Gay Marriage versus Polygamy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-05-2013, 10:52 AM
RE: Gay Marriage versus Polygamy
If it's between two (or more in this case) consenting adults, who gives a fuck?
Seriously, what concern is it of you? Why do you feel that your government needs to "control" other people in your society when it has nothing to do with you?
If a bunch of Arabs wanna get together for a giant orgy every night, then let them!

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2013, 11:25 AM
RE: Gay Marriage versus Polygamy
About gay marriage and polygamy.

It's not that there is any logical progression, it's that the tactics used to secure the legalization of gay marriage are generally applicable to any social change good or bad.

As Mark Steyn once pointed out. polygamy has a bigger constituency world wide.

Nonsense is nonsense, but the history of nonsense is a very important science.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: Gay Marriage versus Polygamy
Why is the government involved in deciding who can marry who? I think it none of their business. Polygamy if it works for you, and you, and you...

I think it none of my business who does what with their private parts.
I would draw the line at a minor only.
No Mohammed, not the 9 year old.

Islamist also eat rice. Maybe we should stop eating rice because it may appear that we are supporting sharia law.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thomas's post
26-05-2013, 02:58 PM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2013 03:03 PM by amyb.)
RE: Gay Marriage versus Polygamy
Quote:con's
- babies out the wah-zoo. The women on that show had a BUNCH of kids, each. That has to be bad for the planet.
-cody was an ass
#1-That's assuming the group (I almost said "couple..") wants children. Birth control is a thing, you know? It's possible that some might be religious people against birth control, though, yes.
#2-That's a good reason not to marry Kody.

Some of the other points raised seemed to suggest you'd end up with a lot of group marriages, and I doubt that would be the case. I think most humans are interested in monogamous 2-person relationships, it would only be an issue with people wanting group marriage already; possibly many of these people are already in a group relationship, but it's just not legally recognized.

As long as it involved consenting adults, I don't give a fuck what people do. I'd rather there were less tax breaks and perks for married people, in general, though, because I think it's unfair to people who don't want to get married, but that's another topic.

I agree with others who said the thing about Islam not making much sense.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2013, 12:02 AM
RE: Gay Marriage versus Polygamy
I support a consenting individual's right to partake in either.

[Image: bmHWg.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2013, 09:23 AM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2013 03:34 AM by Averroes.)
RE: Gay Marriage versus Polygamy
(26-05-2013 02:43 PM)Thomas Wrote:  Why is the government involved in deciding who can marry who? I think it none of their business. Polygamy if it works for you, and you, and you...

I think it none of my business who does what with their private parts.
I would draw the line at a minor only.
No Mohammed, not the 9 year old.

Islamist also eat rice. Maybe we should stop eating rice because it may appear that we are supporting sharia law.

I now feel that my original post should have been worded better. I should have made it "gay marriage versus group marriage" instead of "gay marriage versus polygamy" - to make clear that the question isn't supposed to be about any sexual practice, but rather about redefining the word marriage once again (or not) in terms of law. While engaging in an orgy is a private thing that is indeed no-one else's bussiness, redefining marriage is a public thing that affects the whole legal system and structure of society. Unlike eating rice :-)

I agree that we (I) shouldn't be opposed to it only beacuse of xenophoby. I therefore inquire whether there are rational reasons to oppose it; if not, I will change my mind. But if we on the other hand find that there are indeed sound reasons to oppose it, we should, no matter how many accusations of cultural intolerance may come. All I am saying, let's sort out our values with clear head, before we are pressured anywhere.

Points that have occured to me or that I have come across so far:
1)legal complications
It would be rather challenging to balance our legal system accordingly, so that it is just and can't be exploited (more than now). However, if something is in itself right, bureaucratic and judicial hardships alone shouldnt prevent us from doing it.

2)effects on society
Another question is, whether the way it would affect our society is desirable. The counterargument about consenting adults isn't enough. For example, if I make heroin in my home lab and start selling it in the street to consenting adults, even warning them honestly about all the health risks, I'll still get a long prison sentence, and I think rightly so. The consent of adults isn't the only aspect. The effects on society as a whole also count. The tricky thing is admittedly that the notion of what is good for society may be ambiguous or subjective in some cases, but that doesnt mean we should leave it out of our discourse. As Sam Harris said, "there are many different things to eat, but there is nevertheless a clear distinction between food and poison".

3)Practical inequality
I think that it is a fact that if polygyny were legalized, it would be used almost exclusively by men (having multiple wives). The reason is a biological one: a husband with X wives can produce X children in one year. From an evolutionary perspective, the man is a superwinner and gets X children, while for a woman, the number of other wives in the relationship is in terms of number of her offsprings irrelevant, she still gets her one child per year (but there are other drawbacks for her, like having to share the resources, danger of being ostracised...). On the other hand, one woman with X husbands produce 1 child per year, and X-1 husbands end up on the evolutionary dump. Therefore, men are very unlikely to accept a relationship where other men are present (based not on reason but on emotions of course, but it is this logical principle that has via evolution given rise to these emotions). Contrary to that, the first type of group relationship (1 man, X women) is extremely beneficial for the man, so he is likely to force it on his wife(s)-to-date. It is very unlikely that the wife would be equally keen on taking on another woman in the relationship. So, although group marriage may be egalitarian in the court of law, it is almost bound not to be egalitarian in practice. Another downside would be that we would get many more deprived males ready to do anything to get laid. That cant lead to any good.

4) "it happens anyway"
We may say that participating in group sex or having mistresses is already arguably quite common, so would it be such a huge change? Yes, it would. Group sex or mistresses are not exactly something you flaunt, it is still against a "norm". If a man insisted on getting a bunch of other wives, I think most western women would break up with him. Legalizing polygyny would give him official backing and put women in a rather difficult situation.

To sum all up, I believe I have found what the fundamental difference between gay marriage and group marriage is. Seems quite obvious now, really:

1)to approve of gay marriage means to get rid of ignorance (thinking that being gay is sinful, matter of choice etc). It puts those born into minority on the same level with the rest.
2)If I were gay, I would percieve it as good for me.
3)It affects small number of people, men/women inequality and tension in society will not be affected.

X

1)to approve of group marriage means to give a freebie to male sex drive.
2)if I were a woman, I would percieve it as unambiguously bad for me.
3)It would eventually profoundly affect the whole society. The removal of constraints on male libido would create differences in mating opportunities, which are far more combustive than differences in wealth distribution. Furthermore, it practically leads to marrital relationships that are very likely to be inequal, no matter what the actual wording of the bill would be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: