NationStates Jolt Archive

I wanted to know on how people feel about polygamy. There was an article in the Economist about Polygamy in Canada on July 8th, 2004. Basically described a small community of polygamists in a city called Bountiful in British Columbia who practice polygamy. Thought it would be a good question.

So what do you people think? Good? Bad? Same issue as same sex-marriage?

If your okay with polygamy or same-sex marriage; then what about incest relationships?

Should the government still be involved in marriage?

I hate The Economist. They only do capitalist economics and they bashed anarchists.

The government should still be allowed in marriage. There needs to be some kind of system behind people joining together in a (hopefully) lasting union. I not sure about polygamy, however.

I think that poligamy and all other stuff related to individual freedoms should be allowed based on this rule:

You are free to do anything you want as long as you do not affect others negatively or against their will.

This law would make every non -criminal person happy.

I cant think why any sane human being would want to be married to more than one woman at a time. In my experience, keeping one woman happy is a near full time occupation. Cant say that i have a moral problem with it though.

I hate The Economist. They only do capitalist economics and they bashed anarchists.

Quit your whining, there's dozens of other magazines that bash capitalism.

In regards to the issue you raised, if anyone agrees that a sexual relationship which involves consenting adults is okay then homosexuality, polygamy, group sex and incest would be okay as well. I can't remember all of the details but there was a recent case somewhere in the United States where a 30 year old woman wanted to marry her 50-something year old father.

No, incest is not ok.

One word: consent. Young'ens can't give it.




Polegamy? Hell, why not? I mean that in all seriousness too, why not let it be allowed?

There are quite sound biological reasons against incest so i am not sure you should lump it in with groups sex or polygamy. The consent issue is dubious because many sexual relationships involve some form of power relationship so consent is always a difficult issue.

in this day and age where people cant be bothered to get married why should i care if a bunch of people get married.

BUT

you can be in only one marriage at a time. what does this mean to me? EVERYONE in the marriage is married to everyone else. and everyone has to consent to a new spouse being brought in.

SO

if a man wants a second wife, his current wife has to agree and she is marrying the new woman too. such that, if the man dies the 2 women are still married to each other

and if the man wants a divorce he has to divorce everyone in the marriage.

and everyone owns all marital property in common

and a woman can marry a second husband but her current husband has to agree and he marries the second man too

one marriage at a time, one family, one economic unit. anything else would be bigamy

I wanted to know on how people feel about polygamy. There was an article in the Economist about Polygamy in Canada on July 8th, 2004. Basically described a small community of polygamists in a city called Bountiful in British Columbia who practice polygamy. Thought it would be a good question.

So what do you people think? Good? Bad? Same issue as same sex-marriage?

If your okay with polygamy or same-sex marriage; then what about incest relationships?

Should the government still be involved in marriage?
The government bans it, but it should be legal. It is up to the individuals involved, not some wacko religious group that runs the govt.
Different from same sex marriage. Humans are made by God to be polygamist in nature. That is how we evolved.
Marraige is a personal issue based 99% on personal faith, politics have nothing to do with it. So the government ought not be involved in marriage but should instead butt out.

But hey-soaps would be more interesting :p

No, incest is not ok.

One word: consent. Young'ens can't give it.




Polegamy? Hell, why not? I mean that in all seriousness too, why not let it be allowed?

Incest can occur between consenting adults also. I'm not talking about abusing young'ens here, all of my examples are between consenting (AFAIK) adults.

Letila: The Economist had an interesting article. How about the issue at hand? Any opinions on it?

Humans are made by God to be polygamist in nature. That is how we evolved.

I dont understand...... Made by G_d AND evolved?

Polygamy is a tough one. I think that it shouldn't be the place of a governement to legislate on the issue (IE: people should be allowed to do it), however, I don't think I'd go for it myself, and I find almost all institutions that advocate or practise polygamy disgustingly chauvinistic. I've not yet seen more than an isolated example of a woman with multiple male partners, so it seems disturbingly unbalanced.

I wanted to know on how people feel about polygamy. There was an article in the Economist about Polygamy in Canada on July 8th, 2004. Basically described a small community of polygamists in a city called Bountiful in British Columbia who practice polygamy. Thought it would be a good question.

So what do you people think? Good? Bad? Same issue as same sex-marriage?

If your okay with polygamy or same-sex marriage; then what about incest relationships?

Should the government still be involved in marriage?

I think it's G-R-O-S-S...but then, that's just my opinion.

I've not yet seen more than an isolated example of a woman with multiple male partners, so it seems disturbingly unbalanced.
One woman with multiple husbands wouldnt be polygamy it would be polyandry (many husbands as opposed to many wives) But your point is valid; it would seem odd and inherently unfair to allow men to have multiple wives and not allow these wifes to have multiple husbands.

Hmm come to think of it if polygamy and polyandry were to become accepted practice I wonder what the ramifiications would be on the gay marriage issue ;) ?

But seriously Im in two minds here, im not sure what right I have to tell other people who//how many people they can marry- as long as its all consensual, albeit a little "icky" should society stop the practice?
Edit-- ahahaha i should preview before I post- i mixed up polygamy with polygyny-- whoops ;D *slaps forehead*

The only problem I have with this, is it's already irritating when one good looking asshole has all the girls in school. Now he gets all of them after school as well :p

But what about allowing a bisexual union with multiple wives and husbands? Would that be allowed?

But what about allowing a bisexual union with multiple wives and husbands? Would that be allowed?

If it was consensual should it be stopped?

I dont understand...... Made by G_d AND evolved?
Meaning, however you look at the origins of humans, humans are meant to be polygamist animals.

But hey-soaps would be more interesting :p

(Example: John is married to Jill, Mary and Bob and Sam)

John: Mary, I've been having an affair with your daughter, Sarah!

Mary: My daughter? You mean our daughter?

John: Our daughter? But I though you had Sarah to Bob?

Mary: No, I didn't?

John: Oh no, that means Sarah's husband, Andrew, is her half-brother!

Mary: Andrew? But you never had a child named Andrew.

John: Yes, to Sam. We had to give Andrew away after I realised that I couldn't support more than 15 children. But I knew who Andrew's adopted parents were and have been in contact with Andrew since he was a child.

Mary: You had Andrew to Sam? But Sam is a guy.

John: Sam was born a woman! We had Andrew before she had a sex-change operation.

Mary: How long have you had an affair with Sarah?

John: Three months.

Mary: Three months? But Sarah has been pregnant for a month now.

John: Oh no! When did Sarah tell you this?

Mary: Actually, Jill told me.

John: Jill?

Mary: Yes, Jill. She's been having an affair with Sarah for six months.

John: Why are you telling me this?

Mary: To get back revenge on Jill who had an affair with Sarah to get back revenge on me for having an affair with her daughter, Alice!

John: But Alice is my daughter.

Mary: I know.

John: Oh no!

Meaning, however you look at the origins of humans, humans are meant to be polygamist animals.

Still a strange concept. Most people will argue that humans are built/designed/accidentally came into existence either with tendencies towards long term stable relationships or multiple short term realtionships but polygamy is a differrent matter involving multiple AND long term relationshsips.

Regardless, i dont think you can find the answer in biology because there are animals that are monogamous such as doves, some that are polygymous like lions and others that are incestuous like rats.

Still a strange concept. Most people will argue that humans are built/designed/accidentally came into existence either with tendencies towards long term stable relationships or multiple short term realtionships but polygamy is a differrent matter involving multiple AND long term relationshsips.

Regardless, i dont think you can find the answer in biology because there are animals that are monogamous such as doves, some that are polygymous like lions and others that are incestuous like rats.
I am not speaking of rats or lions, I am speaking of the natural history of the human race. For 90% of the time we've been around, our species has been polygamous.

In regards to the issue you raised, if anyone agrees that a sexual relationship which involves consenting adults is okay then homosexuality, polygamy, group sex and incest would be okay as well.

Dude, why are you linking homosexuality (unavoidably biological) together with controversial lifestyle choices like polygamy/group sex plus the crime of incest?

Homosexuality in itself has *nothing* in common with these other things you mentioned, and you know this very well. Shame on you.

I don't think I'd go for it myself, and I find almost all institutions that advocate or practise polygamy disgustingly chauvinistic. I've not yet seen more than an isolated example of a woman with multiple male partners, so it seems disturbingly unbalanced.

Personally, I have no moral qualms about polygamy. However, I agree with Spoffin on the above statement: I'd never go for it, and it would essentially be another way for men to have many wives. How many heterosexual men would consent to marrying another man?My guess is not many.

Dude, why are you linking homosexuality (unavoidably biological) together with controversial lifestyle choices like polygamy/group sex plus the crime of incest?

Homosexuality in itself has *nothing* in common with these other things you mentioned, and you know this very well. Shame on you.

I do admit that some cases of homosexuality are unavoidably biological but I believe many cases are merely a lifestyle choice, which I have no problem with. The reason why I linked them together is that they were all considered to be immoral sexual taboos for many years but only recently has homosexuality started to be accepted. But if we accept homosexuality on the grounds that it is no ones business what two consenting adults do with their sex life then why do we shun a sexual relationship between a between a brother and a sister, both of whom are adults and have no intention of producing offspring?

If you are going to allow polygamy, then you should make sure it allows both multiple females per male and multiple males per female. Also everyone has to have a true choice about what they want.

Although, in a sociobiology book I read, the author raised the point that polygamy (1 male/multiple females) would actually be better for the females than pairing up one to one. This is because a male that can afford to support multiple females would support them better than a lower ranked male they might normally get if they had to pair off.

In reality if the whole world was polygamous, guys that were rich and powerful could be polygamous, and guys that weren't would be stuck without any girls to be with. But the women would be better off. :p

If you are going to allow polygamy, then you should make sure it allows both multiple females per male and multiple males per female. Also everyone has to have a true choice about what they want.

Although, in a sociobiology book I read, the author raised the point that polygamy (1 male/multiple females) would actually be better for the females than pairing up one to one. This is because a male that can afford to support multiple females would support them better than a lower ranked male they might normally get if they had to pair off.

In reality if the whole world was polygamous, guys that were rich and powerful could be polygamous, and guys that weren't would be stuck without any girls to be with. But the women would be better off. :p

Eh, well those poor guys could always enter polygamous gay unions ;)

I think... it would cause havoc for many commercial things. His & hers items would have to be sold as his, his and hers. Or hers, his and hers. The little bride & groom on wedding cakes would need an extra person. Double beds would have to be made triple beds.

Of course, the greeting card industry would do well.

I think... it would cause havoc for many commercial things. His & hers items would have to be sold as his, his and hers. Or hers, his and hers. The little bride & groom on wedding cakes would need an extra person. Double beds would have to be made triple beds.

Of course, the greeting card industry would do well.

Triple beds? Bill Gates would need a LOT more space than that :D

If you are going to allow polygamy, then you should make sure it allows both multiple females per male and multiple males per female. Also everyone has to have a true choice about what they want.

Although, in a sociobiology book I read, the author raised the point that polygamy (1 male/multiple females) would actually be better for the females than pairing up one to one. This is because a male that can afford to support multiple females would support them better than a lower ranked male they might normally get if they had to pair off.

In reality if the whole world was polygamous, guys that were rich and powerful could be polygamous, and guys that weren't would be stuck without any girls to be with. But the women would be better off. :p

better off if they dont mind sharing their man. most women i know like the idea of being in a partnership with their husband and being his exclusive love interest

not to mention that, at least in the US, the woman usually runs the family. women today dislike letting their husbands make family decisions (some poor men cant even do the dishes to their wives liking) how would they adjust to having to take another womans opinions into consideration?

i dont think id feel better off sharing my home with other women.

in this day and age where people cant be bothered to get married why should i care if a bunch of people get married.

BUT

you can be in only one marriage at a time. what does this mean to me? EVERYONE in the marriage is married to everyone else. and everyone has to consent to a new spouse being brought in.

SO

if a man wants a second wife, his current wife has to agree and she is marrying the new woman too. such that, if the man dies the 2 women are still married to each other

and if the man wants a divorce he has to divorce everyone in the marriage.

and everyone owns all marital property in common

and a woman can marry a second husband but her current husband has to agree and he marries the second man too

one marriage at a time, one family, one economic unit. anything else would be bigamy

I disagree with that part. If someone wants a divorce from the family they have to divorce everyone, but if someone wants to divorce someone, and everyone else agrees, then the person they want to divorce leaves. Also such a polygamous spousal unit could split in different ways, like 5 = 3 + 2 .

I disagree with that part. If someone wants a divorce from the family they have to divorce everyone, but if someone wants to divorce someone, and everyone else agrees, then the person they want to divorce leaves. Also such a polygamous spousal unit could split in different ways, like 5 = 3 + 2 .

I can smell the bureacratic labyrinth here :-P

Still, even if it would be a headache actually designing legislation on this, I don't see why not.

ideally the government would stop being involved in marriage of any kind. i totally support gay marriage, polygamy, and pretty much any other combination between consenting adults.

as somebody who has had a "plural relationship" in the past, i can say that i think such relationships can be absolutely wonderful. my boyfriend and girlfriend and i were together for over two years, and we only split up because we all went away to school in different places. we are still very close and friendly, and it was definitely one of the best relationships i have ever had. as long as all parties involved are on the same page it is a great time; the only problem can be when one person feels left out, or when different people have different ideas about how the relationship is going to work...but then, that's true for couples, too, isn't it?

better off if they dont mind sharing their man. most women i know like the idea of being in a partnership with their husband and being his exclusive love interest

not to mention that, at least in the US, the woman usually runs the family. women today dislike letting their husbands make family decisions (some poor men cant even do the dishes to their wives liking) how would they adjust to having to take another womans opinions into consideration?

i dont think id feel better off sharing my home with other women.

yeah, that system was also assuming that females want to be supported by a male...i sure don't, and would not be happy in that sort of situation. :)

I disagree with that part. If someone wants a divorce from the family they have to divorce everyone, but if someone wants to divorce someone, and everyone else agrees, then the person they want to divorce leaves. Also such a polygamous spousal unit could split in different ways, like 5 = 3 + 2 .
yes you are right.
as long as, in the end, everyone is in only ONE marriage in which everyone in that marriage is married to each other and no outsiders.

the only reason i see for the govt to be involved at all is for tax purposes, property rights, inheritance rights and child support/custody/visitation.

ideally the government would stop being involved in marriage of any kind. i totally support gay marriage, polygamy, and pretty much any other combination between consenting adults.

as somebody who has had a "plural relationship" in the past, i can say that i think such relationships can be absolutely wonderful. my boyfriend and girlfriend and i were together for over two years, and we only split up because we all went away to school in different places. we are still very close and friendly, and it was definitely one of the best relationships i have ever had. as long as all parties involved are on the same page it is a great time; the only problem can be when one person feels left out, or when different people have different ideas about how the relationship is going to work...but then, that's true for couples, too, isn't it?
you are so my hero

Polygamous relationships wouldn't require massive legistaltion if the government didn't legislate marriages... :eek:

Dude, why are you linking homosexuality (unavoidably biological) together with controversial lifestyle choices like polygamy/group sex plus the crime of incest?

Homosexuality in itself has *nothing* in common with these other things you mentioned, and you know this very well. Shame on you.

Pardon, but the same charges that used to be levied against gay relationships are being used against polygamists/polyandrists. Both of the latter could be natural human predispositions. Incest is a crime, because it is taboo. Technically, having an intimite gay relationship is considered sodomy under Canadian law. Just because something is illegal, doesn't make it by default unatural or immoral.

We're NOT talking about abusing underage children here. ALL of the examples must use mature consenting adults.

Shame on you for having a double standard. Same-sex relationships are exactly the same thing as polygamist or polyandrist relationships. In the Canadian case, if same-sex relationships are legal, then polygamist/polyandrist and incestual relationships are just as legitimite.

End proposal: Government should get the hell out of marriage and allow people to pick and choose their relationships the way they see fit. What you do in the privacy of your home with your significant other(s) is your business.

I've heard of it a good deal actually here in Idaho and nearby utah its popular among mormons not all in fact very few but thats the case. I'm against it but hey if you wanna juggle having that many wives go right ahead but one seems like quite enough to deal with

I;m with the no government involvement in marriage issues at least and for the most part sexual issues as well but some I favor intervention (to protect kids from harm)

I'll just chime in with support for homosexual, interracial, polygamous, or incestious relationships between consenting adults.

None of these are legitimately crimes, and the government should have nothing to do with any of them.

This does not mean that others need to approve of them, or associate with people that do engage in them.

It's called freedom.

Polygamy is unacceptable. It is against the law and ought to remain against the law. It the same with incest relationships or gay marriage.

Marriage is between one man and one woman. That´s our culture. POINT.
By the way. Even some muslim countries like Tunesia or Turkey have outlawed polygamy. It never was usual or common for people to life in polyamous relationships. Even in countries which allow polygamy it is a rare eception and not the rule. The rule is a monogamous marriage.
And that is also what our culture says and our laws allows. We should stick to this principal.

Ok - lets look at these questions..

Polygamy - First of all Polygamy has shown every single time it's brought to public attention that these type of relationship always oppress women. Not to mention every single case I've ever seen go public also involved child molestation. So, there seems to be a problem with it from the on set.

Incest - I'm sure you know the argument that children can't consent to sex.. but here is another argument against incest, it has been proven that if you breed to close to a blood line, such as family, you risk a VERY high chance of having abnormal babies. I suppose if two consenting adults of the same family agreed to go through a medical operation that would not allow them to have children, then I suppose I wouldn't really have a problem with it. I would think it creepy, but it would be none of my business as long as they didn't have children.

Polygamy is unacceptable. It is against the law and ought to remain against the law. It the same with incest relationships or gay marriage.

Marriage is between one man and one woman. That´s our culture. POINT.
By the way. Even some muslim countries like Tunesia or Turkey have outlawed polygamy. It never was usual or common for people to life in polyamous relationships. Even in countries which allow polygamy it is a rare eception and not the rule. The rule is a monogamous marriage.
And that is also what our culture says and our laws allows. We should stick to this principal.

1. saying something has to stay against the law because it is against the law now is silly. by that logic we are obligated to undo the mistake we made when we legalized interracial marriage.

2. it's not a part of MY culture, nor is it a part of the "culture" for many other people. are you saying that majority rule? in that case, we should never have desegregated schools, or allowed women to vote.

3. it was originally the rule for people to have polygamous relationships, since humans are primates and there are no Great Ape groups that have exclusive monogamy for breeding. polygamy was actually the first and longest system of sexual relations for human kind. now, that doesn't mean it is necessarily the best, but to claim that "one man one woman" is the way it was meant to be requires that one ignore scientific fact. i'm just saying is all.

Like all things it has its ups and downs. However since I don’t believe in marriage I’m not restricted by polygamy laws. :p

I am not speaking of rats or lions, I am speaking of the natural history of the human race. For 90% of the time we've been around, our species has been polygamous.

Can you cite any evidence to support this claim?

Ok - lets look at these questions..

Polygamy - First of all Polygamy has shown every single time it's brought to public attention that these type of relationship always oppress women. Not to mention every single case I've ever seen go public also involved child molestation. So, there seems to be a problem with it from the on set.

Incest - I'm sure you know the argument that children can't consent to sex.. but here is another argument against incest, it has been proven that if you breed to close to a blood line, such as family, you risk a VERY high chance of having abnormal babies. I suppose if two consenting adults of the same family agreed to go through a medical operation that would not allow them to have children, then I suppose I wouldn't really have a problem with it. I would think it creepy, but it would be none of my business as long as they didn't have children.

because it has been abusive doesnt mean it must be. i think we would have to UP the age when a person can get married. those apostate mormons who have 20 wives tend to marry them when they are way too young to know what they are getting into. 16 or younger. *shudder*

seems to me that since marriage exists to make new families that brothers and sisters cant get married because they are already members of the same family. at least thats what i told my son when he was 3 and planned to marry mommy "we cant get married, we are already family"

How many heterosexual men would consent to marrying?
My guess...fewer and fewer...

because it has been abusive doesnt mean it must be. i think we would have to UP the age when a person can get married. those apostate mormons who have 20 wives tend to marry them when they are way too young to know what they are getting into. 16 or younger. *shudder*

seems to me that since marriage exists to make new families that brothers and sisters cant get married because they are already members of the same family. at least thats what i told my son when he was 3 and planned to marry mommy "we cant get married, we are already family"

Yeah, I agree with you, but it's a loaded question.. people put forth this argument so that when you say it shouldn't be allowed they feel it gives them the justification to say that being gay is also wrong. So, I try to answer in a way that I don't get caught in their silly little trap.

I shall go through a list of statements made by opponents of a lot of things relating to marriage and refuting them.

Marriage is between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN - or maybe it isn't. Why is it that way? Because it's the way it's always been? Because the "traditional" family is between a man and a woman? Because that's how people make babies? Because men won't share their wives but don't want to be outnumbered by adult women in the family, thereby giving them the upper hand? Therefore, this rule is designed to support patriarchy, not the traditional two-parent household.

The only correct way to raise children is with a MOTHER and a FATHER - tell that to me, who was raised by divorced parents, not to mention a gay mother. I turned out fine...a little cynical, but fine nonetheless. OK, a lot cynical. But that's beside the point. My next question is, what happens when one parent dies? Say you have the traditional mother-father-children unit, and before the kids are grown, one of the parents dies. The widowed parent has trouble remarrying. Then what? Forced adoption of the kids? Doesn't that go against the family unit? Forcing the widowed parent into some sort of arranged marriage? Oh, that will go over well. I suppose the next logical step is to say that those parents can never get married again and are forced to raise their kids on their own.

Divorce is worse for the kids than the parents staying together in ALL circumstances - or not. I like for my parents to still be alive and have their sanity, thank you very much. I shudder to think what would have happened to them had divorce been illegal and they had been forced to stay together. On top of that, if two people can't get divorced by can't stand each other, what law says they have to live together? I suppose we're going to pass one of those? Well, I hope you have a well-funded police force for all those cases of murder, domestic assault, and potential child endangerment that are going to stem from a law like that. And of course, that means more taxes, and no one likes that.

Gay people can't raise children - and you're basing this on what? The fact that they can't have kids with each other? By this logic, adoption should be illegal, as should the idea of stepparents. After all, no one can raise children that aren't theirs biologically, right? I suppose you're going to tell me that gay parents have gay children? Gee whiz, no one told me I should be sleeping with men becuse of my genetic predisposition to it.

Incest is inherently immoral - OK, so if it involves molesting a 12-year-old or something, it is. But if two consenting adults want to get married, or have sex, or whatever, why do I care if they are brother and sister? Hmmm...because they have deformed children? Again, this implies that everyone's goal is to reproduce. I sure as hell don't want to pass on my genes. And no, I am not in an incestuous relationship, either, if that's what you're thinking. I don't even have a sister.

Polygamy always translates to oppression of women - that's a little like saying incest automatically translates to rape or child molestation. Just because it can doesn't mean it always will. And let's be honest - traditional marriages can lead to spousal abuse. Doesn't mean it will.

In regards to the issue you raised, if anyone agrees that a sexual relationship which involves consenting adults is okay then homosexuality, polygamy, group sex and incest would be okay as well.

Dude, why are you linking homosexuality (unavoidably biological) together with controversial lifestyle choices like polygamy/group sex plus the crime of incest?

Homosexuality in itself has *nothing* in common with these other things you mentioned, and you know this very well. Shame on you.

Shame on you for having a double standard. Same-sex relationships are exactly the same thing as polygamist or polyandrist relationships.

End proposal: Government should get the hell out of marriage and allow people to pick and choose their relationships the way they see fit. What you do in the privacy of your home with your significant other(s) is your business.

I tend to agree with your last point, and I wasn't at all denigrating the lifestyle choices of polygamy/group sex per se.

But some people, and you've encountered them too, continue to trade in the lie that "all homosexuality is just another lifestyle choice" when that is clearly not the case. Someone who's never held the slightest attraction to the opposite sex cannot be said to be "choosing" homosexuality.

Vitania's response to me clarified that he didn't intend to label all homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. I believe him and regret being so harsh to him, but his initial lack of specificity left him open to the conclusion I jumped to.

Still, Vitania repeated his belief that *some* homosexuality is by personal choice. Anyone who actually chooses the gender of whom they wish to have sex with is in fact *Bisexual*, not Homosexual. That's a crucial distinction and one which Vitania should have made.

1. saying something has to stay against the law because it is against the law now is silly. by that logic we are obligated to undo the mistake we made when we legalized interracial marriage.

2. it's not a part of MY culture, nor is it a part of the "culture" for many other people. are you saying that majority rule? in that case, we should never have desegregated schools, or allowed women to vote.

3. it was originally the rule for people to have polygamous relationships, since humans are primates and there are no Great Ape groups that have exclusive monogamy for breeding. polygamy was actually the first and longest system of sexual relations for human kind. now, that doesn't mean it is necessarily the best, but to claim that "one man one woman" is the way it was meant to be requires that one ignore scientific fact. i'm just saying is all.
Today 12:57 PM
.

YOu are talking rubbish. First of all, you don´t choose your culture. You are born in a society which is having a certain culture. By the way:women are the majority. So your argument of minority discrimination is rubbish especially in that respect. Since women are the majority a discrimination of woman is not minoriy discrimination but majority discrimination.
I also have to say that one of the biggest problems of our time is the outrageous demands of good organized minorities to fight for preferential and better treatment than the majority has got. One example of this outrageous development is the gay movement.

Your third point is complete rubbish. We are no bonobo monkeys. But you are obviously inable to distinguish between this specific group of monkeys and humans.
Monogamy is the rule in our culture and by the way also in other cultures. And there are good reasons for it.
But you don´t understand. You even think that gay marriage would be normal. It isn´t. It is normal for a child to have one father and one mother.
It is not normal to have to mothers or two fathers or several dozens. But due to your perversion your are not able to understand that fact.

Just as a heads up, culture isn't always right :p


In some places, the mutalation of female sex organs is their culture.



You know, you're right. Let's stick the our culture. From now on, marrige is between one virgin white male, and one virgin white female. Divorces, might I add, are illegal.



But hey, why argue with culture? I mean, it has to be perfectly right, doesn't it?

Just as a heads up, culture isn't always right
In some places, the mutalation of female sex organs is their culture.
You know, you're right. Let's stick the our culture. From now on, marrige is between one virgin white male, and one virgin white female. Divorces, might I add, are illegal.
But hey, why argue with culture? I mean, it has to be perfectly right, doesn't it?
?

The fact that our culture doesn´t allow FGM shows that it isn´t that bad.
Your argumentation is pretty deadly but not for me, it is deadly for yourself.
What´s your argument?? That everything which goes against our culture is alright. While not then allowing pedophilia, incest relationships, sex with animals, bestiality, e.g.???

YOu are talking rubbish. First of all, you don´t choose your culture. You are born in a society which is having a certain culture. By the way:women are the majority. So your argument of minority discrimination is rubbish especially in that respect. Since women are the majority a discrimination of woman is not minoriy discrimination but majority discrimination.
I also have to say that one of the biggest problems of our time is the outrageous demands of good organized minorities to fight for preferential and better treatment than the majority has got. One example of this outrageous development is the gay movement.

Your third point is complete rubbish. We are no bonobo monkeys. But you are obviously inable to distinguish between this specific group of monkeys and humans.
Monogamy is the rule in our culture and by the way also in other cultures. And there are good reasons for it.
But you don´t understand. You even think that gay marriage would be normal. It isn´t. It is normal for a child to have one father and one mother.
It is not normal to have to mothers or two fathers or several dozens. But due to your perversion your are not able to understand that fact.
what on earth are you talking about?

the majority rule i was refering to was your idea that because the majority of people think something that must make it right...that is not the case, and American law has never recognized such a hideous concept. even if the majority of WOMEN thought women shouldn't have the vote, it wouldn't have made that the right decision, so i have no idea what you are trying to say.

just because the majority of people in America have a certain culture doesn't mean all of us do. i personally was not raised in the same culture you aparently were, since i was raised to understand basic fact; in America, it is not the norm for a child to have one mother and one father, since the majority of American children do not live in such families. they live with single parents, or in divorced families, or in a variety of different combinations with extended family, and the number living with their biological mother and father is a minority.

my third point addressed the idea that polygamy is "unnatural" for humans, which is simply not the case. polygamy has been the status quo for humans far longer than monogamy has been, since monogamy has only existed in its present form for about the last 400 years in the Western world (and even that is a stretch, since until the last century it was customary for a "monogamous" male to have several mistresses).

if you think attention to fact is perversion then so be it, and feel free to call me the biggest of perverts. by that standard you would most certainly be as pure as the driven snow.

just because the majority of people in America have a certain culture doesn't mean all of us do. i personally was not raised in the same culture you aparently were, since i was raised to understand basic fact; in America, it is not the norm for a child to have one mother and one father, since the majority of American children do not live in such families. they live with single parents, or in divorced families, or in a variety of different combinations with extended family, and the number living with their biological mother and father is a minority.
my third point addressed the idea that polygamy is "unnatural" for humans, which is simply not the case. polygamy has been the status quo for humans far longer than monogamy has been, since monogamy has only existed in its present form for about the last 400 years in the Western world (and even that is a stretch, since until the last century it was customary for a "monogamous" male to have several mistresses).
.
Your argumentation gets poorer and poorer.
First of all: everybody has one father and one mother. Who else has created you????? I don´t think you were created in a labratory, weren´t you??
Anyway: everybody of us has one father and one mother.
And fortunately - and that is the rule - children have contact to both of their parents. Not having that or having to suffer under quarells of the parents after a divorce is very damaging for children. I´m speaking in that respect from my own experience. So: DON´T DENY THE FACTS.

Your statements regarding polgamy shows your lack of knowledge about it. Marriage is a concept which is at least several thousand years old. We don´t know what was before. You are stating dubious theories about it. And even if they would be true: What do they have to do with us today??? We are civilized people and not Bonobo monkeys. But obviously you don´t get the difference. Monogamy is the rule. Even in muslim societies monogomy is the rule and anything else a rare exception. Monogomy is common. Polygamy was NEVER common or the form of life of anybody but probably a very tiny percentage of the population. That are facts. Get your facts straight and stop talking rubbish.

Your argumentation gets poorer and poorer.
First of all: everybody has one father and one mother. Who else has created you????? I don´t think you were created in a labratory, weren´t you??
Anyway: everybody of us has one father and one mother.
And fortunately - and that is the rule - children have contact to both of their parents. Not having that or having to suffer under quarells of the parents after a divorce is very damaging for children. I´m speaking in that respect from my own experience. So: DON´T DENY THE FACTS.

Your statements regarding polgamy shows your lack of knowledge about it. Marriage is a concept which is at least several thousand years old. We don´t know what was before. You are stating dubious theories about it. And even if they would be true: What do they have to do with us today??? We are civilized people and not Bonobo monkeys. But obviously you don´t get the difference. Monogamy is the rule. Even in muslim societies monogomy is the rule and anything else a rare exception. Monogomy is common. Polygamy was NEVER common or the form of life of anybody but probably a very tiny percentage of the population. That are facts. Get your facts straight and stop talking rubbish.

if you think that the man and woman who provide the sperm and egg are always the practical parents of a child then i think we can just all throw up our hands and leave at this point. i stated the facts of family structure to you, and whether you like them or not is irrelevant. more than half of the children in America are NOT in a traditional family with their biological parents, and if you claim that only the biological parents can be healthy for a child then i would like to introduce you to my adopted cousin, who was taken from his abusive birth parents to be placed in a safer and more loving home with my aunt and uncle.

divorce is often damaging for children, true, but it is more often the lesser of two evils. parents who fight all the time are far more harmful to a child's development than those who divorce, and homes full of abuse are far more damaging than single-parent homes that have escaped an abusive spouse.

my statements on polygamy are supported by modern anthropology and historical texts, and i would love it if you could produce just one shred of evidence to support your claims. yes, the IDEA of wedding a single man to a single woman has been around a long time, but it hasn't been practiced widely for very long. in Biblical times a man customarily had several wives, and until recent years even cultures with man-woman marriages considered it customary for the man to have extramarital affairs as a matter of course. and that's just in the Western world; in other areas, like China and Japan, plural marriage and formal consorts were the rule for thousands of years before the western world even had a concept of marriage, and African tribes have practiced various forms of marriage for thousands of years longer than our current culture has even existed. historical documents give us no reason to believe that monogamous couples have been the rule for more than a few centuries at most, and even then philandering has been quite frequent.

please spend more time providing supports for your claims, and less time tossing childish insults. you are embarassing me with your rudeness and poor attention to detail, and i would really appreciate it if you would show some basic respect by participating in this debate with a bit more maturity.

The fact that our culture doesn´t allow FGM shows that it isn´t that bad.
Your argumentation is pretty deadly but not for me, it is deadly for yourself.
What´s your argument?? That everything which goes against our culture is alright. While not then allowing pedophilia, incest relationships, sex with animals, bestiality, e.g.???

Someone wasn't paying attention.


My argument was that culture isn't the end all and say all. It's often quite wrong.


Culture is meaningless when it oppresses others. Simple fact. And I love how people ALWAYS bring up bestiality and pedophilia. I swear, it's like you guys have a closet fetish or something.

Learn what the word "consent" means, then get back to me.


And fortunately - and that is the rule - children have contact to both of their parents. Not having that or having to suffer under quarells of the parents after a divorce is very damaging for children. I´m speaking in that respect from my own experience. So: DON´T DENY THE FACTS.

I'm glad you're family was so wonderful.

I've lived with my birth parents, and both of them are quite shitty. I would've much rather been put up for adoption and have never met them.


Polygamy was NEVER common or the form of life of anybody but probably a very tiny percentage of the population. That are facts.

Well bugger, guess the mormons who practice polygamy don't actually exist. Probebly some kinda anti-culture conspiracy, aye? ;)

Someone wasn't paying attention.
My argument was that culture isn't the end all and say all. It's often quite wrong.
Culture is meaningless when it oppresses others. Simple fact. And I love how people ALWAYS bring up bestiality and pedophilia. I swear, it's like you guys have a closet fetish or something.
Learn what the word "consent" means, then get back to me.
;)

I know very well what consent means. So stop your arrogance. It is because I know what consent means I´m warning everybody to be very cautious with it.
There is consent, assumed consent, invalid consent, e.g.
If you are saying: if there is consent then it is OK, then I ask you what is with euthanasia??? What is with bestiality??? What is with incestous relationship with consent????? What is with pedophilia if the child says yes???? What if a persons says that he wants to be killed and eaten by his/her sexpartner???? Ok, due to consent?????
If you reject our cultural and the moral and ethical believes which stand behind it you have to agree to all of that. If you stand for our culture and the ethical and moral concept it gives us, then you can reject it. That´s the concept of invalid consent. Invalid consent is invalid and is treated as irrelevant and non existent.
But where do you make the distinction between thinks which are legal and those which ought to be illegal although of consent??? If your are only referring to the consent itself -which you do there wouldn´t be an invalid consent (except for minors - but not in other cases).
But if you want limitations beyond that you have to go to moral and ethical believes. And those believes are coming from our culture. That´s the way it is.


I'm glad you're family was so wonderful.
I've lived with my birth parents, and both of them are quite shitty. I would've much rather been put up for adoption and have never met them.;)
No, I didn´t. I would have liked that, though. But my destiny was different. Divorce, family breakdown and long disputes between the parents and a legal battles which are now going on for more than a decade with no end at sight, that is not an experience I wish anybody to have.
I wouldn´t call that wonderful.
I get pretty angry at people who say that divorce isn´t a problem for children. That´s nonsense. Admittedly, it is a rather extreme case which I had to go through. But non the less. Up to a certain degree every child suffers under the divorce and/or the quarrels between his parents.


Well bugger, guess the mormons who practice polygamy don't actually exist. Probebly some kinda anti-culture conspiracy, aye? ;)
It is a cultural anomality which need to be understood given the context it existed. The mormons banned polygamy by the way when their state - Utah - joined the US.

I know very well what consent means. So stop your arrogance. It is because I know what consent means I´m warning everybody to be very cautious with it.
There is consent, assumed consent, invalid consent, e.g.

No argument to this part, just starting off with what you said. It's easier to include you're whole post ;)


[/quote]If you are saying: if there is consent then it is OK, then I ask you what is with euthanasia???[/quote]
I dunno, what IS with euthanasia? Seriously, I've never discussed that topic before.


What is with bestiality???

Animals cannot give their consent


What is with incestous relationship with consent?????

Birth defects


[/quote] What is with pedophilia if the child says yes????[/quote]

Children arn't old enough to make said decision. Only when they become a legal adult can they make legal decisions. In most states, this is at the age of 18.


What if a persons says that he wants to be killed and eaten by his/her sexpartner????

That's called "murder." I do believe assisted suicide is illegal.


Ok, due to consent?????

Nothing to debate here, I just want to say: lighten up on the question marks, PLEASE.


If you reject our cultural and the moral and ethical believes which stand behind it you have to agree to all of that.

Now hold on there, dear. Culture, morals, and ethics are three very different things. The only way this argument can stand water is if you somehow combine the three into one word in an attempt to confuse others. And really, with the english language, there might even BE such a word. But I digress. In short, the three arn't related.


If you stand for our culture and the ethical and moral concept it gives us, then you can reject it.

Just to reinstate, culture, ethics, and morals are three different things. Many people consider the US to be a void of culture. I myself consider the suburbs to be a kind of "culture hell," from which there is no return. Do note that morals can exist without a culture. In fact, sometimes morals and ethics exist despite a culture.


That´s the concept of invalid consent. Invalid consent is invalid and is treated as irrelevant and non existent.

Which is what children have, since they are not legal adults.


But where do you make the distinction between thinks which are legal and those which ought to be illegal although of consent???

When they become legal adults.


If your are only referring to the consent itself -which you do there wouldn´t be an invalid consent (except for minors - but not in other cases).
But if you want limitations beyond that you have to go to moral and ethical believes. And those believes are coming from our culture. That´s the way it is.

No, that's not the way it is. A person's culture can affect them positely or negatively. One of my friends is asian, and her parents have forbidden her to date anyone who isn't korean like herself. This is an example of a negative product of culture. Now, granted, others may disagree with me. However, most these people tend to be hateful and biast against one group, or have severe superiority complexes envolving their own race.



No, I didn´t. I would have liked that, though. But my destiny was different. Divorce, family breakdown and long disputes between the parents and a legal battles which are now going on for more than a decade with no end at sight, that is not an experience I wish anybody to have.
I wouldn´t call that wonderful.

Which is why I don't think it's that important for a child to be raised by his/her birth parents. Just because you can screw, doesn't mean you won't screw over your child.


I get pretty angry at people who say that divorce isn´t a problem for children. That´s nonsense. Admittedly, it is a rather extreme case which I had to go through. But non the less. Up to a certain degree every child suffers under the divorce and/or the quarrels between his parents.

I agree entirely. Which is why, once again, a person's birth parents should not be held as the highest regard in parenting. So what, they gave birth to you-that doesn't gurentee they'll raise you correctly. Honestly, this is more of an argument for my side!


It is a cultural anomality which need to be understood given the context it existed. The mormons banned polygamy by the way when their state - Utah - joined the US.

An anomality? Then it's one hell of a large anomality. In the middle east it used to be their culture to have more then one wife. Does this mean your argument has wrapped around itself?

No argument to this part, just starting off with what you said. It's easier to include you're whole post ;)

If you are saying: if there is consent then it is OK, then I ask you what is with euthanasia???[/quote]
I dunno, what IS with euthanasia? Seriously, I've never discussed that topic before.?[/QUOTE]

If you claim consent should be the main principal you have to take into account what the consequences are. Everything else is irresponsible.


[/quote] What is with pedophilia if the child says yes????[/quote]


Children arn't old enough to make said decision. Only when they become a legal adult can they make legal decisions. In most states, this is at the age of 18..?

18 is the limit in most states for voting and making economic decisions without consent of the parents. But regarding sexual relationships it is mostly not an absolute border. Otherwise a person who is 18 and 1 day old and is having sexual intercourse with a person aged 17 and 364 days would commit a crime. I don´t know US law in that respect. It may differ from state to state. But in my country it is only a crime if a over 18 year old is having a sexual relationship with an under 16 year old. Otherwise it is ok, if both are giving consent. So your argument that minors can´t give consent is only partly true. They can´t give consent to contracts if they have not only positive effects to them. That´s the so called limitted ability for business. It is due to protect minors from signing contracts which have negative effects for them. But contracts who are only positive for them (legally) can be signed by them without parental consent. So: minors can give consent. However: in many cases they need the consent of the parents as well. Only persons under 7 can´t give consent to anything. That´s the law in my country. I don´t think it is completly different in the US.
Otherwise every child which buys something from his/her pocket money would not be able to do so. It would simply be invalid.



That's called "murder." I do believe assisted suicide is illegal..
Well it is of course as illegal as polygamy. But why should it be illlegal. If you say everything for which there is consent ought to be ok., why shouldn´t that be OK?????
After all: the persons says he wants to be killed and to be eaten. Freedom of choice. Consent. So what´s the problem for you??? There is consent.


Now hold on there, dear. Culture, morals, and ethics are three very different things. The only way this argument can stand water is if you somehow combine the three into one word in an attempt to confuse others. And really, with the english language, there might even BE such a word. But I digress. In short, the three arn't related.


You are making a big mistake here.
There is no moral and no ethics without culture and cultural background. That simply doesn´t work. We don´t life in a vacuum, man.


Just to reinstate, culture, ethics, and morals are three different things. Many people consider the US to be a void of culture. .?
Come to Europe and you can see much more differences over here. The US is one culture, in many ways even a mono-culture. Many people over here would say the US doesn´t have a culture after all. I disagree with that. But the US is one nation - although as big as the continent Europe - and it has one national culture.
I like Huntingtons book "The clash of civilisations?". It is discussing this issue. Just to stress one thing: The meanings of the word culture and civilisation differ from language to language. You may apologize if I use the word culture in cases where the word civilisation would be more apropiate. It is due to my lack of knowledge of the English language that mistakes do accur.
In his book he gives a picture of the world and the cultural and historic links. He presents different theories how the post Cold war world should be looked at. From a chaos theory to (his) culural or civilisation theory.
And he groups the world in 6-7 main civilisations. Our western civilisation is one of them.
I think immigration can be a threat to our culture. I don´t want sharia law or radical islam to prosper in Europe, which unfortunately it partly does. Therefore I want to see limits on immigration and especially the cultural compatibility should be taken into account before allowing people in.
It is not a surprise that France is having the most anti-semitic hate crimes. It is not because the French are more anti-semitic than other countries. It is because members of the arab minority (-result of France colonial history in North Africa) stands behind most of those attacks). That is the truth. And due to the fact that France has the highest amounts of Arabs in their population it is no surprise that they are having the most anti-semitic crimes.
We are living in a dangerous and evil world. You have seen that on 9/11. I think the US really woke up afterwards. The illusions are gone. An experience many European countries have not made. Fortunatly on the one hand of course. But that leads to wrong conclusions in my view. And that is one of the reasons for the rift between the US and "Old Europe"


An anomality? Then it's one hell of a large anomality. In the middle east it used to be their culture to have more then one wife. Does this mean your argument has wrapped around itself?

As i have said: we are not the Middle East: we are not part of the Arab or broder Muslim civilisation. Or do you whant the stoning of gays, the amputation of hands for stealing, the death penalty for many crimes and other aspects of sharia law being introduced to the US????? By the way. In reality even there it is a rare exception. Some muslim countries (Turkey, Tunesia) have banned polygamy by the way).

Dude, why are you linking homosexuality (unavoidably biological) together with controversial lifestyle choices like polygamy/group sex plus the crime of incest?

Homosexuality in itself has *nothing* in common with these other things you mentioned, and you know this very well. Shame on you.Homosexuality = Person A wanting/having sex with Person B
Polyandry/gamy/amory/etc. = Person A wanting/having sex with Persons B+

Where's the difference? If you love someone then you love 'em. How's that not "natural"?

Polygamy is unacceptable. It is against the law and ought to remain against the law.Laws change, happily. :D

Can you cite any evidence to support this claim?The number of affairs so-called monogamous people participate in?

Also, I suggest you go read some of the following:

What Psychology Professionals Should Know About Polyamory (http://www.polyamory.org/~joe/polypaper.htm)
Polyamory? What, like, two girlfriends? (http://www.xeromag.com/fvpoly.html)
What is Polyamory? (http://www.polyamorysociety.org/page6.html)
alt.polyamory home page (http://www.polyamory.org/)
Polyamory Awareness and Acceptance Ribbon Campaign (http://www.bee.net/cardigan/PAARC/)
Our Little Quad:Polyamory for the Practical (http://www.ourlittlequad.com/)

You wanna watch out 'cause we're coming to take over your world!!!! Bwahahahahahaaaa... ;)

I think if they're going to allow polygamy, they should allow the practice of polyandry too.

As for same-sex marriages, who is it actually hurting?

The incestuous marriages, while good enough for the industrial/political dynasties of the world, are not something I'd ever like to think about. Still, if the Rothschilds can get away with it, and the Vanderbilts, someone must think it's ok.