed rights to marry as other couples do

 

[Flopper]

The argument for gay marriage is the equal right to marry who you love. Well?

well, what?

Not that there are enough people out there really advocating for polygamy, but as long as everyone is a consenting adult, I don't have a problem with it.

I actually agree with JoeB131

Polygamy is the most natural form of relations within the Animal Kingdom, with homosexuality being the least natural.

If Homosexuality has been deemed normal and acceptable, then without any doubts Polygamy most also be considered normal and acceptable.

Let it also stand to reason that brother-sister and father-daughter incest is also more common than gaydom. That too should be normal and acceptable.

Oh wait, we should actually be arguing the merits of what it most beneficial to the growth of civilization, instead of what works best in an uncivilized state of nature: Marriage between one man and woman, bound for life, unless one breaches that contract via abandonment or abuse.

Polygamy wil

Good post! Really, if our government supports gay marriage I have three-four female candidates as my future wives. I want to marry all them. Wht's the problem?? I love them and they love me. Polygamy is my way to save America.

Work out the tax issues, the divorce possibilities and some way to protect all parties (especially the children) and go for it.

I haven't seen much opposition in this thread. Who would be hurt?

If some group made enough noise to get it considered by the courts, then you would certainly see a lot of opposition. However, in a society such as hours that has embraced sexual equality, the likelihood of a substantial push toward legalizing polygamy seems pretty remote.

Polygamy does not necessarily mean sexual inequality. It simply means more than one spouse. Things would be as equal as the people in the relationship wanted them to be. Just like in a modern marriage.

If you look at where polygamy has been embraced such as in early and fundamentalist Later Day Saints communities, cultures in northern and central Africa and the Near East, you will find all these cultures are male dominated with women basically subservient to men. That's not to say the women are necessarily mistreated, they just don't have the equally that women have in America.

Although rare, polyandry, one wife with multiple husbands do exit. However, these types of marriages are generally much different than polygamous marriage.

Those cultures were also very male-centric in ways that did not include polygamy. Hard to claim polygamy was the cause. And if it is not the cause, there is not reason it cannot work in a culture of sexual equality.

Polygamy is certainly not the cause of sexual inequality. It may be the result but not the cause. In African and Arabic countries where polygamy, is fairly common, wives are obtained through brokers or through arrangement with the family. Woman can say no, but there're consequence for doing so.

Being 1st wife is an honor. Being 2nd wife is not. No woman wants to be 2nd or 3rd wife. In modern society such as in the US where women stand equal to men in most respects, it's hard to see where there would be any demand for such marriages except possibly in cults or closed in societies.

 

[Silhouette]

Consenting adults and harms no one - I agree.

BUT, in the past, the morms did indeed harm children and women.

Why is this in Politics?

Because you may have heard that the US Supreme Court has met to Decide on a date to hear the marriage equality arguments. Marriage equality in theory would be for all if the SCOTUS takes away the current state-defined privelege and turns it into a federally-forced right. For all, not just your pet alternative sexual lifestyle favorites..

Harming kids eh? You mean like guaranteeing the state that you would deprive children in your home of the vital complimentary gender as parent/role model 100% of the time...just like single parent households do?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Consenting adults and harms no one - I agree.

BUT, in the past, the morms did indeed harm children and women.

Why is this in Politics?

Because you may have heard that the US Supreme Court has met to Decide on a date to hear the marriage equality arguments. Marriage equality in theory would be for all if the SCOTUS takes away the current state-defined privelege and turns it into a federally-forced right. For all, not just your pet alternative sexual lifestyle favorites..

Harming kids eh? You mean like guaranteeing the state that you would deprive children in your home of the vital complimentary gender as parent/role model 100% of the time...just like single parent households do?

Your "best for the children" argument doesn't work in court, and when it comes up it goes against you. How long before you figure that out?

 

[WinterBorn]

The argument for gay marriage is the equal right to marry who you love. Well?

well, what?

Not that there are enough people out there really advocating for polygamy, but as long as everyone is a consenting adult, I don't have a problem with it.

I actually agree with JoeB131

Polygamy is the most natural form of relations within the Animal Kingdom, with homosexuality being the least natural.

If Homosexuality has been deemed normal and acceptable, then without any doubts Polygamy most also be considered normal and acceptable.

Let it also stand to reason that brother-sister and father-daughter incest is also more common than gaydom. That too should be normal and acceptable.

Oh wait, we should actually be arguing the merits of what it most beneficial to the growth of civilization, instead of what works best in an uncivilized state of nature: Marriage between one man and woman, bound for life, unless one breaches that contract via abandonment or abuse.

Polygamy wil

Work out the tax issues, the divorce possibilities and some way to protect all parties (especially the children) and go for it.

I haven't seen much opposition in this thread. Who would be hurt?

If some group made enough noise to get it considered by the courts, then you would certainly see a lot of opposition. However, in a society such as hours that has embraced sexual equality, the likelihood of a substantial push toward legalizing polygamy seems pretty remote.

Polygamy does not necessarily mean sexual inequality. It simply means more than one spouse. Things would be as equal as the people in the relationship wanted them to be. Just like in a modern marriage.

If you look at where polygamy has been embraced such as in early and fundamentalist Later Day Saints communities, cultures in northern and central Africa and the Near East, you will find all these cultures are male dominated with women basically subservient to men. That's not to say the women are necessarily mistreated, they just don't have the equally that women have in America.

Although rare, polyandry, one wife with multiple husbands do exit. However, these types of marriages are generally much different than polygamous marriage.

Those cultures were also very male-centric in ways that did not include polygamy. Hard to claim polygamy was the cause. And if it is not the cause, there is not reason it cannot work in a culture of sexual equality.

Polygamy is certainly not the cause of sexual inequality. It may be the result but not the cause. In African and Arabic countries where polygamy, is fairly common, wives are obtained through brokers or through arrangement with the family. Woman can say no, but there're consequence for doing so.

Being 1st wife is an honor. Being 2nd wife is not. No woman wants to be 2nd or 3rd wife. In modern society such as in the US where women stand equal to men in most respects, it's hard to see where there would be any demand for such marriages except possibly in cults or closed in societies.

The part about the 1st wife being a position of honor but the 2nd and 3rd is not would be an extension of the male-centric society. It is not about reality of relationships.

In modern poly, either the members of the couple (primary relationship) each have other playmates, or they both decide to add the third. Whether it is male or female depends on what the couple wants. When you start with sexual equality, there is no shame in being the 2nd or 3rd "spouse".

 

[Silhouette]

The part about the 1st wife being a position of honor but the 2nd and 3rd is not would be an extension of the male-centric society. It is not about reality of relationships.

In modern poly, either the members of the couple (primary relationship) each have other playmates, or they both decide to add the third. Whether it is male or female depends on what the couple wants. When you start with sexual equality, there is no shame in being the 2nd or 3rd "spouse".

Correct, marriage equality is about ALL consenting adults in any conceivable number or arrangement. "Two" is merely tradition, like man/woman.

But then there are children to consider. Since marriage from a state's incentive POV, is about children, the marriage discussion starts from there.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The part about the 1st wife being a position of honor but the 2nd and 3rd is not would be an extension of the male-centric society. It is not about reality of relationships.

In modern poly, either the members of the couple (primary relationship) each have other playmates, or they both decide to add the third. Whether it is male or female depends on what the couple wants. When you start with sexual equality, there is no shame in being the 2nd or 3rd "spouse".

Correct, marriage equality is about ALL consenting adults in any conceivable number or arrangement. "Two" is merely tradition, like man/woman.

But then there are children to consider. Since marriage from a state's incentive POV, is about children, the marriage discussion starts from there.

There are no children to consider, not a single fucking one.

 

[WinterBorn]

The part about the 1st wife being a position of honor but the 2nd and 3rd is not would be an extension of the male-centric society. It is not about reality of relationships.

In modern poly, either the members of the couple (primary relationship) each have other playmates, or they both decide to add the third. Whether it is male or female depends on what the couple wants. When you start with sexual equality, there is no shame in being the 2nd or 3rd "spouse".

Correct, marriage equality is about ALL consenting adults in any conceivable number or arrangement. "Two" is merely tradition, like man/woman.

But then there are children to consider. Since marriage from a state's incentive POV, is about children, the marriage discussion starts from there.

I don't believe the contention that the state's main concern is children. I believe the state's main concern is stable family units that provide families who need jobs, spend money, and provide stable units in a given area.

But I have no problem with the state working out a new method of taxation, child support and such if polygamy becomes legal.

 

[DriftingSand]

Consenting adults and harms no one - I agree.

BUT, in the past, the morms did indeed harm children and women.

Why is this in Politics?

Because you may have heard that the US Supreme Court has met to Decide on a date to hear the marriage equality arguments. Marriage equality in theory would be for all if the SCOTUS takes away the current state-defined privelege and turns it into a federally-forced right. For all, not just your pet alternative sexual lifestyle favorites..

Harming kids eh? You mean like guaranteeing the state that you would deprive children in your home of the vital complimentary gender as parent/role model 100% of the time...just like single parent households do?

Your "best for the children" argument doesn't work in court, and when it comes up it goes against you. How long before you figure that out?

If I were the judge then I wouldn't allow children to be raised in queer households. The fact that many of today's judges DO allow it is evidence that they're likely fags.

Why would a pair of sexual deviants want kids in the house to begin with if not to take their sexual fantasies and depraved activities to the next level (the lowest level)?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Consenting adults and harms no one - I agree.

BUT, in the past, the morms did indeed harm children and women.

Why is this in Politics?

Because you may have heard that the US Supreme Court has met to Decide on a date to hear the marriage equality arguments. Marriage equality in theory would be for all if the SCOTUS takes away the current state-defined privelege and turns it into a federally-forced right. For all, not just your pet alternative sexual lifestyle favorites..

Harming kids eh? You mean like guaranteeing the state that you would deprive children in your home of the vital complimentary gender as parent/role model 100% of the time...just like single parent households do?

Your "best for the children" argument doesn't work in court, and when it comes up it goes against you. How long before you figure that out?

If I were the judge then I wouldn't allow children to be raised in queer households. The fact that many of today's judges DO allow it is evidence that they're likely fags.

Why would a pair of sexual deviants want kids in the house to begin with if not to take their sexual fantasies and depraved activities to the next level (the lowest level)?

Mainly because gay men are like straight men, they enjoy their families. And they aren't deviants little fag-hater, but you are now.

 

[Flopper]

Consenting adults and harms no one - I agree.

BUT, in the past, the morms did indeed harm children and women.

Why is this in Politics?

Because you may have heard that the US Supreme Court has met to Decide on a date to hear the marriage equality arguments. Marriage equality in theory would be for all if the SCOTUS takes away the current state-defined privelege and turns it into a federally-forced right. For all, not just your pet alternative sexual lifestyle favorites..

Harming kids eh? You mean like guaranteeing the state that you would deprive children in your home of the vital complimentary gender as parent/role model 100% of the time...just like single parent households do?

Actually, SCOTUS delayed the decision on whether to rule this year on states' remaining bans against same-sex marriage. Eventually all bans will fall. It's just a question of time.

 

[Flopper]

The argument for gay marriage is the equal right to marry who you love. Well?

well, what?

Not that there are enough people out there really advocating for polygamy, but as long as everyone is a consenting adult, I don't have a problem with it.

I actually agree with JoeB131

Polygamy is the most natural form of relations within the Animal Kingdom, with homosexuality being the least natural.

If Homosexuality has been deemed normal and acceptable, then without any doubts Polygamy most also be considered normal and acceptable.

Let it also stand to reason that brother-sister and father-daughter incest is also more common than gaydom. That too should be normal and acceptable.

Oh wait, we should actually be arguing the merits of what it most beneficial to the growth of civilization, instead of what works best in an uncivilized state of nature: Marriage between one man and woman, bound for life, unless one breaches that contract via abandonment or abuse.

Polygamy wil

If some group made enough noise to get it considered by the courts, then you would certainly see a lot of opposition. However, in a society such as hours that has embraced sexual equality, the likelihood of a substantial push toward legalizing polygamy seems pretty remote.

Polygamy does not necessarily mean sexual inequality. It simply means more than one spouse. Things would be as equal as the people in the relationship wanted them to be. Just like in a modern marriage.

If you look at where polygamy has been embraced such as in early and fundamentalist Later Day Saints communities, cultures in northern and central Africa and the Near East, you will find all these cultures are male dominated with women basically subservient to men. That's not to say the women are necessarily mistreated, they just don't have the equally that women have in America.

Although rare, polyandry, one wife with multiple husbands do exit. However, these types of marriages are generally much different than polygamous marriage.

Those cultures were also very male-centric in ways that did not include polygamy. Hard to claim polygamy was the cause. And if it is not the cause, there is not reason it cannot work in a culture of sexual equality.

Polygamy is certainly not the cause of sexual inequality. It may be the result but not the cause. In African and Arabic countries where polygamy, is fairly common, wives are obtained through brokers or through arrangement with the family. Woman can say no, but there're consequence for doing so.

Being 1st wife is an honor. Being 2nd wife is not. No woman wants to be 2nd or 3rd wife. In modern society such as in the US where women stand equal to men in most respects, it's hard to see where there would be any demand for such marriages except possibly in cults or closed in societies.

The part about the 1st wife being a position of honor but the 2nd and 3rd is not would be an extension of the male-centric society. It is not about reality of relationships.

In modern poly, either the members of the couple (primary relationship) each have other playmates, or they both decide to add the third. Whether it is male or female depends on what the couple wants. When you start with sexual equality, there is no shame in being the 2nd or 3rd "spouse".

Polygamy is a strictly defined marriage between one man and more than one woman.These marriages have very strict rules and violations are dealt with harshly.

What you seem to be referring to is group marriage or conjoint marriage where there are multiple husbands and wives.

In cultures that recognize polygamous marriages, the husband is always the head of the household. The 1st wife by tradition is manger of the household and second in charge of the family. Other wives have assigned duties, child care, housekeeping, and other forms of work. The purpose of marriage is to build a family, usually a large one.

The biggest problem in polygamous marriage is jealous and envy. The wives simply don't want to share their husband nor their children with the other wives. A monogamous marriage is far easier to manage with less problems which probably accounts for their popularity even in countries that allow polygamy.

 

[hortysir]

"Consenting adults" could be brother/sister, father/daughter, etc....
Where's the line?

 

[Syriusly]

our society is going down into the sewer. What's funny is that many seem to support that downward movement.

Exactly what decade do you think that the ideal American society existed in?

Since you believe that America is such a horrible place- when did you last like being an American?