Do you think polygamy should be legalized?

[shira]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: shira
So the primary justification for marriage is procreation? If that's true, you must also be opposed to marriages by the elderly. Or those involving men or women who are sterile. Or heterosexual couples that don't want children.

Come one, wiggle out of this one.

Yes, procreation and protection of that child.

Elderly? Probably already procreated so marriage is OK as it protects their joined offspring.
Sterile? Why are they getting married if they can't have kids?
Hetero who don't want children? Again, why would they want to be married if it goes against the very reason to be married? This is what is known as a "convenience marriage".

So can I take it you believe these marriages should not be legal?

No, no. Sorry. Not so fast. If the purpose of marriage is child-rearing, an elderly widow or widower according to you has no basis for marrying. So you think it should be illegal, right? Same for ANY couple that will not produce children in the marriage; illegal, right?

And if procreation is so darned important, why are you opposed to same-sex couples marrying and having children? Don't say it's to "protect the children" unless you have concrete evidence that the children of these relationships are significantly less well off than the children of straight couples. Link?????

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: shira
No, no. Sorry. Not so fast. If the purpose of marriage is child-rearing, an elderly widow or widower according to you has no basis for marrying. So you think it should be illegal, right? Same for ANY couple that will not produce children in the marriage; illegal, right?

And if procreation is so darned important, why are you opposed to same-sex couples marrying and having children? Don't say it's to "protect the children" unless you have concrete evidence that the children of these relationships are significantly less well off than the children of straight couples. Link?????

You're not thinking logically.

An eldery widow or widower has already procreated and their duty fulfilled to society - that's what marriage is. Another marriage would be to protect both spouses' offspring in union, hence renewing their duty and protection under law.

Remember - law is to incent good behavior and punish bad.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: shira
No, no. Sorry. Not so fast. If the purpose of marriage is child-rearing, an elderly widow or widower according to you has no basis for marrying. So you think it should be illegal, right? Same for ANY couple that will not produce children in the marriage; illegal, right?

And if procreation is so darned important, why are you opposed to same-sex couples marrying and having children? Don't say it's to "protect the children" unless you have concrete evidence that the children of these relationships are significantly less well off than the children of straight couples. Link?????

You're not thinking logically.

An eldery widow or widower has already procreated and their duty fulfilled to society - that's what marriage is. Another marriage would be to protect both spouses' offspring in union, hence renewing their duty and protection under law.

Remember - law is to incent good behavior and punish bad.

So marriage is to create kids, and then after you've created a kid they can have some bonus marriages afterwards to run up the score. This makes complete sense.

Also good to remember, an extremely important historical purpose of marriage was property rights and property transfer. With this in mind I don't think poor people should be able to get married.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: shira
No, no. Sorry. Not so fast. If the purpose of marriage is child-rearing, an elderly widow or widower according to you has no basis for marrying. So you think it should be illegal, right? Same for ANY couple that will not produce children in the marriage; illegal, right?

And if procreation is so darned important, why are you opposed to same-sex couples marrying and having children? Don't say it's to "protect the children" unless you have concrete evidence that the children of these relationships are significantly less well off than the children of straight couples. Link?????

You're not thinking logically.

An eldery widow or widower has already procreated and their duty fulfilled to society - that's what marriage is. Another marriage would be to protect both spouses' offspring in union, hence renewing their duty and protection under law.

Remember - law is to incent good behavior and punish bad.

Good and bad as decided by who?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: shira
No, no. Sorry. Not so fast. If the purpose of marriage is child-rearing, an elderly widow or widower according to you has no basis for marrying. So you think it should be illegal, right? Same for ANY couple that will not produce children in the marriage; illegal, right?

And if procreation is so darned important, why are you opposed to same-sex couples marrying and having children? Don't say it's to "protect the children" unless you have concrete evidence that the children of these relationships are significantly less well off than the children of straight couples. Link?????

You're not thinking logically.

An eldery widow or widower has already procreated and their duty fulfilled to society - that's what marriage is. Another marriage would be to protect both spouses' offspring in union, hence renewing their duty and protection under law.

Remember - law is to incent good behavior and punish bad.

You're making an assumption. First, any offspring of an elderly person getting remarried may already be fully self-sufficient adults. Or an elderly person may have no children. In either case, "protecting" offspring is irrelevant.

So I assume you think such unions should be illegal in these cases.

Edit: Also, you evaded my question about same-sex couples having children. Please provide a link of scientific studies that clearly show that children raised by same-sex couples are significantly less well off than children of opposite-sex couples.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: dullard
Didn't read the thread.

Gay marriage hurts no one. Sure, the gay couple could break up and be hurt, but that would happen with or without marriage. Gay marriage can certainly help - anything that encourages monogomany is beneficial to society as long as the relationship isn't fundamentally flawed (abusive for example).

Polygamy hurts just about everyone. The "top" men will get many, many women. That leaves very few left for you. Think about it. Suppose a society had 100 men and 102 women of dating/marring age. Each man can find a woman and almost every woman can find a man. There are 1.02 eligible women per man. Suppose the top man (he is handsome or rich or powerful or a combination) gets 5 of those women. Suppose the next top 5 men gets 3 women each. Suppose the next group of 10 top men get 2 women each. Thus, with 16 men gone, there are 5 + 5*3 + 10*2 = 40 women taken. Now what is left is 84 men and 62 women. There are now only 0.74 women per man. You have to fight for the scraps. The women are in control since they are in such high demand. Are they really going to settle for you or will they take another "top" man? Everyone is hurt.

Wrong. Polygamy helps women. Without polygamy, women would have to marry less desirable men -- drunkards, lazy unmotivated men, etc.

With polygamy, they can marry the top men who can provide better resources for their children (better health care, better daycare, etc.)

Societies have existed peacefully with polygamy -- only if there were outlet for men, e.g., brothels. Only time when polygamy was bad was when there was no outlet for the unmarried men.


Its a little know fact, but the longest running civilization, China, polygamy has existed in some form or another for most of its existence.

 

[sourceninja]

Marriage should not be a legal entity period. It is a construct of religion. If your religion wants to let you marry homsexual cows, that should be perfectly fine. We only need laws to protect people from harm. Beyond that we should keep the hell out of it.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: spidey07
The trend IS NOT toward legalizing gay marriage. In fact the trend is strongly against it. It is your very question as to why the trend is strongly against gay marriage as that line of thinking leads to marrying whatever the hell you want. That is wrong. So very, very wrong.

Polygamy, gay marriage, having kids out of wedlock are all the same - they are wrong. Do not allow this behavior or line of thinking.

Would you say the same thing if you were born gay?

Nobody is born gay. It's a freaking choice. And if you're born gay that is natural selection saying "you don't get to play in the gene pool or influence a child". aka, marriage.

10% of all animals are gay. Shows how little you know about the science of animal sexuality.

Animals don't have sex out emotions like humans. There is no reasoning when animals have sex. They have sex purely out the desire to procreate. And the 10% thing is impossible to prove. But in the animal world, every single not normal animal is usually killed off. You can make an argument, but using animals is a poor choice.

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: spidey07
The trend IS NOT toward legalizing gay marriage. In fact the trend is strongly against it. It is your very question as to why the trend is strongly against gay marriage as that line of thinking leads to marrying whatever the hell you want. That is wrong. So very, very wrong.

Polygamy, gay marriage, having kids out of wedlock are all the same - they are wrong. Do not allow this behavior or line of thinking.

Would you say the same thing if you were born gay?

Nobody is born gay. It's a freaking choice. And if you're born gay that is natural selection saying "you don't get to play in the gene pool or influence a child". aka, marriage.

10% of all animals are gay. Shows how little you know about the science of animal sexuality.

Animals don't have sex out emotions like humans. There is no reasoning when animals have sex. They have sex purely out the desire to procreate. And the 10% thing is impossible to prove. But in the animal world, every single not normal animal is usually killed off. You can make an argument, but using animals is a poor choice.

I take it you don't believe in evolution.

 

[Stoneburner]

If people agree to polygamy, why not? Isn't it all about choice?