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.
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.
^ Oh, brother.
--------------------------------------
There is little rigor in your "slowly-typed" and casually bolded baseless assertions. There is no actual math beyond kindergarten-level, and no supporting links or references. A dollop of doom and gloom, some lazy slippery slope, a dash of bigotry (or was that more than a dash?). You haven't even defined "a small number."
Then you go on to "helpmate spouses," "normal people," how essential squirting out offspring is, and how devastating it is that "...no lady ever took care of their personal physical endowment..." Ugh.
You make many assumptions about life and ratios in 2015, let alone many decades into the future, and you crassly dismiss the possibility of even occasional (i.e. "a small number" of) polyandrous contracts now or in the future. You ignore current dynamics such as pre-marital and extra-marital sex, happily child-free couples, same sex couples, divorces, asexual or platonic or celibate individuals, those who choose not to marry, those who don't pair-bond by choice or by circumstance, unwanted children, children born out of wedlock, etc. None of these elements are throwing off the careful synchronicity of 1 female for every 1 male? Kind of hard to take seriously.
One wonders what you would have been arguing against were you around fifty or sixty years ago.
I didn't even say you were completely wrong in your initial post on the subject. Far from it. It was an interesting take. I said that "even a small number" throwing the world off its axis (leading to a precious vagina shortage) seemed a little much, and that I didn't think it would be widespread (and that doing away with additional financial benefit would be helpful), and that totally dismissing the idea of polyandry and bi-sexual contracts seemed short-sighted. But now you just sound like you have an agenda.
--------------------------------------
I think polygamy and polyandry and contracted polyamory is coming anyway. Maybe you and I will both be dead by then, who knows...
--------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967
...men are not keen on paying for another man's children...
The potential 100 years in the future scenario I briefly outlined is a little different than what goes on on daytime talk television, wouldn't you admit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967
1. First, this assumes Great Depression poverty.
I don't believe it does. It's a possible trend. It probably does assume some economic hardships. Did you think the future was going to be a utopia of hetero monogamy? Perhaps some people of the future will be more social, perhaps they won't be such self-centered materialistic jerks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967
2. Not really radical at all--A longer living extended family is STILL a monogamous extended family of the same blood relatives.
So?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967
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".
This is simply rolleyes-worthy. Gender is fluid, and will be much more so into the future, after you're dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967
4. Dolly the Sheep didn't live very long did she? Clones start out older. Not a happy future either.
I don't think I said these were all utopic visions of the future, and neither did the article, but I think cloned humans at some point are inevitable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967
5. "A.I." was, again, a dystopia, remember?
So? Computers double in several key measures of power and speed and storage every two or three years. Let's say it slows down and happens only every five years. In 100 years computers, AI, etc. would be one million times more capable than they are today. I did not say this was a glowy happy possibility. What are you going to do, halt the progress of software and hardware?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967
6. Meanwhile, here on Earth...
You don't think there will be a generation of humans who have never been to Earth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967
7. As the experience with #4 Dolly showed, people still have a life span.
Yah, and? Oh, and as the experience with #2 showed, that is being worked on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967
8. Such mind connections are much more likely among blood relatives.
You wish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967
9. If we ever achieve this kind of immortality, well, that's a whole different ballgame.
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.
Yes, but with the advent of employer-required insurance, Obamacare, etc. employers are no longer required (and many are choosing to opt out) to provide spousal medical care. There would have to be legislation that indicates plural marriage child coverage. And besides, it's not like employers don't charge employees more for family coverage. They could easily say Employee, Employee+1, Employee+2, etc. and charge accordingly.
Your arguments are, honestly, rather weak. Just as weak as saying that homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed because the couple can't naturally procreate. As that is now out the window within the next 20 years it is quite possible that plural marriage and incestuous marriage will become legal, the latter probably within 5-10 years.
Another change that I can see happening is time-bound marriage. You choose to marry not "until death do us part" but for a specified time that can be renewed - or not.
It is amusing watching gay marriage proponents scrambling to convince themselves and the world that they haven't opened up a giant can of worms here. lol
At this point the question of whether or not plural marriage is going to become legal in our society is a question of when, not if. Some of the people in this very thread who are arguing against it will be the same people mercilessly mocking and shaming anyone who is against the idea in a few months or years time. Maybe you'll even try to get people fired from their jobs for speaking out against it on twitter or facebook, or donate to a Go Fund Me account of a plural family group's legal fund as they try to sue the bakery who refuses to bake them a cake.
Gay people succeeded in their movement partly because they successfully convinced enough Americans that, except for the fact that they enjoy intercourse with the same sex, they are the same as the rest of us. When that happened, then it was a fairly simple 14th amendment argument.
Polygamists tend to be.... well.... usually people involved in cults or at the very least in some kind of out-of-mainstream religion. I suppose they could try the same thing gay people did but I don't see it going easily. They have no natural constituency. Gay people were helped by having a more natural constituency of support among hardcore liberals and some libertarians that was on their side from the beginning. Over time that became most of the Democrats, then moderates, and pretty soon it was only a minority of religious conservatives against it.
Polygamists are going to get it from all sides - they've got few allies.
Personally I would have no problem with legalizing plural marriage, though. It seems to follow that if we're going to relax the definition of marriage for gay people - "we don't judge you based on who you love" etc... - then it should count for more unorthodox situations as well.
However, whenever I've watched the reality shows about plural marriage it just seems.... a little too convenient for the husband..... he always gives the newer, younger, thinner wife more attention. I can't imagine that is going to sell with most American women.
Yes, but with the advent of employer-required insurance, Obamacare, etc. employers are no longer required (and many are choosing to opt out) to provide spousal medical care. There would have to be legislation that indicates plural marriage child coverage. And besides, it's not like employers don't charge employees more for family coverage. They could easily say Employee, Employee+1, Employee+2, etc. and charge accordingly.
Sure, some don't. Some do, though. I'm thinking back to the time when I was married to a sheriff's deputy. No cost at all to employee for covering spouse and children. So, why not have him "marry" all of my friends and relatives, too? They can all get excellent health coverage. And a sweet pension check for life. How long will it take for people to figure this out? Not long. Why stop there? Why not offer to "marry" any member of the public and let them have the same sweet deal, perhaps for money or a two-week vacation at their beach house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markjames68
Your arguments are, honestly, rather weak.
I don't think they are. I have only mentioned a few. People can engage in strategic polygamy to use all sorts of laws to their advantage. For example, I can avoid paying tax on my estate by marrying my son-in-law. When I die, everything would pass indirectly to my daughter, no tax at all. (In truth, my estate is not large enough to worry about estate tax. But some people's are.) So, either government will give up on taxing estates, or they will no longer allow property to pass from one spouse to another free of tax.
In my opinion, once strategic polygamy begins, special rights, privileges, and loopholes for legally married spouses will end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markjames68
Just as weak as saying that homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed because the couple can't naturally procreate.
I agree that is a weak argument, but it is not at all the argument I am making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markjames68
As that is now out the window within the next 20 years it is quite possible that plural marriage and incestuous marriage will become legal, the latter probably within 5-10 years.
Another change that I can see happening is time-bound marriage. You choose to marry not "until death do us part" but for a specified time that can be renewed - or not.
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.
Where did I say we SHOULD consider religion when making marriage laws? I'm saying that we already have/are, because our intolerance to the idea of gay marriage AND polygamy both come from Christian values. We have now changed that for gay marriage, it's logical we could, sometime in the future, change it for polygamy as well. And we should.
Nowhere in that part of my post you quoted was I even discussing promoting bringing religion into marriage. Reading comprehension is a must...
^ Oh, brother.
--------------------------------------
There is little rigor in your "slowly-typed" and casually bolded baseless assertions. There is no actual math beyond kindergarten-level, and no supporting links or references. A dollop of doom and gloom, some lazy slippery slope, a dash of bigotry (or was that more than a dash?). You haven't even defined "a small number."
Ah yes, because realistic human nature for most people is "bigotry". Oh brother indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
Then you go on to "helpmate spouses," "normal people," how essential squirting out offspring is, and how devastating it is that "...no lady ever took care of their personal physical endowment..." Ugh.
You can't face the reality of who is on the top and who is on the bottom in polygamous societies, can you?
Nor can you face the fact that most people do have a procreative impulse, most people being heterosexual and all that.
Again, nothing wrong with not being in such a normal model--it isn't for everyone, but it is for *most people*. I meant normal as in Statistics. Even at the grossly inflated 10% figure, that's still the case.
But I guess statistics are "bigotry" to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
You make many assumptions about life and ratios in 2015, let alone many decades into the future, and you crassly dismiss the possibility of even occasional (i.e. "a small number" of) polyandrous contracts now or in the future. You ignore current dynamics such as pre-marital and extra-marital sex, happily child-free couples, same sex couples, divorces, asexual or platonic or celibate individuals, those who choose not to marry, those who don't pair-bond by choice or by circumstance, unwanted children, children born out of wedlock, etc. None of these elements are throwing off the careful synchronicity of 1 female for every 1 male? Kind of hard to take seriously.
Your "current dynamics" either:
1. don't change the ultimate endgame for most people statistically (premarital sex)
2. are tragic and sad (divorce, unwanted children, children born out of wedlock--almost guaranteed poverty statistically there). Like Polygamy, these are cautions to be avoided and not celebrated.
3. are piddingly trivial to the point of miniscule (asexual or platonic or celibate individuals)
And even when they are not, such elements will be trivial to what normalized polygamy will unleash, and has in fact unleashed in Muslim Africa and the Middle East. Empirical history and all that. I guess that is "bigotry" too....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
One wonders what you would have been arguing against were you around fifty or sixty years ago.
Ah yes, the usual smear insinuation of the Left....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
I didn't even say you were completely wrong in your initial post on the subject. Far from it. It was an interesting take. I said that "even a small number" throwing the world off its axis (leading to a precious vagina shortage) seemed a little much, and that I didn't think it would be widespread (and that doing away with additional financial benefit would be helpful), and that totally dismissing the idea of polyandry and bi-sexual contracts seemed short-sighted. But now you just sound like you have an agenda.
And you don't? Or perhaps you unwittingly don't, which is sadder still, because others pushing agendas very much do, and you don't realize it.
Some of us are just *pushing back*, before society goes off the cliff. Polygamy will be a leap off the cliff. Same sex "marriage" not so much, assuming even numbers of those "born that way".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
The potential 100 years in the future scenario I briefly outlined is a little different than what goes on on daytime talk television, wouldn't you admit?
Try paying for child support for someone else's kids and get back to me. Reality and all that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
It probably does assume some economic hardships. Did you think the future was going to be a utopia of hetero monogamy? Perhaps some people of the future will be more social, perhaps they won't be such self-centered materialistic jerks.
Let's get real. When they can, people do like to move out from under their parent's roof, no matter how loving the family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
This is simply rolleyes-worthy. Gender is fluid, and will be much more so into the future, after you're dead.
No, it's a silly debate. And you are just trolling and baiting. Gays only wanted what others have.
. . .
"This country is based on monogamy, and if the Muslims want to follow their Sharia laws and keep multiple wives, then they can move to a Muslim country that allows lt. We have a two spouse system, for both gay and straight people. That's it."
Funny that same argument could have been used thirty years in the debates about Gay Marriages. Pandora's Box has been opened. Look for people wanting all kinds of "weird" marriages in the future. SCOTUS essentially ruled that MORAL standards CANNOT be used to settle Law. I predict (if this country lasts that long) that in 20 years Incest, Polygamy and Bestiality will be Legal. We crossed the slippery slope a few weeks ago.
Wow, I only took a few hours away from my computer, and got 9 pages It must be an interesting debate.
I know I cannot answer to everybody, but here are some of my thoughts.
a) I was amazed to see that there's an argument against polygamy/polyandry. I think that "marriage is between 2 persons only argument" has a decent fighting chance in the Supreme Court. I did not see it coming when originally created my post.
b) I think that with all the recent redefinition of what a marriage is, the opposite argument that why 1 person cannot be married to more than 1 person, has a decent fighting chance either.
c) I think that institute of marriage needs to be reconsidered in leu of "domestic contract", where terms of marriage, divorce, child custody and spousal/child support during/ and after marriage to be spelled out in great details. I even consider that there could be templates of such contracts for "traditional christian marriage", "traditional muslim mrriage", "gay/lesbian arriage", etc. And any parties of such contract should be able to modify such contract and deviate it from the template (with consensus of all parties) based on their personal beliefs and visions of marriage. We do have prenupital agreements already. It probably can be done now, as long as it's just a contract between all interested parties and is not called "marriage". As far as tax code, I think it should not provide greater or lesser amount of tax credits and deductions based on "married" status alone, it can be reasonably made proportional to number of adults (certain amount of tax exemptions per number of people on tax return) and number of children (extra child credits). I think that it is unfair that a gay couple can get extra tax deductions because they are married, than unmarried couple living together.
d) I don't insist on polygamy. I have no objections to 2 guys to marry 1 girl. I actually think that as transgender folks are growing more vocal in society, they might be more than willing to go to a marriage as another "guy" (technically), but serving a role of second wife. I can see any crazy configurations of family and not opposed to any of those as long as every partner is OK with it, or have the right to leave it.
e) I don't think government should play any role in marriage. But there's a legitimate concern in enforcing child support rules.
f) I am personally married, but never asked government for marriage certificate. We live together for 10 years, have common children, our finances are more or less equally divided (well, my wife controls all the savings, but would we really have anything big, we could form a trust and deal with financials too) and we did not need governments permission to live together. Moreover, my wife was legally married to another guy through the first years of our marriage, and so was I (our marriages were over, but divorce process can be really lengthy).
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.
It must be an interesting debate.
