Legalize Polygamy!

[Moonbeam]

crawling out of the caves was unnatural.

Not if the exit was under three feet high.

 

[BoberFett]

You can consent to whatever you like but to remain unconscious of the reasons is just sleep walking. Erotic cannibalism is just an invention of sickness. It's not something a conscious person could possibly be into.

There you go again, pretending to know everyone's motivation. Sad little Moonie, so afraid of life itself that he has to convince himself that he understands.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You can consent to whatever you like but to remain unconscious of the reasons is just sleep walking. Erotic cannibalism is just an invention of sickness. It's not something a conscious person could possibly be into.

How can you be so sure of that? Do you claim to be the an expert on all the things that conscious people are into? Because this sounds almost exactly like the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

 

[BoberFett]

How can you be so sure of that? Do you claim to be the an expert on all the things that conscious people are into? Because this sounds almost exactly like the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

He does actually. Moonie fancies himself the arbiter of all truth. That which he says is truth, those that agree with him are enlightened and those that disagree merely proves that he knows the truth because they are wrong simply for disagreeing with him.

It's bizarre circular logic that seems to be supported by a number of equally insane people around here.

 

[Knowing]

Great read. These Muslims/Mormons should not have to live in the shadow any longer and I see no reason not to with recent strides made for equal rights for homosexuals. It's a felony in most states now how ridiculous is that? And forget about benefits. Anyone hear of any recent cases or suits?

It appears as though a slippery slope does exist. Still, I don't care what able-minded consenting human adults do in the privacy of their own homes.

 

[SMOGZINN]

It appears as though a slippery slope does exist. Still, I don't care what able-minded consenting human adults do in the privacy of their own homes.

Slippery Slope is only a fallacy when the argument that is using it gives no, or an unsatisfactory, mechanism for the inevitability of a chain of events that lead to the conclusion.

 

[Knowing]

Slippery Slope is only a fallacy when the argument that is using it gives no, or an unsatisfactory, mechanism for the inevitability of a chain of events that lead to the conclusion.

Correct. I was keeping the language consistent for recognition purposes.

 

[Moonbeam]

He does actually. Moonie fancies himself the arbiter of all truth. That which he says is truth, those that agree with him are enlightened and those that disagree merely proves that he knows the truth because they are wrong simply for disagreeing with him.

It's bizarre circular logic that seems to be supported by a number of equally insane people around here.

Try not to be intimidated by people who know things. I am aware that you are impervious to what I see and can't in the slightest be affected by it. Of course it could be that you unconsciously know the same truth as I do and are reacting only to what you try deny to yourself. It is a known fact that the more something is denied the more the person sets themselves against that truth. Pretend instead that I, like you, can't form monogamous bonds and like to sell the idea that eating somebody for sex is really quite normal.

 

[BoberFett]

Try not to be intimidated by people who know things. I am aware that you are impervious to what I see and can't in the slightest be affected by it. Of course it could be that you unconsciously know the same truth as I do and are reacting only to what you try deny to yourself. It is a known fact that the more something is denied the more the person sets themselves against that truth. Pretend instead that I, like you, can't form monogamous bonds and like to sell the idea that eating somebody for sex is really quite normal.

See what I mean?

 

[Moonbeam]

See what I mean?

Of course and far better than you do. It's the other way round where we are having the trouble.

 

[Zebo]

Pair bonding is human. Customs follow a natural order or genetically determined behavior. This gets reflected in law. What you are requesting would therefore be unnatural.

BS moonie.

Thats the exact same arguments bigots used for years.

"Man and woman is natual order of things", "man man is unnatural" "only man an woman can perpetuate the species so it must be natural" and the rest of the bigoted tripe you speak.

You're a big fat bigot face it.

Natural is whatever behavior adults want to freely engage in. Who are you to say? Yes we draw lines at when in harms a innocent non willing participant so we can maintain a civil society.

 

[alkemyst]

What's interesting is those that are seemly pro-polygamy here, but in L&R don't believe in dating more than one woman at a time.

Polygamy when marriage is in it is the hard part in the US...our laws would need to all be revised, company benefits and the like as well.

Also in many polygamy cultures the women don't have as much real rights and the husband substantially more.

 

[hans030390]

I think consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want so long as they aren't infringing on anyone else's rights. Even though I don't think it would be for me, polygamy falls into this category.

The excuse of further complicating laws is lame and should never be used to deny rights of consenting adults.

Any other legal issues, such as child abuse (which is being tossed around a lot here for some reason), should be addressed in other laws. In other words, this would fall under the category of infringing someone else's rights...which we should already have laws covering.

I don't really see why this is so difficult for some.

 

[Moonbeam]

BS moonie.

Thats the exact same arguments bigots used for years.

"Man and woman is natual order of things", "man man is unnatural" "only man an woman can perpetuate the species so it must be natural" and the rest of the bigoted tripe you speak.

You're a big fat bigot face it.

Natural is whatever behavior adults want to freely engage in. Who are you to say? Yes we draw lines at when in harms a innocent non willing participant so we can maintain a civil society.

Obviously I am somebody who thinks he knows a bit more about human nature than you do. Like the childishly egotistical BoberFett that may not sit well with you. I don't care, I know that I know and there's nothing that I can do about it. I just maintain the truth that I see. Being a bigot in your opinion doesn't worry me. I think you are so open minded, logical rather than intuitive in your appraisal of this situation, that your brain fell out.

Yesterday while driving I spent about a half an hour of my life in misery listening to the story of women from Viet Nam who had been tricked and lied to even by fellow victims to become sex slaves or forced wives in China because of the demand for wives. There they just seek one wife which the one child policy and infanticide of girls has made impossible. As we can see from human culture in the past that have tried this bad idea, except where war has created many more women than men and women traditionally are socially so unequal as to be untrained to make a living on their own and polygamy becomes social responsibility, the typical situation is one man and many wives which will lead to the same kind maladaptive social situation with all the attendant crime and violence.

I have consistently argued against polygamy on the basis that it would not be good for folk like you because folk like me of high capacity would have all the wives.

Be careful what you wish for. You are, in your commendable desire to be open minded, failing to maintain a broad perspective of historical and social truth and the evolution of sexual equality and equal integration into the economic system.

Don't forget that many many of the women sold into prostitution China from Viet Nam are given a choice of working in a Brothel or forced marriage to a Chinese man and of course, they freely and of their own will choose the marriage. We must be fair and do nothing legally to interfere with such personal choice.

So my apologies for disagreeing with your take on things, but I do not like to live in a world full of unnecessarily created human misery and if that offends your notion of fairness, tough shit.

 

[BoberFett]

BS moonie.

Thats the exact same arguments bigots used for years.

"Man and woman is natual order of things", "man man is unnatural" "only man an woman can perpetuate the species so it must be natural" and the rest of the bigoted tripe you speak.

You're a big fat bigot face it.

Natural is whatever behavior adults want to freely engage in. Who are you to say? Yes we draw lines at when in harms a innocent non willing participant so we can maintain a civil society.

No, he's right. It's genetic to choose only one mate. That's why everyone in the US marries the first person they have sex with and stay monogamous with that person until they both die. It's genetic and natural, so it only makes sense that it becomes law.

LOL at idiots who think serial monogamy is all that different than polygamy. Even most serial monogamists have some overlap at the beginning and end of each relationship where they're cheating on the last person with the next in line.

But no, polygamy is unnatural. LOL, bigots.

 

[BoberFett]

Obviously I am somebody who thinks he knows a bit more about human nature than you do. Like the childishly egotistical BoberFett that may not sit well with you.

The irony is strong with this one.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Try not to be intimidated by people who know things. I am aware that you are impervious to what I see and can't in the slightest be affected by it.

What I don't get is why, if you are so enlightened, you keep insisting on telling other people, who by your own admission won't understand, how they are wrong.

I would think a wise man would know that there is no point in telling the rain not to fall.

 

[alkemyst]

No, he's right. It's genetic to choose only one mate. That's why everyone in the US marries the first person they have sex with and stay monogamous with that person until they both die. It's genetic and natural, so it only makes sense that it becomes law.

LOL at idiots who think serial monogamy is all that different than polygamy. Even most serial monogamists have some overlap at the beginning and end of each relationship where they're cheating on the last person with the next in line.

But no, polygamy is unnatural. LOL, bigots.

In all fairness, having sex and who you love are mutually exclusive.

I have had open relationships.

However; I don't look for that ONCE I am in a relationship.

That'd be liking putting up the perfect landscaping, having the first series of parties, and then being out in the yard fucking with it.

I like to do the work first, then enjoy it, and always nurture it.

If weeds and decay start, I will be the first to pull it all out and start over.

You can't win every battle and not all battles should ever become wars.

Polygamy is a slippery slope (to make cliches, puns).

I am not sure if most here had a threesome or not ever, but those also don't always work out the way it's planned. It's nothing like a typical porn or NC17 type affair for many. It's usually about two woman (I am not saying this is the only way) and you that they are trying to win over. Then that threesome becomes a bitch-fight and you have a bad night.

Sometimes it works out well though.

I will say women will start having their periods at the same time if you keep them together long enough.

I will not say that is good or bad though. I don't have enough data.

 

[Exophase]

What's interesting is those that are seemly pro-polygamy here, but in L&R don't believe in dating more than one woman at a time.

There's believing that something should be allowed and then there's believing something's a good idea.. Although I don't pretend to know what does and doesn't work for different people, everyone's different.

Polygamy when marriage is in it is the hard part in the US...our laws would need to all be revised, company benefits and the like as well.

Yes, and I think anyone who is genuinely interested in poly marriage would recognize this and be interested in talking about exactly how the laws should be changed to accommodate it. It's outrageous that anyone would be called a bigot just for saying that the current laws don't work and they'd have to see what the laws would be changed to before agreeing that it's appropriate.

Just imagine trying to scale the one to one model without any limits. Like where one person is married to a million other people. Then if any one of those people wants a divorce the status has to be updated, do all parties need to be involved in this? If the "primary" wants a divorce does he she or he owe 999999/1000000 of their possessions to be distributed to everyone? A real system needs to be worked out here, probably with hard or de-facto limits in how many people can get married. It's very different from extending current marriage laws to include same sex couples since nothing about the laws are gender specific outside of the barrier to entry.

Or marriage as a legal standing can be dissolved entirely. I'd personally be fine with that.

 

[BoberFett]

You're right, how could we possibly understand the division of property between more than two parties. The human mind simply can't cope with such a complex concept.

 

[BoberFett]

Oh my god, I just realized two gay fathers might adopt a child. How can the law possibly cope with determining custody when it's two men. Perhaps a woman needs to be appointed by the court to be the primary guardian with each father seeing the child every third weekend?

STOP GAY MARRIAGE RIGHT NOW! REVERSE IT! THE LAWS ARE TOO COMPLEX!

You idiots are just making excuses.

 

[alkemyst]

Zebo, other than attacking Moonbeam; what is your true Polygamy fight?

Are any of you looking to take on multiple wives?

If you are even married to one, have you asked her about inviting another woman to your bed?

Or do you not have to ask and just tell her what she must do to keep you?

 

[alkemyst]

There's believing that something should be allowed and then there's believing something's a good idea.. Although I don't pretend to know what does and doesn't work for different people, everyone's different.



Yes, and I think anyone who is genuinely interested in poly marriage would recognize this and be interested in talking about exactly how the laws should be changed to accommodate it. It's outrageous that anyone would be called a bigot just for saying that the current laws don't work and they'd have to see what the laws would be changed to before agreeing that it's appropriate.

Just imagine trying to scale the one to one model without any limits. Like where one person is married to a million other people. Then if any one of those people wants a divorce the status has to be updated, do all parties need to be involved in this? If the "primary" wants a divorce does he she or he owe 999999/1000000 of their possessions to be distributed to everyone? A real system needs to be worked out here, probably with hard or de-facto limits in how many people can get married. It's very different from extending current marriage laws to include same sex couples since nothing about the laws are gender specific outside of the barrier to entry.

Or marriage as a legal standing can be dissolved entirely. I'd personally be fine with that.

well said.

If people that want their fight to be heard, actually lived it and spoke to it rather than fight; they may have more listeners. However; I am thinking it's all about the herd talking here about whatever they saw on their "morning feed".

Personally, Polygamy is legal where I am at. I can be married and fuck whoever I want, whenever I want and no one will arrest me.

I can't marry all of them, but I don't want to.

 

[Exophase]

You're right, how could we possibly understand the division of property between more than two parties. The human mind simply can't cope with such a complex concept.

Did I say that it can't be done or can't be understood? No. I said that if you're really interested you'd want to start talking about exactly how the laws should be changed. Instead of deflecting by saying, well it'd be kind of like other stuff you can do right now right?

But clearly you're not interested, this is just a talking point to make liberal pro-gay marriage supporters look like hypocrites, so you can shove in the face that omg they're the bigots!

Oh my god, I just realized two gay fathers might adopt a child. How can the law possibly cope with determining custody when it's two men. Perhaps a woman needs to be appointed by the court to be the primary guardian with each father seeing the child every third weekend?

STOP GAY MARRIAGE RIGHT NOW! REVERSE IT! THE LAWS ARE TOO COMPLEX!

You idiots are just making excuses.

Exactly my point. Another stupid comparison, because adoption regulation laws have no gender specific component. And I'm not being an idiot nor am I making excuses - I already said, if it were up to me I'd do away with the legal concept of marriage entirely. And I have zero issue whatsoever with people engaging in poly relationships.

 

[Zebo]

Zebo, other than attacking Moonbeam; what is your true Polygamy fight?

Are any of you looking to take on multiple wives?

If you are even married to one, have you asked her about inviting another woman to your bed?

Or do you not have to ask and just tell her what she must do to keep you?

Nope been married 21 years and she alone owns my ass and moon knows I defended gay rights as well whole time in these forums too. I'm just consistent and believe in liberty for all and it's amusing to ferret out hypocrites.

Moon I reply later to you had a big post type and hit escape and it all got delete and pissed me off and I gotta go.