Is Polygamy The Next Gay Marriage?

[Mac1958]

Let me know when you can marry a microbrewery and we'll talk.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So many REAL problems face our nation. Why do we always bog ourselves down with these stupid social issues?

Americans being denied their civil liberties is a real problem.

 

[HenryBHough]

America transforms itself regularly. The far right reaction white social con xtians here are nothing like the cavaliers of VA or the Puritans of New England or the Quakers of PA or the free thinkers of RI.

Yes, the pre-1960 model of again and will change more radically as the millennials reach their 40s and 50s.

I expect even greater change when you pre-teens are eligible to vote!

 

[hipeter924]

Ironically some of the same groups against gay marriage would probably be okay with polygamy, and they wouldn't say it of course - but polygamy is supported in the bible.

 

[rightwinger]

Got it. You can't provide any, and you're going to tell me that I'm stupid and should do my homework.

Noted.

socialistic programs of the US government:
social security
medicare
medicaid
obamacare
food stamps
welfare
student loans
section 8 housing
corporate taxes
income taxes
the IRS
foreign aid
Planned parenthood
NPR

since you are too ignorant to list them yourself. Now go away, you are pissing me off with your ignorance.

Got it

Any program that helps people is SOCIALISM
If it helps corporations, it is PATRIOTISM

 

[rightwinger]

Why would anyone oppose polygamy?

 

[Pop23]

So many REAL problems face our nation. Why do we always bog ourselves down with these stupid social issues?

Americans being denied their civil liberties is a real problem.

Gays have never been denied the right to marry

 

[rightwinger]

So many REAL problems face our nation. Why do we always bog ourselves down with these stupid social issues?

Americans being denied their civil liberties is a real problem.

Gays have never been denied the right to marry

They haven't been denied the right to marry who YOU want them to marry

 

[Rikurzhen]

It's hard to say how trendy it will become but using the attitudes of today for guidance is simply bad analysis. Mali has widespread polygamy where 40% of all married women are in polygamous marriages.

Why do women consent? That's the key. The choice usually breaks down like this - marry a poor man and have him all to yourself or marry a rich man and share him with other wives. 40% of women seem content with marrying a wealthier man and sharing him rather than marrying a goat herder and having that man all to themselves.

That same dynamic is likely to develop here. Look at how much time and energy women spend watching and reading about rich people, celebrities, gossip and voyeur shows are the bread and butter of media companies today. Women seem to want to escape from the mundane drudgery of existence.

How women has Charlie Sheen had? How many wives? Women keep showing up in that dude's life and not always sequentially.

For those who don't care, you should, because this is society destabliizing. Having hordes of angry young men who can't afford to entice a woman means that they express their anger at society or they just give up on life. Neither is a good outcome and the blowback of social upheaval always hits the rest of us.

Any change has the potential to destabilize society. The key is to keep changes relatively small, so that they can become the norm more quickly. Baby steps.

So if I increase my after-work drink by one glass of beer per week, my wife and kids can adapt to the new norm gradually, in baby steps, and that'll take the sting out of my turning into a violent alcoholic who beats his wife and kids when drunk but is pleasant as can be imagined when sober.

Baby steps doesn't solve the problem when the process produces actual harm. As some men scoop up women into harems, other men somewhere in society will eventually be alone. Baby steps doesn't change that dynamic.

 

[Rikurzhen]

thats the point, and it then becomes a legal issue. If gay marriage is legalized then there is absolutely no legal defense that can be brought against all forms of multiple person marriage.

But I think some of us are beginning to get it. Its part of the left wing desire to destroy our society by destroying the family unit. Then everyone can only have one loyalty------------the state.

A) It's a rubbish argument to suggest if gay people get married then polygamists will be able to marry multiple people.
B) Why do you care?

You think it's about destroying your society? Yeah, and those who were against black people being equal said the same damn thing. You want to think that gay people are destroying the family unit when, without gay marriage, 50% of marriages are ending in divorce. Come off it, straight people have destroyed marriage for you.

Always shielding the liberals.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Telling the truth shields the far right numbskulls as well.

 

[ricechickie]

So if I increase my after-work drink by one glass of beer per week, my wife and kids can adapt to the new norm gradually, in baby steps, and that'll take the sting out of my turning into a violent alcoholic who beats his wife and kids when drunk but is pleasant as can be imagined when sober.

Baby steps doesn't solve the problem when the process produces actual harm. As some men scoop up women into harems, other men somewhere in society will eventually be alone. Baby steps doesn't change that dynamic.

I believe they call this fallacy reductio ad absurdum.

If you increase your after-work drink by one glass of beer per week, that does not mean that you will turn into a violent alcoholic. You might just pass out quietly. And, of course, there's only so much that your body can stand.

Never mind that, however, we're not talking about personal lives, we're talking about society.

Polygamy, scooping up into harems, whatever you want to call it, has existed before, and the world has gone on. Furthermore, men don't have the right to not be alone. Neither do women, for that matter.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Polygamy, scooping up into harems, whatever you want to call it, has existed before, and the world has gone on. Furthermore, men don't have the right to not be alone. Neither do women, for that matter.

Is that the new metric now, mere survival? Actions have consequences, social practices have social consequences, societal laws and customs have consequences. Different outcomes matter. No one is arguing a binary state - a social practice or the end of the world.

You take for granted the nature of society, that you can grossly reform the practices and you'll still have society operating as you know it, as though society is a product of nature, like a mountain. When we look out at the world we see different outcomes for societies and most of those outcomes are caused, not by bad luck, but by choices that shaped the rules of societies.

 

[ShackledNation]

Polygamy is irrelevant as to whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. I am sure there were a few racists who made the argument "allow interracial marriage!? That will just lead to polygamy!"

 

[ricechickie]

Is that the new metric now, mere survival? Actions have consequences, social practices have social consequences, societal laws and customs have consequences. Different outcomes matter. No one is arguing a binary state - a social practice or the end of the world.

You take for granted the nature of society, that you can grossly reform the practices and you'll still have society operating as you know it, as though society is a product of nature, like a mountain. When we look out at the world we see different outcomes for societies and most of those outcomes are caused, not by bad luck, but by choices that shaped the rules of societies.

I realize that with changes, we'll never have "society operating as you know it." Things change all the time. It is the unfortunate affliction of the old and the old at heart that they see every change as another piece of the sky falling.

 

[ricechickie]

Polygamy is irrelevant as to whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. I am sure there were a few racists who made the argument "allow interracial marriage!? That will just lead to polygamy!"

Nah, they said, "What's next? Men marrying other men? Grumble, grumble, mumble, grrrrrr."

 

[Redfish]

Polygamy is irrelevant as to whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. I am sure there were a few racists who made the argument "allow interracial marriage!? That will just lead to polygamy!"

false analogy. it will be false no matter how many times you lefties try it. Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing.

 

[Redfish]

Is that the new metric now, mere survival? Actions have consequences, social practices have social consequences, societal laws and customs have consequences. Different outcomes matter. No one is arguing a binary state - a social practice or the end of the world.

You take for granted the nature of society, that you can grossly reform the practices and you'll still have society operating as you know it, as though society is a product of nature, like a mountain. When we look out at the world we see different outcomes for societies and most of those outcomes are caused, not by bad luck, but by choices that shaped the rules of societies.

I realize that with changes, we'll never have "society operating as you know it." Things change all the time. It is the unfortunate affliction of the old and the old at heart that they see every change as another piece of the sky falling.

Have you studied any world history? Do you have any idea what brought down the great civilizations of the past. Do you know why China survived and Rome fell?

 

[ShackledNation]

Polygamy is irrelevant as to whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. I am sure there were a few racists who made the argument "allow interracial marriage!? That will just lead to polygamy!"

false analogy. it will be false no matter how many times you lefties try it. Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing.

Nor are sexual orientation and the number of people someone marries the same thing. That was my point nitwit.

 

[ricechickie]

Do you know when Rome fell, Romans still lived?