Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not really for legalized polygamy. But since gay marriage is legal, regarding the "fairness" argument, I don't really agree. Polygamy can be exploitative, so it's not really completely analogous to gay marriage.
Any marriage can be exploitative. Spouses can be controlled by a dominant partner through physical of psychological means.
OK, I will type very slowly for you.... Or more accurately I will try to knock away some of that "multicultural and politically correct" (but factually and intellectually dishonest) "education" you received.
Assuming 50/50 sex ratios at birth, and infant mortality conquered for both sexes, you have as many men coming of age as you do women.
And likewise, you have as many heterosexual men coming of age as you have heterosexual women, if people are really "born that way" (cue Lady Gaga music)
If even a few men can start having harems of women in such a society, there will be a disproportionate number of men adversely affected. Math is a stubborn thing, indeed.
Lacking helpmate spouses and a focus upon the future that having children gives to normal people, these affected men will fall behind societally and economically, or they just won't care about the future as much, since they won't be thinking of their family futures. They will be less likely to build, to vote to fund a school, to establish endowments for children and future generations since no lady ever took care of their personal physical endowment. They will also be more crime and violence prone.
The future of such a society, compared to a monogamous one? Bleak. There is a reason the West powered ahead of Islam, and the more traditional family Far East is now powering ahead of an increasingly family unstable West for the same reason.
Which are not happy futures. "Brave New World", "A.I.", and "THX 1138" were dystopias, remember?
More biological realities: One man *can* impregnate and father children of many different women at the same time. One woman can only have one man's baby one at a time, or maybe twins, etc.
And men are not keen on paying for anotherman's children. Maury Povich (DNA says "YOU ARE (NOT) THE FATHER!") and others have made lurid daytime TV show careers around this fact.
But let us look at the Nine Alternatives this article describes:
1. First, this assumes Great Depression poverty. Hardly a happy situation. Second, communes didn't work--those of us who lived even as kids in the 1970's know this. No one is going to look out for a kid as strongly as his/her own mom and dad.
2. Not really radical at all--A longer living extended family is STILL a monogamous extended family of the same blood relatives. Daddy is still NOT going to tolerate (Great) Grandpa diddling Mommy.
But a whole mess of people all under the same roof, again, assumes a more impoverished Great Depression future. Situations like this were more common in the 1930's--ask your still living grandparents if you have them.
3. This assumes affluence enough to indulge in gender mutiliation. Decadent Prosperity might beat a Great Depression Future, but the Kardashians-Jenners are there to be laughed at, not emulated. And please don't tell me you buy the Big Lie that gender mutilated people are actually "changing".
4. Dolly the Sheep didn't live very long did she? Clones start out older. Not a happy future either.
5. "A.I." was, again, a dystopia, remember?
6. Meanwhile, here on Earth....
7. As the experience with #4 Dolly showed, people still have a life span.
8. Such mind connections are much more likely among blood relatives.
9. If we ever achieve this kind of immortality, well, that's a whole different ballgame.
Your right about the men who would be left out in a polygamist society. Those types of paternalistic societies end up rewarding the few who have the money to accumulate wives and land to support them. Those left out end up unhappy and destitute. Eventually they may become violent in an effort to overturn the society which has left them in this condition. Even when you read about these societies in history there are stories of second sons murdering their brothers or fathers in order to get their piece of the pie. Societies like that should never be seen as a model, but rather a warning. Polygamy is a destructive activitiy.
Any marriage can be exploitative. Spouses can be controlled by a dominant partner through physical of psychological means.
True. But I think it's a bit more problematic with polygamy. I wonder how often all parties truly want it. It's in our nature, after all, to be possessive and jealous of our partners being with someone else.
Um, are you seriously denying that Christianity is the religion this country was built upon? Do we not have "In God we Trust" written on our money? And do you think that God they're talking about is Allah? "To the republic, for which it stands, one nation, UNDER GOD"? Does the Oklahoma Statehouse not have the Ten Commandments in monument form on its property?
Marriage is a civil matter, not a religious one. It is in essence a contract. Keep religion out of it, please. Churches do not issue marriage permits; the government does -- religious only perform token, and, to my eyes, meaningless ceremonies. We are a nation of laws, not religious dogma.
The issue has already been raised right here in Yellowstone County, Montana, a month or so ago.
A married man applied for a license to legally marry his common-law second wife, based on the equal rights wording of the Supreme Court decision about homosexual marriage. The county clerk, when last heard from, was waiting on a decision from the Attorney General about whether to issue the license or not.
We are still waiting.
I find it interesting that when the marriage issue was being discussed long ago, the Civil Contract was brought up as a possible solution to the marriage controversy. IIRC, the LGBT community rejected the idea, stating such a Civil Contract was "against the law".
It was OK to change the MARRIAGE laws, but changing the Civil Contract laws was not possible.
Now some are saying that changing the multiple marriage laws would be too much trouble?
Not if equal rights are involved!
The problem was that civil unions do not bestow the same rights and privileges as marriage does. It was not the LGBT community which wanted it that way.
The problem was that civil unions do not bestow the same rights and privileges as marriage does. It was not the LGBT community which wanted it that way.
This depends upon the state. In California, Governator Ah-nold signed off on "marriage in all but name". But that wasn't good enough for the Gay Activists, who were essentially demanding the redefinition of a word.
Moreover, Devil's Advocate time: SHOULD a homosexual relationship have the same rights and privileges as a traditional marriage?
Frankly, if anyone is showing "bigotry" here, it is those with the dogma that same-sex relationships deserve the *exact* same status as a marriage, whatever status they may merit, and I do understand that they deserve a legal status and legal protection, which the state of California had already well established with its domestic partnership laws.
Keep a permanent homo-sexual partner? Sure! And may you be happy. But "marry" them? Why? Marriage exists as a state of social obligation of procreating couples. It exists for no other reason. There are all sorts of different wonderful human relationships that are not covered by marriage. Nor should they be. They carry no social obligation, nor moral imperative; and should fall outside of government meddling and incentives.
Nor is this only a Judeo-Christian objection. Marriage is everywhere in every culture. It's a natural consequence of the human condition, namely mortality and procreation. And that remains true even when married couples are barren and childless. It's binary because of the binary sexes. It's necessary because of the way the next generation comes about. And it tends to be monogamous because having rootless single men, as is common in polygamous societies, causes instability and chaos. We don't have marriage just so that women or men can wear a dress or tuxedo one day in their life so that they can feel pretty.
I have no problem with polygamist marriages, because they have zero affect on my life.
What do I care if a group of adults want to get married? Have at it.
What if it did affect your life, though?
What if, say, your employer will no longer pay/subsidize the cost health insurance for spouses and families? Perhaps your co-workers with 7 spouses and 22 children each cost your employer too much. They can't exclude ONLY those spouses/children, they must exclude yours too.
This depends upon the state. In California, Governator Ah-nold signed off on "marriage in all but name". But that wasn't good enough for the Gay Activists, who were essentially demanding the redefinition of a word.
Moreover, Devil's Advocate time: SHOULD a homosexual relationship have the same rights and privileges as a traditional marriage? Frankly, if anyone is showing "bigotry" here, it is those with the dogma that same-sex relationships deserve the *exact* same status as a marriage, whatever status they may merit, and I do understand that they deserve a legal status and legal protection, which the state of California had already well established with its domestic partnership laws.
No, California RDPs are not essentially the same. California has not authority to extend any federal benefits to people with RDPs.
It has actually already been done. About four months ago - in Thailand. Two guys legally married the same gal.
Thailand had earlier adopted the same basic set of laws that the SCOTUS just created for the US.
Legally, I can't see why this wouldn't work...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or more accurately I will try to knock away some of that "multicultural and politically correct" (but factually and intellectually dishonest) "education" you received.
Um, are you seriously denying that Christianity is the religion this country was built upon? Do we not have "In God we Trust" written on our money? And do you think that God they're talking about is Allah? "To the republic, for which it stands, one nation, UNDER GOD"? Does the Oklahoma Statehouse not have the Ten Commandments in monument form on its property?
