Is Polygamy The Next Gay Marriage?

[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!"

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

If you put two bulls or two cows in a pasture together would they try to reproduce? Or would the bulls look for a cow and the cows look for a bull.

homosexuality is not a normal biological condition, except for one celled organisms.

 

[ricechickie]

If you put two bulls or two cows in a pasture together would they try to reproduce? Or would the bulls look for a cow and the cows look for a bull.

homosexuality is not a normal biological condition, except for one celled organisms.

...and penguins.

 

[Redfish]

Do you know when Rome fell, Romans still lived?

some of them did. but the Roman empire shrank to 1/10th its size.

 

[Redfish]

If you put two bulls or two cows in a pasture together would they try to reproduce? Or would the bulls look for a cow and the cows look for a bull.

homosexuality is not a normal biological condition, except for one celled organisms.

...and penguins.

queer penguins???/

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Tell us...please tell us

 

[ricechickie]

some of them did. but the Roman empire shrank to 1/10th its size.

Its population, or its land mass?

 

[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!"

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

If you put two bulls or two cows in a pasture together would they try to reproduce? Or would the bulls look for a cow and the cows look for a bull.

homosexuality is not a normal biological condition, except for one celled organisms.

Countless species of animals engage in homosexual behavior.
10 Animals That Practice Homosexuality - Listverse

And by the way, only an idiot thinks that when gay people have sex with each other they are "trying to reproduce." Actually, even when most straight people have sex they aren't trying to reproduce.

 

[ricechickie]

See? Penguins.

I was going to say dolphins can be gay, too, but I wasn't quite sure.

 

[ShackledNation]

If you put two bulls or two cows in a pasture together would they try to reproduce? Or would the bulls look for a cow and the cows look for a bull.

homosexuality is not a normal biological condition, except for one celled organisms.

...and penguins.

queer penguins???/

Yup. The mother abandoned the egg, and two male penguins formed a couple to care for it.
Denmark s Gay Penguins Become Fathers

Countless animals exhibit homosexual behavior. Is this seriously news to you?

 

[Rikurzhen]

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.

That may well be but the counterpart affliction which strikes the young and the old people who never mature is the belief that change always improves matters.

Here's an example of how a changed social practice can have profound effects on how society is run:

There are two reasons 11-year-old Chikumbutso Zuze never sees his three sisters, why he seldom has a full belly, why he sleeps packed sardinelike with six cousins on the dirt floor of his aunt's thatched mud hut.

One is AIDS, which claimed his father in 2000 and his mother in 2001. The other is his father's nephew, a tall, light-complexioned man whom Chikumbutso knows only as Mr. Sululu.

It was Mr. Sululu who came to his village five years ago, after his father died, and commandeered all of the family's belongings -- mattresses, chairs and, most important, the family's green Toyota pickup, an almost unimaginable luxury in this, one of the poorest nations on earth. And it was Mr. Sululu who rejected the pleas of the boy's mother, herself dying of AIDS, to leave the truck so that her children would have an inheritance to sustain them after her death. . . . .

Actually, the answer is simple: custom. Throughout sub-Saharan Africa the death of a father automatically entitles his side of the family to claim most, if not all, of the property he leaves behind, even if it leaves his survivors destitute. . . .

By the time his father, Jonas, died, Chikumbutso Zuze recalled, his mother was to sick even to cook for him and his three sisters in their three-room house in the village of Bvumbwe in southern Malawi. Still, he said, she tried in vain to defy her husband's nephew when, with Dickensian callousness, he showed up after the funeral demanding the keys to the family truck. He also demanded the beds and any other possessions they had not already sold off to pay for medicine and food.

Chikumbutso now lives on the charity of his maternal aunt and uncle, who say they struggle daily to feed their own six school-age children. To raise money for food, the boy carries buckets of water, hauls sand from the river and solicits other chores from the neighbor.​

WHY? Why and how did that custom come to be? WHY don't a man's children inherit his estate? Well, the social custom in many parts of Africa is for men and women, even when married, to engage in parallel relationships. We see clear consequences of this practice with the HETEROSEXUAL AIDS crisis sweeping Africa. A monogamous couple is on a safe island in a stormy sea of AIDS, but as soon as each partner also has multiple partners the infection vectors explode.

So it's not the end of the world, even with AIDS exploding, if people choose to maintain simultaneous sexual and personal relationships during their marriage. Life goes on. However, there are social consequences which work to shape society. One of those social consequences is that a man has a very low level of paternal certainty with respect to the children born into his marriage while he has 100% certainty that the children born to his sister are related to him. He has 100% certainty that his siblings born to his mother are related to him.This changes inheritance laws. Notice who is now caring for the boy, the mother's aunt. Notice who took the possession's, the father's nephew. Blood ties are assured.

A social custom arises because it makes sense in the context of how life in lived. When a father doesn't know that his children are his, then this doesn't just affect inheritance customs, it also affects behavior and investment into children while the father is alive. It simply doesn't make much sense to invest in a kid fathered by another man. These changes ripple out and touch many aspects of life.

So the expectation that polygamy will simply be a personal lifestyle choice and that society won't be influenced by it is naive. The question should be which choice produces the best social outcomes for the group, for society at large. In my example here the choice is between monogamous marriages or parallel open marriages. What follows from men having paternal certainty in their marriages? Is Western inheritance law leading to better social outcomes or does inheritance law patterned on this African custom produces better social outcomes?

 

[tosacco]

I have to admit that no matter how hard I try, I find myself unable to give a shit.

Same here. I have enjoyed watching Sister Wives about a polygamous family, and other shows with the same theme. I don't oppose the idea for those with whom it is successfully working. It will never become a trend, and there will be abuses, as with any unorthodox lifestyle but I knew this was coming as soon as gay marriage became acceptable and legal in many states and growing.

Who cares. My thoughts these days are not much on social issues.

Sociologists have shown that societies that condone polygamy are a lot more violent and aggressive than societies that are strictly monogamous. That's because such societies have large populations of single men with no possibility of attracting a mate. Polygamy is bad for society. It's especially bad for the prospects of a peaceful society.

citation?

 

[Rikurzhen]

See? Penguins.

I was going to say dolphins can be gay, too, but I wasn't quite sure.

Sharon Tendler met Cindy 15 years ago. She said it was love at first sight. This week she finally took the plunge and proposed. The lucky "guy" plunged right back.

In a modest ceremony at Dolphin Reef in the southern Israeli port of Eilat, Tendler, a 41-year-old British citizen, apparently became the world's first person to "marry" a dolphin.

Dressed in a white dress, a veil and pink flowers in her hair, Tendler got down on one knee on the dock and gave Cindy a kiss. And a piece of herring.

"It's not a perverted thing. I do love this dolphin. He's the love of my life," she said Saturday, upon her return to London.​

 

[Rikurzhen]

I have to admit that no matter how hard I try, I find myself unable to give a shit.

Same here. I have enjoyed watching Sister Wives about a polygamous family, and other shows with the same theme. I don't oppose the idea for those with whom it is successfully working. It will never become a trend, and there will be abuses, as with any unorthodox lifestyle but I knew this was coming as soon as gay marriage became acceptable and legal in many states and growing.

Who cares. My thoughts these days are not much on social issues.

Sociologists have shown that societies that condone polygamy are a lot more violent and aggressive than societies that are strictly monogamous. That's because such societies have large populations of single men with no possibility of attracting a mate. Polygamy is bad for society. It's especially bad for the prospects of a peaceful society.

citation?

Aren't you a graduate student in sociology? Shouldn't you know this basic fact?

The University of British Columbia:

In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage. . . .

Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives.

“The scarcity of marriageable women in polygamous cultures increases competition among men for the remaining unmarried women,” says Henrich, adding that polygamy was outlawed in 1963 in Nepal, 1955 in India (partially), 1953 in China and 1880 in Japan. The greater competition increases the likelihood men in polygamous communities will resort to criminal behavior to gain resources and women, he says.

According to Henrich, monogamy’s main cultural evolutionary advantage over polygyny is the more egalitarian distribution of women, which reduces male competition and social problems. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, institutionalized monogamy increases long-term planning, economic productivity, savings and child investment, the study finds. Monogamy’s institutionalization has been assisted by its incorporation by religions, such as Christianity.

Monogamous marriage also results in significant improvements in child welfare, including lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict, the study finds. These benefits result from greater levels of parental investment, smaller households and increased direct “blood relatedness” in monogamous family households, says Henrich, who served as an expert witness for British Columbia’s Supreme Court case involving the polygamous community of Bountiful, B.C.
​

But as Ricechickie is fond of saying, it's not the end of the world.

 

[tosacco]

I have to admit that no matter how hard I try, I find myself unable to give a shit.

Same here. I have enjoyed watching Sister Wives about a polygamous family, and other shows with the same theme. I don't oppose the idea for those with whom it is successfully working. It will never become a trend, and there will be abuses, as with any unorthodox lifestyle but I knew this was coming as soon as gay marriage became acceptable and legal in many states and growing.

Who cares. My thoughts these days are not much on social issues.

Sociologists have shown that societies that condone polygamy are a lot more violent and aggressive than societies that are strictly monogamous. That's because such societies have large populations of single men with no possibility of attracting a mate. Polygamy is bad for society. It's especially bad for the prospects of a peaceful society.

citation?

Aren't you a graduate student in sociology? Shouldn't you know this basic fact?

​

​

I am a graduate student in sociology, but assuming a graduate student in one discipline is up on all the literatures of sub disciplines is naive. It's like assuming a biologist studying gecko toe pads is up on biological research surrounding the endocrine system in rats. It's apples and oranges, and completely inefficient (and impossible) for somebody to try to master it all. I study science policy. I'm not up on research covering the family institution. There is a lot of research going on in lots of subfields, and unless it gets published in one of the four or five journals my subfield is located in, or in one of the top four or five journals of the discipline, I am not up on it.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I have to admit that no matter how hard I try, I find myself unable to give a shit.

Same here. I have enjoyed watching Sister Wives about a polygamous family, and other shows with the same theme. I don't oppose the idea for those with whom it is successfully working. It will never become a trend, and there will be abuses, as with any unorthodox lifestyle but I knew this was coming as soon as gay marriage became acceptable and legal in many states and growing.

Who cares. My thoughts these days are not much on social issues.

Sociologists have shown that societies that condone polygamy are a lot more violent and aggressive than societies that are strictly monogamous. That's because such societies have large populations of single men with no possibility of attracting a mate. Polygamy is bad for society. It's especially bad for the prospects of a peaceful society.

citation?

Aren't you a graduate student in sociology? Shouldn't you know this basic fact?

​

​

I am a graduate student in sociology, but assuming a graduate student in one discipline is up on all the literatures of sub disciplines is naive. It's like assuming a biologist studying gecko toe pads is up on biological research surrounding the endocrine system in rats. It's apples and oranges, and completely inefficient (and impossible) for somebody to try to master it all. I study science policy. I'm not up on research covering the family institution. There is a lot of research going on in lots of subfields, and unless it gets published in one of the four or five journals my subfield is located in, or in one of the top four or five journals of the discipline, I am not up on it.

Before you get to specialize you need to go through a general knowledge program. You were never exposed to this data?

You also asked for a citation, so I wonder why you couldn't game theory the dynamics in play. Without knowing the empirical evidence you can construct a hypothesis and gut-check it to what you know about people. Men compete for women. Single men are more disruptive to society than married men. Young men are the most anti-social of all age groups. And so on. Did it really strike you as so far-fetched that a society with a lot of young men with no access to women would be violent and more unstable and less prosperous than a society where men had a more fair shot at accessing women?

Maybe I roll differently. I'll ask for a citation to something counter-intuitive but not for something that seems expected or reasonable.

Anyways, now you have a citation, so how does that influence your position now that you're in possession of evidence?

 

[ricechickie]

That may well be but the counterpart affliction which strikes the young and the old people who never mature is the belief that change always improves matters.

Here's an example of how a changed social practice can have profound effects on how society is run:

There are two reasons 11-year-old Chikumbutso Zuze never sees his three sisters, why he seldom has a full belly, why he sleeps packed sardinelike with six cousins on the dirt floor of his aunt's thatched mud hut.

One is AIDS, which claimed his father in 2000 and his mother in 2001. The other is his father's nephew, a tall, light-complexioned man whom Chikumbutso knows only as Mr. Sululu.

It was Mr. Sululu who came to his village five years ago, after his father died, and commandeered all of the family's belongings -- mattresses, chairs and, most important, the family's green Toyota pickup, an almost unimaginable luxury in this, one of the poorest nations on earth. And it was Mr. Sululu who rejected the pleas of the boy's mother, herself dying of AIDS, to leave the truck so that her children would have an inheritance to sustain them after her death. . . . .

Actually, the answer is simple: custom. Throughout sub-Saharan Africa the death of a father automatically entitles his side of the family to claim most, if not all, of the property he leaves behind, even if it leaves his survivors destitute. . . .

By the time his father, Jonas, died, Chikumbutso Zuze recalled, his mother was to sick even to cook for him and his three sisters in their three-room house in the village of Bvumbwe in southern Malawi. Still, he said, she tried in vain to defy her husband's nephew when, with Dickensian callousness, he showed up after the funeral demanding the keys to the family truck. He also demanded the beds and any other possessions they had not already sold off to pay for medicine and food.

Chikumbutso now lives on the charity of his maternal aunt and uncle, who say they struggle daily to feed their own six school-age children. To raise money for food, the boy carries buckets of water, hauls sand from the river and solicits other chores from the neighbor.​

WHY? Why and how did that custom come to be? WHY don't a man's children inherit his estate? Well, the social custom in many parts of Africa is for men and women, even when married, to engage in parallel relationships. We see clear consequences of this practice with the HETEROSEXUAL AIDS crisis sweeping Africa. A monogamous couple is on a safe island in a stormy sea of AIDS, but as soon as each partner also has multiple partners the infection vectors explode.

So it's not the end of the world, even with AIDS exploding, if people choose to maintain simultaneous sexual and personal relationships during their marriage. Life goes on. However, there are social consequences which work to shape society. One of those social consequences is that a man has a very low level of paternal certainty with respect to the children born into his marriage while he has 100% certainty that the children born to his sister are related to him. He has 100% certainty that his siblings born to his mother are related to him.This changes inheritance laws. Notice who is now caring for the boy, the mother's aunt. Notice who took the possession's, the father's nephew. Blood ties are assured.

A social custom arises because it makes sense in the context of how life in lived. When a father doesn't know that his children are his, then this doesn't just affect inheritance customs, it also affects behavior and investment into children while the father is alive. It simply doesn't make much sense to invest in a kid fathered by another man. These changes ripple out and touch many aspects of life.

So the expectation that polygamy will simply be a personal lifestyle choice and that society won't be influenced by it is naive. The question should be which choice produces the best social outcomes for the group, for society at large. In my example here the choice is between monogamous marriages or parallel open marriages. What follows from men having paternal certainty in their marriages? Is Western inheritance law leading to better social outcomes or does inheritance law patterned on this African custom produces better social outcomes?

You're really good at changing goal posts.

Not every change is a positive change. Some changes have unintended consequences. That's why I advocate baby steps. You don't like that.

Then you pull out this story of a starving child in Africa.

The fact is, you don't seem to want any change in society. You will suffer perpetual disappointment.

 

[Rikurzhen]

That may well be but the counterpart affliction which strikes the young and the old people who never mature is the belief that change always improves matters.

Here's an example of how a changed social practice can have profound effects on how society is run:

There are two reasons 11-year-old Chikumbutso Zuze never sees his three sisters, why he seldom has a full belly, why he sleeps packed sardinelike with six cousins on the dirt floor of his aunt's thatched mud hut.

One is AIDS, which claimed his father in 2000 and his mother in 2001. The other is his father's nephew, a tall, light-complexioned man whom Chikumbutso knows only as Mr. Sululu.

It was Mr. Sululu who came to his village five years ago, after his father died, and commandeered all of the family's belongings -- mattresses, chairs and, most important, the family's green Toyota pickup, an almost unimaginable luxury in this, one of the poorest nations on earth. And it was Mr. Sululu who rejected the pleas of the boy's mother, herself dying of AIDS, to leave the truck so that her children would have an inheritance to sustain them after her death. . . . .

Actually, the answer is simple: custom. Throughout sub-Saharan Africa the death of a father automatically entitles his side of the family to claim most, if not all, of the property he leaves behind, even if it leaves his survivors destitute. . . .

By the time his father, Jonas, died, Chikumbutso Zuze recalled, his mother was to sick even to cook for him and his three sisters in their three-room house in the village of Bvumbwe in southern Malawi. Still, he said, she tried in vain to defy her husband's nephew when, with Dickensian callousness, he showed up after the funeral demanding the keys to the family truck. He also demanded the beds and any other possessions they had not already sold off to pay for medicine and food.

Chikumbutso now lives on the charity of his maternal aunt and uncle, who say they struggle daily to feed their own six school-age children. To raise money for food, the boy carries buckets of water, hauls sand from the river and solicits other chores from the neighbor.​

WHY? Why and how did that custom come to be? WHY don't a man's children inherit his estate? Well, the social custom in many parts of Africa is for men and women, even when married, to engage in parallel relationships. We see clear consequences of this practice with the HETEROSEXUAL AIDS crisis sweeping Africa. A monogamous couple is on a safe island in a stormy sea of AIDS, but as soon as each partner also has multiple partners the infection vectors explode.

So it's not the end of the world, even with AIDS exploding, if people choose to maintain simultaneous sexual and personal relationships during their marriage. Life goes on. However, there are social consequences which work to shape society. One of those social consequences is that a man has a very low level of paternal certainty with respect to the children born into his marriage while he has 100% certainty that the children born to his sister are related to him. He has 100% certainty that his siblings born to his mother are related to him.This changes inheritance laws. Notice who is now caring for the boy, the mother's aunt. Notice who took the possession's, the father's nephew. Blood ties are assured.

A social custom arises because it makes sense in the context of how life in lived. When a father doesn't know that his children are his, then this doesn't just affect inheritance customs, it also affects behavior and investment into children while the father is alive. It simply doesn't make much sense to invest in a kid fathered by another man. These changes ripple out and touch many aspects of life.

So the expectation that polygamy will simply be a personal lifestyle choice and that society won't be influenced by it is naive. The question should be which choice produces the best social outcomes for the group, for society at large. In my example here the choice is between monogamous marriages or parallel open marriages. What follows from men having paternal certainty in their marriages? Is Western inheritance law leading to better social outcomes or does inheritance law patterned on this African custom produces better social outcomes?

You're really good at changing goal posts.

Not every change is a positive change. Some changes have unintended consequences. That's why I advocate baby steps. You don't like that.

Then you pull out this story of a starving child in Africa.

The fact is, you don't seem to want any change in society. You will suffer perpetual disappointment.

I can think of only ONE example of liberals taking a step forward and then being forced to retreat from their baby step, only one, and that was their effort to normalize child-adult sex. Every other time they never retreat, no matter how much damage is unfolding.

 

[ricechickie]

I can think of only ONE example of liberals taking a step forward and then being forced to retreat from their baby step, only one, and that was their effort to normalize child-adult sex. Every other time they never retreat, no matter how much damage is unfolding.

That is not an example of liberal agenda. You might want to think so, but it's not. Furthermore, I don't know when it came close to coming to fruition in the USA.

 

[tosacco]

I have to admit that no matter how hard I try, I find myself unable to give a shit.

Same here. I have enjoyed watching Sister Wives about a polygamous family, and other shows with the same theme. I don't oppose the idea for those with whom it is successfully working. It will never become a trend, and there will be abuses, as with any unorthodox lifestyle but I knew this was coming as soon as gay marriage became acceptable and legal in many states and growing.

Who cares. My thoughts these days are not much on social issues.

Sociologists have shown that societies that condone polygamy are a lot more violent and aggressive than societies that are strictly monogamous. That's because such societies have large populations of single men with no possibility of attracting a mate. Polygamy is bad for society. It's especially bad for the prospects of a peaceful society.

citation?

Aren't you a graduate student in sociology? Shouldn't you know this basic fact?

​

I am a graduate student in sociology, but assuming a graduate student in one discipline is up on all the literatures of sub disciplines is naive. It's like assuming a biologist studying gecko toe pads is up on biological research surrounding the endocrine system in rats. It's apples and oranges, and completely inefficient (and impossible) for somebody to try to master it all. I study science policy. I'm not up on research covering the family institution. There is a lot of research going on in lots of subfields, and unless it gets published in one of the four or five journals my subfield is located in, or in one of the top four or five journals of the discipline, I am not up on it.

Before you get to specialize you need to go through a general knowledge program. You were never exposed to this data?

You also asked for a citation, so I wonder why you couldn't game theory the dynamics in play. Without knowing the empirical evidence you can construct a hypothesis and gut-check it to what you know about people. Men compete for women. Single men are more disruptive to society than married men. Young men are the most anti-social of all age groups. And so on. Did it really strike you as so far-fetched that a society with a lot of young men with no access to women would be violent and more unstable and less prosperous than a society where men had a more fair shot at accessing women?

Maybe I roll differently. I'll ask for a citation to something counter-intuitive but not for something that seems expected or reasonable.

Anyways, now you have a citation, so how does that influence your position now that you're in possession of evidence?

1. We do go through a general study in the first year, but A. it focuses more on classic theorists and studies that have defined the field, and B. on becoming proficient in the different types of research methods. This type of study, being recent, would most likely be covered in a class on Families, which I haven't taken (the only stuff I am well versed in relating to families is stuff on work/life balance, issues regarding maternity/paternity leave, and stuff like that).
2. I asked for a citation out of curiosity. In my limited time here, it seems pretty rare people reference sociologists, let alone take sociological research seriously.
3. Part of me thinks live and let live. I think if you are going to make an argument about polygamy increasing violence in society and are going to point to sociological data supporting this claim, you would also need to point to sociological data that highlight loose gun laws and gun ownership also lead to more violence in society. Also, things like higher religiosity and higher income inequality lead to more violence.

The Global Sociology Blog - On the Guns Thing I would Just Like to Point Out 8230
The Global Sociology Blog - On the Guns Thing 8230 Part 2

He cites his data source in the second post.

4. I think it is important to remember that one study is worthy of debate, but you never know if a study is an outlier from the mean unless there are enough studies done to test the normal distribution of things. One study on polygamy suggests it increases violence in society, but more studies are needed, with a variety of methods and strategies, to make sure the findings are accurate. I don't mean this to sound like I don't buy the findings above, and the studies findings don't really surprise me. People should just be careful latching on to the findings of one study at the detriment of being close minded about what future research may find.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I can think of only ONE example of liberals taking a step forward and then being forced to retreat from their baby step, only one, and that was their effort to normalize child-adult sex. Every other time they never retreat, no matter how much damage is unfolding.

That is not an example of liberal agenda.

Sell that line someplace else, sister.

The Sexual Revolution and Children: How the Left Took Things Too Far

Even a cursory review of the material revealed that the educational work at the Rote Freiheit ("Red Freedom") after-school center was unorthodox. The goal of the center was to shape the students into "socialist personalities," and its educational mission went well beyond supervised play. The center's agenda included "agitprop" on the situation in Vietnam and "street fighting," in which the children were divided into "students" and "cops."

The educators' notes indicate that they placed a very strong emphasis on sex education. Almost every day, the students played games that involved taking off their clothes, reading porno magazines together and pantomiming intercourse.

According to the records, a "sex exercise" was conducted on Dec. 11 and a "fucking hour" on Jan. 14. An entry made on Nov. 26 reads: "In general, by lying there we repeatedly provoked, openly or in a hidden way, sexual innuendoes, which were then expressed in pantomimes, which Kurt and Rita performed together on the low table (as a stage) in front of us."

The material introduced the broader public to a byproduct of the student movement for the first time: the sexual liberation of children.​

Furthermore, I don't know when it came close to coming to fruition in the USA.

Go read up on the deep ties that NAMBLA had with liberals back in the 1970s.