Gay marriage vs. pulygamy

[Syriusly]

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

Consenting adults doesn't allow for several relationships, all having to with imbalances in power and potential of abuse- a doctor and a patient- a counselor and counselee- father/daughter- brother/sister would all have the potential for similar problems.

 

[hortysir]

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

Consenting adults doesn't allow for several relationships, all having to with imbalances in power and potential of abuse- a doctor and a patient- a counselor and counselee- father/daughter- brother/sister would all have the potential for similar problems.

It also didn't used to allow for same sex either, but........

 

[Syriusly]

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.

There is no polygamy in nature. No more than there is any other kind of marriage in nature.

'What is most beneficial for the growth of civilization'?

Wow that opens up all sorts of possibilities.

Should we make it illegal for married couples to use contraceptives? Since that would be the most beneficial for growth?

 

[Syriusly]

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

Consenting adults doesn't allow for several relationships, all having to with imbalances in power and potential of abuse- a doctor and a patient- a counselor and counselee- father/daughter- brother/sister would all have the potential for similar problems.

It also didn't used to allow for same sex either, but........

And can you understand the distinct difference?

Or not?

 

[Flopper]

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

No, we have laws against incest because the offspring of biologically related parents are subject to the impacts of inbreeding. In addition, incestuous relationships often result in serious mental health problems. Of the different types of marriage, gay marriage is the least likely to cause problems for society because there are no offspring.

 

[hortysir]

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

Consenting adults doesn't allow for several relationships, all having to with imbalances in power and potential of abuse- a doctor and a patient- a counselor and counselee- father/daughter- brother/sister would all have the potential for similar problems.

It also didn't used to allow for same sex either, but........

And can you understand the distinct difference?

Or not?

Yes. Of course.
I also understood the reasons we used to have for denying same sex marriages. But we were eventually convinced that these concerns were unfounded.

 

[hortysir]

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

No, we have laws against incest because the offspring of biologically related parents are subject to the impacts of inbreeding. In addition, incestuous relationships often result in serious mental health problems. Of the different types of marriage, gay marriage is the least likely to cause problems for society because there are no offspring.

And we used to have blood tests to try to get ahead of that. Do any states still require it?

 

[hipeter924]

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.

Some Mormons did it in the past for sure.

 

[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)?

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

"They enjoy their families?" Didn't know they were giving birth all of a sudden. Which brings up another point ... I don't think it's "fair" that they can't reproduce like normal couples can. Shouldn't there be a law for that?

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

"They enjoy their families?" Didn't know they were giving birth all of a sudden. Which brings up another point ... I don't think it's "fair" that they can't reproduce like normal couples can. Shouldn't there be a law for that?

Gay couples can adopt or use a surrogate to have kids. There are also plenty who came out later in life, having had kids before doing so.

 

[Seawytch]

Polygamy is not something that much noise is made about.

But polyamory is gaining popularity. More and more people are exploring relationships with more than one person.

Once again, consenting adults and no one is harmed.

I don't see much of a legal basis for denying polygamous marriage if you allow gay marriage. However, there are two major differences to consider. From a legal perspective, a gay marriage ban is picking out a group of individuals based on their sexual orientation and denying them the freedom to marry who they choose. That is not the case with a polygamous marriage. From a social perspective, a 2 to 1 relationship is fraught with problems of jealousy, envy, and divisions of responsibility.

I agree that there doesn't seem to be much pressure for polygamous marriage. Historically polygamy has been between one husband and two or more wives. Not many women today would be interested in sharing a husband and not many husbands can afford multiple wives.

What we also see historically with Polygamy is that it is abandoned as the civilization progresses towards 1st world status.

A new study out of the University of British Columbia documents how societies have systematically evolved away from polygamy because of the social problems it causes. The Canadian researchers are really talking about polygyny, which is the term for one man with multiple wives, and which is by far the most common expression of polygamy. Women are usually thought of as the primary victims of polygynous marriages, but as cultural anthropologist Joe Henrich documents, the institution also causes problems for the young, low-status males denied wives by older, wealthy men who have hoarded all the women. And those young men create problems for everybody.

“Monogamous marriage reduces crime,” Henrich and colleagues write, pulling together studies showing that polygynous societies create large numbers of unmarried men, whose presence is correlated with increased rates of rape, theft, murder, and substance abuse. According to Henrich, the problem with unmarried men appears to come primarily from their lack of investment in family life and in children. Young men without futures tend to engage in riskier behaviors because they have less to lose. And, too, they may engage in certain crimes to get wives—stealing to amass enough wealth to attract women, or kidnapping other men’s wives.[...]

That polygyny is bad for women is not necessarily intuitive. As economist Robert H. Frank has pointed out women in polygynist marriages should have more power because they’re in greater demand, and men should wind up changing more diapers. But historically, polygamy has proved to be yet another setup that screws the XX set. Because there are never enough of them to go around, they wind up being married off younger. Brothers and fathers, realizing how valuable their female relations are, tend to control them more. And, as one would expect, polygynous households foster jealousy and conflict among co-wives. Ethnographic surveys of 69 polygamous cultures “reveals no case where co-wife relations could be described as harmonious,” Henrich writes, with what must be a good dose of understatement.

The Problems with Polygamy​

 

[DriftingSand]

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.

"They enjoy their families?" Didn't know they were giving birth all of a sudden. Which brings up another point ... I don't think it's "fair" that they can't reproduce like normal couples can. Shouldn't there be a law for that?

Gay couples can adopt or use a surrogate to have kids. There are also plenty who came out later in life, having had kids before doing so.

Sin often reveals itself after years of dormancy. Regardless ... wrong will never be right no matter how tightly we squeeze our eyes and dream.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

"They enjoy their families?" Didn't know they were giving birth all of a sudden. Which brings up another point ... I don't think it's "fair" that they can't reproduce like normal couples can. Shouldn't there be a law for that?

Gay couples can adopt or use a surrogate to have kids. There are also plenty who came out later in life, having had kids before doing so.

Sin often reveals itself after years of dormancy. Regardless ... wrong will never be right no matter how tightly we squeeze our eyes and dream.

Are we discussing legal issues concerning marriage or sin and religious beliefs?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

"They enjoy their families?" Didn't know they were giving birth all of a sudden. Which brings up another point ... I don't think it's "fair" that they can't reproduce like normal couples can. Shouldn't there be a law for that?

If you'd like to try to pass a law that would prohibit the use of IVF or AI...go ahead. It can't just be for gay folks though...straight folks would have to be banned as well.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Not quite true. The argument for the right to enter into a legally recognized same sex marriage is that opposite sex monogamous marriages are legally recognized and same sex monogamous marriages are sufficiently similar to qualify for the same rights under equal protection.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

"They enjoy their families?" Didn't know they were giving birth all of a sudden. Which brings up another point ... I don't think it's "fair" that they can't reproduce like normal couples can. Shouldn't there be a law for that?

Gay couples can adopt or use a surrogate to have kids. There are also plenty who came out later in life, having had kids before doing so.

Sin often reveals itself after years of dormancy. Regardless ... wrong will never be right no matter how tightly we squeeze our eyes and dream.

 

[DriftingSand]

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.

"They enjoy their families?" Didn't know they were giving birth all of a sudden. Which brings up another point ... I don't think it's "fair" that they can't reproduce like normal couples can. Shouldn't there be a law for that?

Gay couples can adopt or use a surrogate to have kids. There are also plenty who came out later in life, having had kids before doing so.

Sin often reveals itself after years of dormancy. Regardless ... wrong will never be right no matter how tightly we squeeze our eyes and dream.

Are we discussing legal issues concerning marriage or sin and religious beliefs?

They (Christian tenets and societal laws) should go hand in hand. But more than anything I'm (I don't know about anyone else) discussing common sense issues. Common sense dictates (regardless of the law or religious beliefs) that male parts are made for female parts. That's clear and obvious. One look at the animal kingdom (and the overwhelming manner by which male animals routinely choose female counterparts) and the issue is resolved (for anyone with common sense).

 

[DriftingSand]

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.

"They enjoy their families?" Didn't know they were giving birth all of a sudden. Which brings up another point ... I don't think it's "fair" that they can't reproduce like normal couples can. Shouldn't there be a law for that?

Gay couples can adopt or use a surrogate to have kids. There are also plenty who came out later in life, having had kids before doing so.

Sin often reveals itself after years of dormancy. Regardless ... wrong will never be right no matter how tightly we squeeze our eyes and dream.

The Fetus I save ISN'T gay. Proper training and good examples will show that baby the difference between right and wrong. There is no "gay" gene.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

"They enjoy their families?" Didn't know they were giving birth all of a sudden. Which brings up another point ... I don't think it's "fair" that they can't reproduce like normal couples can. Shouldn't there be a law for that?

Gay couples can adopt or use a surrogate to have kids. There are also plenty who came out later in life, having had kids before doing so.

Sin often reveals itself after years of dormancy. Regardless ... wrong will never be right no matter how tightly we squeeze our eyes and dream.

Are we discussing legal issues concerning marriage or sin and religious beliefs?

They (Christian tenets and societal laws) should go hand in hand. But more than anything I'm (I don't know about anyone else) discussing common sense issues. Common sense dictates (regardless of the law or religious beliefs) that male parts are made for female parts. That's clear and obvious. One look at the animal kingdom (and the overwhelming manner by which male animals routinely choose female counterparts) and the issue is resolved (for anyone with common sense).

"They (Christian tenets and societal laws) should go hand in hand."


No, they should not. I get tired of reminding posters of our First Amendment, but you're talking about sharia law. Religion should never ever be considered.

What you consider to be "common sense" is nothing more than your opinion. You're more than welcome to that opinion but, to date, I have not seen anyone come up with a reason why they should be able to dictate their position to others.

The private lives of others is none of your business.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

"They enjoy their families?" Didn't know they were giving birth all of a sudden. Which brings up another point ... I don't think it's "fair" that they can't reproduce like normal couples can. Shouldn't there be a law for that?

Gay couples can adopt or use a surrogate to have kids. There are also plenty who came out later in life, having had kids before doing so.

Sin often reveals itself after years of dormancy. Regardless ... wrong will never be right no matter how tightly we squeeze our eyes and dream.

The Fetus I save ISN'T gay. Proper training and good examples will show that baby the difference between right and wrong. There is no "gay" gene.

Again, you're confusing opinion with fact.