Polyamory and Marriage

[chucky2]

Huh? I don't see any word perversions going on.

? We already have people calling gay "marriage" marriage, when it is in fact not marriage but gays joining. The narrative, as intentioned and designed, has been changed so now the idiot young along with all the older Bleeding Hearts actually believe that it's OK for gays to "marry". How can they marry when marriage applies to hetero couples only? Doh!

So, Yes, we already have a perversion of the understanding of the word marriage. We can now call bushes tress, we can refer to clear water as mud, etc. It's precisely the same thing, much to the distress of those who wish it not so.

This thread is just the natural extension of the perversion. Completely predictable.

 

[randomrogue]

? We already have people calling gay "marriage" marriage, when it is in fact not marriage but gays joining. The narrative, as intentioned and designed, has been changed so now the idiot young along with all the older Bleeding Hearts actually believe that it's OK for gays to "marry". How can they marry when marriage applies to hetero couples only? Doh!

So, Yes, we already have a perversion of the understanding of the word marriage. We can now call bushes tress, we can refer to clear water as mud, etc. It's precisely the same thing, much to the distress of those who wish it not so.

This thread is just the natural extension of the perversion. Completely predictable.

With this kind of logic there would be no interracial marriage.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Chucky2 --

Is it perverted for a 45-year-old man to want to marry a 13-year-old girl?

 

[nehalem256]

With this kind of logic there would be no interracial marriage.

Actually there are a number of states in which interracial marriage has never been illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States

Which should make it clear why comparing interracial marriage to SSM or polyamory is an unfair comparison. Interracial marriage has never been regarded as "NOT marriage", but as a form of marriage that is wrong.

 

[soulcougher73]

? We already have people calling gay "marriage" marriage, when it is in fact not marriage but gays joining. The narrative, as intentioned and designed, has been changed so now the idiot young along with all the older Bleeding Hearts actually believe that it's OK for gays to "marry". How can they marry when marriage applies to hetero couples only? Doh!

So, Yes, we already have a perversion of the understanding of the word marriage. We can now call bushes tress, we can refer to clear water as mud, etc. It's precisely the same thing, much to the distress of those who wish it not so.

This thread is just the natural extension of the perversion. Completely predictable.

Oh sorry i misunderstood. Please continue with your strawmen. I wont respond to strawmen arguements.

 

[chucky2]

With this kind of logic there would be no interracial marriage.

Total strawman, as we addressed in prior threads. A white man and black woman, or a black man and white woman, are still a male and female being married. Not comparable.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Chucky2 --

Is it perverted for a 45-year-old man to want to marry a 13-year-old girl?

Of course, because she's what society considers underage and is not an adult. When she's 18, then it'd be fine (although certainly not advisable unless she actually knew what she was doing and was doing it for a reason).

 

[chucky2]

Oh sorry i misunderstood. Please continue with your strawmen. I wont respond to strawmen arguements.

No strawman at all. That is exactly what people who think that gays can actually be married are saying. A bush is close enough to a tree to call the bush a tree. Since mud contains what at some point was clear water, it's close enough to call mud clear water. Think about how preposterous it would be when a kid covered in mud exclaims: 'I'm covered in clear water!' We would immediately laugh, then correct him. Society has been engineered to accept gay couples as the equal of hetero couples, thereby perverting the socially accepted understanding and meaning of marriage. If this is acceptable to society, then we can just change long understood words to mean basically anything. Heck, I'm not stealing this item, I'm purchasing it! Amazing new world we live in...just whine long enough, social engineer the dumb young long enough, and you too can have your way. Brilliance...

Chuck

 

[SMOGZINN]

No strawman at all. That is exactly what people who think that gays can actually be married are saying. A bush is close enough to a tree to call the bush a tree.

No, we are saying that gay marriage is EXACTLY the same as any other marriage. There is no difference, at all.
It is not that it is close enough, it is the same.

Society has been engineered to accept gay couples as the equal of hetero couples, thereby perverting the socially accepted understanding and meaning of marriage. If this is acceptable to society, then we can just change long understood words to mean basically anything.

Gay couples ARE equal to hetero couples. You are trying to tell society that ONLY your definition of marriage is the correct one. That it MUST be seen though your prejudiced colored glasses to be understood. You and only you get to decide who is better then others, what is acceptable.
Millions of other people believe in a different definition then you, but somehow only YOURS is correct.

What is really going on is society is telling you that YOU don't get to define marriage.
I know that scares you. You think that if you are not the one to tell us what things mean we might just go around calling mud clean water. But we are not the ones that believe in the absurd, you are.

 

[chucky2]

No, we are saying that gay marriage is EXACTLY the same as any other marriage. There is no difference, at all.
It is not that it is close enough, it is the same.

Yes, you're saying that, but it is not so. Two men "marrying" is not the same as a man and a woman marrying. Just the same that clear water + clear water is not the same and dirt + clear water. A man is not a woman, and a woman is not a man.

Gay couples ARE equal to hetero couples. You are trying to tell society that ONLY your definition of marriage is the correct one. That it MUST be seen though your prejudiced colored glasses to be understood. You and only you get to decide who is better then others, what is acceptable.
Millions of other people believe in a different definition then you, but somehow only YOURS is correct.

I never said better, I said different. My definition of marriage is the correct one, backed up by multiple societies across thousands of years. Yours is from the past, what, 50 years of Western society by whining people and Bleeding Hearts? Color me not impressed. Gay couples are not equal to hetero couples, unless you want to take the position that a bush is also a tree, that clear water is the same as mud. Am I correct in that is the position you are taking?

What is really going on is society is telling you that YOU don't get to define marriage.
I know that scares you. You think that if you are not the one to tell us what things mean we might just go around calling mud clean water. But we are not the ones that believe in the absurd, you are.

It doesn't "scare" me at all. I just find it laughable that people are being duped into perverting a term that has been understood across multiple cultures for thousands of years out of pure social engineering. I am part of society. I get to define marriage however I want it defined. Everyone part of this society will do the same, and the chips will fall where they may. I've stated in past threads, the gays and Bleeding Hearts have won: Gay couples are looked at by the younger generations as equal to hetero couples - the perversion is complete. That doesn't make it correct, at least in the non-perverted sense, but it does make it a win. And, if you're on the perverted side of the fence, that's certainly good enough for now. By virtue of a few decades of continued perversion, the future will take care of itself.

Rejoice! Here, have an apple from the apple bush here, but don't get your shoes all messy, it rained here last night and there's clear water everywhere back there... :thumbsup:

 

[nehalem256]

Gay couples ARE equal to hetero couples.

This is laughably false. Hetero couples can do something that gay couples inherently cannot. It is a little thing called reproduction. Sorry, but that is at least a little important to society, which means that hetero couples are at least a little more important than gay couples.

You are trying to tell society that ONLY your definition of marriage is the correct one. That it MUST be seen though your prejudiced colored glasses to be understood. You and only you get to decide who is better then others, what is acceptable.
Millions of other people believe in a different definition then you, but somehow only YOURS is correct.

How is that any different than what people on your side have been saying. Everyone is going to have a clear point where they go: "THAT isn't marriage D:". The only question is if that point is same-sex, multiple people, goats, corporations, whatever for you.

What is really going on is society is telling you that YOU don't get to define marriage.
I know that scares you. You think that if you are not the one to tell us what things mean we might just go around calling mud clean water. But we are not the ones that believe in the absurd, you are.

The reason we get to define marriage is because we did define marriage.

You are perfectly free to come up with your own concept of "special unions" and try and get everyone to recognize SUs as equal to marriage. But you wont do this, because it wouldn't work. Your main argument for getting recognition for your unions is that anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.

If you didn't call your unions marriage you would have no argument.

 

[chucky2]

This is laughably false. Hetero couples can do something that gay couples inherently cannot. It is a little thing called reproduction. Sorry, but that is at least a little important to society, which means that hetero couples are at least a little more important than gay couples.



How is that any different than what people on your side have been saying. Everyone is going to have a clear point where they go: "THAT isn't marriage D:". The only question is if that point is same-sex, multiple people, goats, whatever for you.



The reason we get to define marriage is because we did define marriage.

You are perfectly free to come up with your own concept of "special unions" and try and get everyone to recognize SUs as equal to marriage. But you wont do this, because it wouldn't work. Your main argument for getting recognition for your unions is that anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.

If you didn't call your unions marriage you would have no argument.

Infinity % correct.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Yes, you're saying that, but it is not so.

I see you saying that, but it is so.

Two men "marrying" is not the same as a man and a woman marrying. Just the same that clear water + clear water is not the same and dirt + clear water. A man is not a woman, and a woman is not a man.

All that matters here is where you are drawing the line. The exact same argument can be made for a black man and a white women, or a Jewish man and a Christian woman, or a tall man and a short woman.

I never said better, I said different.

You said equal. If they are unequal, then you are STRONGLY implying that one is better then the other.

My definition of marriage is the correct one, backed up by multiple societies across thousands of years.

No it isn't.

Yours is from the past, what, 50 years of Western society by whining people and Bleeding Hearts?

Gay marriage was not illegal in the US until 1971. Tens of Thousands of years of history allowed it. Many roman emperors were married to other men. There are historical documents of the Catholic church marrying two men in the middle ages. It is common practice in many countries to this day. Your vision of history is being viewed through your myopic lens of prejudice.

Color me not impressed. Gay couples are not equal to hetero couples, unless you want to take the position that a bush is also a tree, that clear water is the same as mud. Am I correct in that is the position you are taking?

I don't think I even need to respond to the rest of your hate mongering. All you are doing is appealing to fear. Trying to say that if your definition is not accepted then it will be chaos, despite the fact that it has been changed for awhile now in many places and no chaos has occurred.

 

[soulcougher73]

No strawman at all. That is exactly what people who think that gays can actually be married are saying. A bush is close enough to a tree to call the bush a tree. Since mud contains what at some point was clear water, it's close enough to call mud clear water. Think about how preposterous it would be when a kid covered in mud exclaims: 'I'm covered in clear water!' We would immediately laugh, then correct him. Society has been engineered to accept gay couples as the equal of hetero couples, thereby perverting the socially accepted understanding and meaning of marriage. If this is acceptable to society, then we can just change long understood words to mean basically anything. Heck, I'm not stealing this item, I'm purchasing it! Amazing new world we live in...just whine long enough, social engineer the dumb young long enough, and you too can have your way. Brilliance...

Chuck

Your critical thinking is flawed. One issue is a societal concept that can be redefined due to the very nature of it being "societal" and the other is a material concept that is already defined. Mud is mud.

 

[SMOGZINN]

This is laughably false. Hetero couples can do something that gay couples inherently cannot. It is a little thing called reproduction. Sorry, but that is at least a little important to society, which means that hetero couples are at least a little more important than gay couples.

Not important to society at all. There are billions of breeders. Only ignorance could claim otherwise. Society is better served by having fewer of them. Because of that it just might be that gay couples are actually more important to society then hetro couples.
That argument makes at least as much sense as yours, I'm just starting from a different set of premises.

How is that any different than what people on your side have been saying. Everyone is going to have a clear point where they go: "THAT isn't marriage D:". The only question is if that point is same-sex, multiple people, goats, corporations, whatever for you.

You are right here, but as has already been demonstrated, the argument for SSM is more inclusive with out causing any harm to anyone. The very concept of liberty requires that we adopt that definition.

Your main argument for getting recognition for your unions is that anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.

Because the shoe fits. You have no valid arguments against it, you just don't like it. That is bigotry.

If you didn't call your unions marriage you would have no argument.

Nor would we have equality.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Of course, because she's what society considers underage and is not an adult. When she's 18, then it'd be fine (although certainly not advisable unless she actually knew what she was doing and was doing it for a reason).

And yet just a few decades ago old men marrying young girls was routine. The point being that "traditional marriage" is anything but.

The reproduction argument is also very weak, for any number of reasons already pointed out to Nehalem and others, which never get addressed. We don't require people who procreate to get married, and we don't require married people to procreate. We have always allowed marriages where procreation was impossible.

Marriage is not about procreation, period. It's about creating a stable family structure. There's no reason that two gay people cannot create a stable family structure.

Furthermore, since many gay couples adopt unwanted children, that is another net positive for society.

And I'll also point out again (so it can likely be ignored again) that, all else being equal, a lesbian couple has a much higher chance of successfully having a baby than a heterosexual couple.

Given all of these points, there is no basis for opposing gay marriage on the grounds of procreation other than pure bigotry.

 

[chucky2]

Your critical thinking is flawed. One issue is a societal concept that can be redefined due to the very nature of it being "societal" and the other is a material concept that is already defined. Mud is mud.

Mud bigot. Mud is made up of, clear water and dirt. Who are you to call mud mud when someone who likes the image of clear water prefers to call mud clear water? If you get 10's of millions whining about changing the meaning of the words 'clear water' to also include what we refer to as mud, who are you to say that a society that wants to refer to mud now as 'clear water' is wrong? They have chosen to redefine what was always understood to be as 'clear water' to now include what has always been understood to be mud. You're simply a bigot.

What you want only works if you make the large assumption that a man and a man being joined together is equal to a man and woman being joined together. What you're saying is it doesn't matter that a man is not a woman and vice versa, you just want it to be so because you want to be nice and include the two gay guys in the societal understanding and ceremony of marriage. What you want is the same as referring to mud as clear water, simply because you want it to be so.

Chuck

 

[smackababy]

This is laughably false. Hetero couples can do something that gay couples inherently cannot. It is a little thing called reproduction. Sorry, but that is at least a little important to society, which means that hetero couples are at least a little more important than gay couples.

Except, there have been homosexual people in every civilization with recorded history. Letting said couples, who already do not reproduce, gain government (which is supposed to be secular) benefits denied to them will not have any effect on the reproduction of said couple.

Again, marriage is defined as a religious practice that should have no bearing on the government. We have gone over this already.

I understand; I really do. You don't like gays. Go pretend they don't exist and erode the sanctity of something that you can do at a drive-thru in Vegas with Elvis performing said marriage. "But it is between a man and a woman"... Yeah you sound like the Ugandan religious leader Stephen Fry argued with. The Ugandan guy admitted it was bad for two adult men to have consensual sex, but it was natural and okay for a man to rape a female child, so long as no homosexual stuff is going on.

 

[nehalem256]

And yet just a few decades ago old men marrying young girls was routine. The point being that "traditional marriage" is anything but.

The reproduction argument is also very weak, for any number of reasons already pointed out to Nehalem and others, which never get addressed. We don't require people who procreate to get married, and we don't require married people to procreate. We have always allowed marriages where procreation was impossible.

Marriage is not about procreation, period. It's about creating a stable family structure. There's no reason that two gay people cannot create a stable family structure.

If you are going to say that allowing infertile couples to marry disproves the idea that marriage is about procreation I am going to go with a 50% divorce rate disproving the idea that marriage is about creating a stable family structure, because clearly it does not.

Being married does not magically create a stable family. It a system of values like stigmatizing divorce and having children outside of marriage that does.

Furthermore, since many gay couples adopt unwanted children, that is another net positive for society.

And where do you think these unwanted children come from? Probably not from married heterosexual couples.

Essentially this argument only makes sense if you "break" the idea of marriage to begin with and make it acceptable to have child outside of marriage.

Also, heterosexual couples are just as a capable of adopting children.

And I'll also point out again (so it can likely be ignored again) that, all else being equal, a lesbian couple has a much higher chance of successfully having a baby than a heterosexual couple.

Biologically 2 women have zero possibility of successfully creating a baby together. Or are you now redefining marriage to mean 2 women and a sperm donor?

 

[nehalem256]

Except, there have been homosexual people in every civilization with recorded history. Letting said couples, who already do not reproduce, gain government (which is supposed to be secular) benefits denied to them will not have any effect on the reproduction of said couple.

You are implicitly accepting that couples should automatically receive benefits. Why should any couples receive benefits at all?

Again, marriage is defined as a religious practice that should have no bearing on the government. We have gone over this already.

(1) I have showed this to be untrue. Atheist Zedong Mao defined marriage the same way.

(2) If marriage is defined as religious institution then that would be an argument to eliminate government recognized marriage, not an argument for extending it to other couples.

 

[chucky2]

And yet just a few decades ago old men marrying young girls was routine. The point being that "traditional marriage" is anything but.

When you can show where they "married" young boys and society called it marriage then you might have a point here. The ages are changing in your examples but not the genders.

The reproduction argument is also very weak, for any number of reasons already pointed out to Nehalem and others, which never get addressed. We don't require people who procreate to get married, and we don't require married people to procreate. We have always allowed marriages where procreation was impossible.

It's weak if you want gays to be able to "marry", yes. People procreating outside of marriage is also frowned upon, but we don't call that marriage, we call it something different. It's not even applicable to gay "marriage". We don't require married people to procreate because we don't dictate what they will or will not do with their own bodies. If they want to have kids they will. The capability for them to have kids without unnatural help is always there. For those hetero couples who cannot conceive without outside help, I'd say that they would be the unlucky abberation against the rule. Gays, they are just completely a non-starter without outside help. It is exactly the same as combining clear water and clear water, and wondering why you cannot make mud. A hetero couple might not be able to make mud because there is not enough water, or dirt, but with outside help they can - or, have a higher chance of doing so. There really is just no comparison here...

Marriage is not about procreation, period. It's about creating a stable family structure. There's no reason that two gay people cannot create a stable family structure.

It's not about procreation because that narrative needs to be pushed to allow acceptance of gay "marriage". Outside of adoption and outside help in allowing a female to conceive, gays don't have a family structure. Nature has fixed their defect from continuing by not allowing them to further offspring. As far as the stable family structure, I actually agree with you there. I think it very likely that a stable gay union could be allowed to adopt kids who would otherwise sit in terrible situations and thus relieve a large burden from society while allowing their union to enjoy children. Them providing a stable family structure though really has nothing to do with gays being allowed to "marry". They are in a union simply because the term marriage refers to a man and woman being married. Since gays are missing 50% of the requirement to be married, they can't be married. At least, not without perverting the term marriage. Don't tell me you too Charles are eating from the apple bush?

Furthermore, since many gay couples adopt unwanted children, that is another net positive for society.

Absolutely. Completely agree they can adopt. Far better for a kid to grow up in a non-ideal gay household (all things being equal) to them growing up in the foster care system.

And I'll also point out again (so it can likely be ignored again) that, all else being equal, a lesbian couple has a much higher chance of successfully having a baby than a heterosexual couple.

I'd like to see how that will be possible without outside help. It also has nothing to do with perverting the meaning of marriage.

Given all of these points, there is no basis for opposing gay marriage on the grounds of procreation other than pure bigotry.

Sure there's a basis, it's just inconvenient to the gay "marriage" agenda. No matter how much people strenuously dictate that a man and man/woman and woman is equal to a man and woman, they are not, nor, ever will be. Why people deny nature is perplexing...

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

I see you saying that, but it is so.

And round and round we go to infinity.

All that matters here is where you are drawing the line. The exact same argument can be made for a black man and a white women, or a Jewish man and a Christian woman, or a tall man and a short woman.

No, all that matters here is accuracy. Bigots from before not allowing a black man to marry a white woman because of ethnicity were wrong to exclude that marriage because as has been proven, there is no difference between a black man marrying a white woman than a white man marrying a white woman, other than color. Trying to keep clinging to this to drum up support because of previous wrongdoing is really low, not to mention completely inaccurate. No where in the past when we were working through ethnic bigotry would any of that society (to any significant %) have said: Oh Yes, and, you know, two men wanting to "marry" is the same exact thing as a man and woman of different color wanting to marry.

You said equal. If they are unequal, then you are STRONGLY implying that one is better then the other.

Outside of population control, of course a hetero marriage is better than a non-hetero "marriage". I'll take what nature intended everytime, instead of a natural (or in many cases, a non-natural) abberation. That said, I don't think a gay couple or multiperson relationship such as what your OP is about should enjoy any less rights than a normal hetero marriage: They shouldn't. And I've never said or suggested otherwise (except in the past when it was not clear to me if gay couples would mind F a normal hetero adopted child, but that's going off on a tangent). I want a gay union to have the same rights as a hetero marriage. This is America, they should have them. But perverting the meaning of marriage just to be PC and/or Bleeding Heart? No. Not needed.

No it isn't.

Here we go again...

Gay marriage was not illegal in the US until 1971.

Likely because no one was insane enough to purport they would "marry" their same gender. Gay "marriage" should in fact be illegal. Gay/Multiple parter unions however should be entirely legal, and, with full rights.

Tens of Thousands of years of history allowed it. Many roman emperors were married to other men. There are historical documents of the Catholic church marrying two men in the middle ages. It is common practice in many countries to this day. Your vision of history is being viewed through your myopic lens of prejudice.

That is fascinating and really news to me - seriously, did not know perversion of the term went back that far. Tell me, throughout all those years and all those societies, was there rampant "marriage" of gays, or, was it so one off that it was exceptionally rare, so rare it's actually documented? I'm curious to know how screwed up past societies were on this subject...

I don't think I even need to respond to the rest of your hate mongering. All you are doing is appealing to fear. Trying to say that if your definition is not accepted then it will be chaos, despite the fact that it has been changed for awhile now in many places and no chaos has occurred.

What chaos? I never said chaos. I said perversion of the term, which is exactly what has occurred. You are reading way too much into my non-acceptance of perverting terms for PC/Bleeding Heart issues. Sit on this "chair" (it used to be called a stump but not now) and eat another "orange" (used to be called an apple but not now) from the orange "bush" (used to be called tree but not now) and calm down. Society decided it didn't like the bigotry of referring to a stump as a stump, it wasn't nice sounding so we now call them chairs. And, society also decided that oranges had a nicer color so we didn't want to offend the nice apples, so we call them oranges now. And hey, trees get cut down and that's not nice, so we call trees bushes now because it makes us feel better. Makes perfect sense right?

Chuck

 

[smackababy]

You are implicitly accepting that couples should automatically receive benefits. Why should any couples receive benefits at all?



(1) I have showed this to be untrue. Atheist Zedong Mao defined marriage the same way.

(2) If marriage is defined as religious institution then that would be an argument to eliminate government recognized marriage, not an argument for extending it to other couples.

Marriage is used, by the government, to determine responsibility and assets upon death. Arguing we should do away with it serves little purpose in the argument that one side of the argument is getting discriminated against for their sexual preference.

We have already gone of that Chairman Mao was influenced by western views. I am not repeating what was already stated.

And, just for argument's sake, please tell me what benefit society is gaining from disallowing certain sexual preferences from receiving the benefits of transfer of assets upon death and the inclusion of insurance?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If you are going to say that allowing infertile couples to marry disproves the idea that marriage is about procreation I am going to go with a 50% divorce rate disproving the idea that marriage is about creating a stable family structure, because clearly it does not.

The goal is for two people to build a life together. It doesn't always work out, but that doesn't change the intention. Over half of small businesses go bankrupt, but that doesn't mean they didn't try to make money.

The divorce rate is just another one of your tired red herrings.

And where do you think these unwanted children come from?

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they parachute down from the moon. They are around, and people don't want them. They live mostly miserable lives and cost taxpayers money to take care of them. And if there were enough hetero couples willing to adopt them, then by definition we wouldn't have a problem of unadopted kids in the first place.

Having them be adopted is a win-win all around for society.

Biologically 2 women have zero possibility of successfully creating a baby together. Or are you now redefining marriage to mean 2 women and a sperm donor?

Sperm donors were never "defined" as being part of a marriage for heterosexual couples, so why would they be considered part of a marriage for gay couples either? The entire point is that marriage and reproduction are not strictly linked.

Even posing that question is utterly ludicrous. I've warned you in the past that deliberately obtuse comments will not be tolerated here. The point of the DC is reasonable discussion, not using any tactic possible to try to "win" an argument. If you want to engage in your usual trolling behavior, do it in P&N.

 

[randomrogue]

It's interesting really since if you start the argument with the condition that marriage can only be between a man and a woman then of course you'll get to the end result you want.

That's not what this is about though. No matter how much you try to define it as such.

Marriage is a contract. It gives rights to property in life and after death. It's a union between people. Between parents and their children. Between families. The sexes have nothing to do with it.

You can try to define it as such but you are simply trying to deny one group their civil rights much like others have done before you.

Culturally speaking we can choose to define marriage as between a man and a woman. I will grant you that. However we can also choose to define it in a more fair and tolerant manner. You have to understand that this is left to the culture. Some allow polygamy, some allow arranged marriage, some allow children to get married, etc.

There once was a time in our culture where people of other races and religions were not married. That has changed. Same sex unions are happening and will probably be legal nationally within our lifetimes. Polygamy? Well this thread will hopefully shed some light on the issue.