Polyamory and Marriage

[nehalem256]

You are correct in stating that marriage institutionalizes monogamy. You are correct in stating that Monogamy limits reproduction. You are incorrect in trying to draw a causal link between the two. Correlation is not causation.

Society did not institutionalize monogamy in order to limit reproduction.

They institutionalized it to control reproduction. If you institutionalize monogamy and say that having children outside of such a relationships is wrong you will limit reproduction.

You last paragraph makes no sense. The 'dominant' gender is the one who defines power, ego, and status. Hence why in the past, males are the ones who 'owned' the women, much like they owned slaves.

Why would they want to own a woman when instead they could own a man that would be much more useful.

 

[nehalem256]

The fact that you consider sexuality to be a birth defect is enough for me to disregard anything else you say due to sheer stupidity.

Well how do you define a birth defect?

If we define it as something that limits the reproductive fitness of someone I think homosexuality would clearly qualify.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Why would they want to own a woman when instead they could own a man that would be much more useful.

If men were repressed instead of women in the 18th century, there would be a bloody revolution where men killed, dominated, and enslaved women for even aspiring to dominate us.

 

[fskimospy]

He already explained that. He considers homosexuals defective, and on that basis he seeks to deny them equality with people he considers non-defective.

So he thinks that things in nature are unnatural. Uhmm, okay.

 

[chucky2]

So he thinks that things in nature are unnatural. Uhmm, okay.

No, he thinks that in nature there are things that are produced that are defective. I don't know why that is hard to understand, but for some reason it looks to be... 😕😵

 

[fskimospy]

No, he thinks that in nature there are things that are produced that are defective. I don't know why that is hard to understand, but for some reason it looks to be... 😕😵

It's not, I just find it funny that he thinks of such a large swath of the animal kingdom as defective. I wonder how many reasons I could think of to characterize the homophobic opposition to same sex marriage as defective.

 

[Pulsar]

They institutionalized it to control reproduction. If you institutionalize monogamy and say that having children outside of such a relationships is wrong you will limit reproduction.

Why would they want to own a woman when instead they could own a man that would be much more useful.

You just completely restated your first post, and didn't bother to address my response.

You are correct in stating that marriage institutionalizes monogamy. You are correct in stating that Monogamy limits reproduction. You are incorrect in trying to draw a causal link between the two. Correlation is not causation.

Marriage was created as a form of ownership. In fact, parents had to sell their bride (dowery). It had little, if anything at all, to do with reproduction. Unless you are really trying to suggest that back at 0 BC/AD people were discussing population control and worried about how many children a particular person had.

Society did not institutionalize monogamy in order to limit reproduction.

Once again, the dominent gender has always been man. He is (usually) physically stronger, and up until the last couple hundred years, might made right. The 'dominant' gender is the one who defines power, ego, and status. Hence why in the past, males are the ones who 'owned' the women, much like they owned slaves. It makes no sense to even suggest the opposite. Men were not owned (unless you count slavery, which again had nothing to do with reproduction).

 

[Pulsar]

I re-editted this response 7 times, then finally decided there is no good (polite) response to the idea that homosexuals are somehow 'defective'. That viewpoint is so abhorrent to me that I'm done with that portion of this conversation.

 

[piasabird]

DL cant father a child or give birth to a child or raise a child or teach a child. No logic or similarity found.

What about all the people who were married for real, who raised children, made compromises to stay married, Worked 30 years to pay for a child, sent the child to college and taught children what it meant to be a member of society?

Please dont compare this to driving a car. Once a child is born you cant put it back in. You can run away, Kill a child, raise a child or abuse a child. To raise a child is a commitment of time, energy, money, and resources. This is what it means to be married. You can choose to not have a child, but that is another story.

No gay marriage will ever equal a marriage resulting in a family. It is impossible. Just admit it. People that dont have children can never even understand this.

 

[Pulsar]

DL cant father a child or give birth to a child or raise a child or teach a child. No logic or similarity found.

What about all the people who were married for real, who raised children, made compromises to stay married, Worked 30 years to pay for a child, sent the child to college and taught children what it meant to be a member of society?

Please dont compare this to driving a car. Once a child is born you cant put it back in. You can run away, Kill a child, raise a child or abuse a child. To raise a child is a commitment of time, energy, money, and resources. This is what it means to be married. You can choose to not have a child, but that is another story.

No gay marriage will ever equal a marriage resulting in a family. It is impossible. Just admit it. People that dont have children can never even understand this.

What is a 'DL'?

Why can homosexuals not raise children, make compromises to stay married, work 30 years to pay for a child, send that child to college, and teach a child what it means to be a member of society?

Why are you assuming that people arguing for gay marraige don't have children of their own? Are you just assuming that only gays argue for gay marriage?

Is a single parent family still a family? Why then, would gay parents with adopted children not be a family?

Some very basic research with Wikipedia would serve to prove you wrong:
Adoption of children by LGBT people is an issue of active debate. In the United States, for example, legislation to stop the practice has been introduced in many jurisdictions; such efforts have largely been defeated.

Adoption by same-sex couples is legal in 14 countries and in some territories, including many of the United States.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Leaving behind the historical context, I think in current times family units are important not for creating kids but raising them. I personally think a huge thing that is supporting gay marriage right now is the concept that a stable gay household is better than a cycle of foster homes or worse. Kids have such a high value in modern society.

Thinking about it, that could be the opening for poly marriage. If you had statistics to show that such marriages would cut into kids born out of wedlock (and not "corrupt" current marriages as many would fear) that would unlock the door. Then attach to poly marriage enforcible rights for children of those marriages - more then they would get out of wedlock- and that would open the door. If poly marriage is going to greatly reduce deadbeat dads that would be a large net benefit to society. But the long-term studies need to start today.

I unfortunately agree with an earlier post that fairness in adult rights isn't enough to overcome social stigmas and business backlash (like insurance companies that won't want family rights extended to a group of random adults as it could be abused).

But make it about kids? Always a winner in our society.

 

[jackstar7]

DL cant father a child or give birth to a child or raise a child or teach a child. No logic or similarity found.

What about all the people who were married for real, who raised children, made compromises to stay married, Worked 30 years to pay for a child, sent the child to college and taught children what it meant to be a member of society?

Please dont compare this to driving a car. Once a child is born you cant put it back in. You can run away, Kill a child, raise a child or abuse a child. To raise a child is a commitment of time, energy, money, and resources. This is what it means to be married. You can choose to not have a child, but that is another story.

No gay marriage will ever equal a marriage resulting in a family. It is impossible. Just admit it. People that dont have children can never even understand this.

So.... there's these things called adoption and surrogacy that people do. Even gay couples.

Welcome to the present.

 

[chucky2]

It's not, I just find it funny that he thinks of such a large swath of the animal kingdom as defective. I wonder how many reasons I could think of to characterize the homophobic opposition to same sex marriage as defective.

Probably because there's not a large swath of the animal kingdom that is gay...at least gay in the way gays are purporting to want to be like hetero couples. A male dog humping another male dog isn't gay, that's a dog being a dog, he doesn't know to suppress his urge to hump.

I guess if you want to claim that is the same as being gay, then naturally all males can hump anything they want at that can be deemed natural and need not be punished/restricted.

Since I doubt you'd go there, it makes your large swath comment...strange...

 

[nehalem256]

You just completely restated your first post, and didn't bother to address my response.

You are correct in stating that marriage institutionalizes monogamy. You are correct in stating that Monogamy limits reproduction. You are incorrect in trying to draw a causal link between the two. Correlation is not causation.

Its not a matter of correlation. Monogamy limits reproduction. If you accept that marriage is part of a method to encourage monogamy then you must accept that that method is successful at limiting reproduction.

Marriage was created as a form of ownership. In fact, parents had to sell their bride (dowery). It had little, if anything at all, to do with reproduction. Unless you are really trying to suggest that back at 0 BC/AD people were discussing population control and worried about how many children a particular person had.

Society did not institutionalize monogamy in order to limit reproduction.

They institutionalized it to control mating. It should be obvious why having men take care of an individual woman is better for society than having them just mate when any woman they can take.

Once again, the dominent gender has always been man. He is (usually) physically stronger, and up until the last couple hundred years, might made right. The 'dominant' gender is the one who defines power, ego, and status. Hence why in the past, males are the ones who 'owned' the women, much like they owned slaves. It makes no sense to even suggest the opposite. Men were not owned (unless you count slavery, which again had nothing to do with reproduction).

Still waiting to hear why a man would want to "own" a woman. Power, ego, status, etc come from owning things that are valuable. What was that made a woman valuable.

Also, marriage is not just limiting for women.

 

[Pulsar]

Its not a matter of correlation. Monogamy limits reproduction. If you accept that marriage is part of a method to encourage monogamy then you must accept that that method is successful at limiting reproduction.

They institutionalized it to control mating. It should be obvious why having men take care of an individual woman is better for society than having them just mate when any woman they can take.

Still waiting to hear why a man would want to "own" a woman. Power, ego, status, etc come from owning things that are valuable. What was that made a woman valuable.

Also, marriage is not just limiting for women.

You are now changing your argument. Your inital argument, in post #401 was:
They institutionalized it to control reproduction.

That is untrue. Your new argument, that monogamy is an effective method of population control is also false. I'm not going to do the research for you.

With regards to why men owned women, I suggest you do the research yourself. Try women's rights on Wikipedia and learn about how property rights were transferred throughout history along the female line.

Seriously. This stuff isn't that hard to look up before you make the claim.

 

[fskimospy]

Probably because there's not a large swath of the animal kingdom that is gay...at least gay in the way gays are purporting to want to be like hetero couples. A male dog humping another male dog isn't gay, that's a dog being a dog, he doesn't know to suppress his urge to hump.

I guess if you want to claim that is the same as being gay, then naturally all males can hump anything they want at that can be deemed natural and need not be punished/restricted.

Since I doubt you'd go there, it makes your large swath comment...strange...

I don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore.

 

[nehalem256]

You are now changing your argument. Your inital argument, in post #401 was:
They institutionalized it to control reproduction.

I stand by it. Marriage is an institution for society to control mating. It is wrong to mate outside of marriage, you may not mate with another person's spouse, children born within a marriage are the husband's(the mother always being obvious), etc.

Where do you think the idea of a marriage not being valid until consummated comes from?

That is untrue. Your new argument, that monogamy is an effective method of population control is also false. I'm not going to do the research for you.

Actually that monogamy controls population growth is your argument.

You are correct in stating that Monogamy limits reproduction.

The human race would have MORE children if we were not monogomous.

Now, marriage was not created to limit the number of children people had. But it is a natural consequence.

With regards to why men owned women, I suggest you do the research yourself. Try women's rights on Wikipedia and learn about how property rights were transferred throughout history along the female line.

Seriously. This stuff isn't that hard to look up before you make the claim.

Why is it so hard for you to answer why a woman would be a valuable commodity that a man would want to buy?

We are not discussing women's ownership of property. We are not discussing why men owned women instead of the reverse.

 

[dank69]

Yeah this is true. But it is not the same thing. It is natural to attempt to preserve life. Medicine is natural. Healing is natural.

Being gay is not, because it is a death sentence for the species. That goes against the natural instinct of survival.



Disagree. It is a perfectly sound reasoning to use to help decide if something is right or wrong.



Disagree. Heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage are not equal, for many reasons, some of which I have already listed.

many species eat their own young. Do you consider this unnatural?

 

[dank69]

Its not a matter of correlation. Monogamy limits reproduction. If you accept that marriage is part of a method to encourage monogamy then you must accept that that method is successful at limiting reproduction.



They institutionalized it to control mating. It should be obvious why having men take care of an individual woman is better for society than having them just mate when any woman they can take.



Still waiting to hear why a man would want to "own" a woman. Power, ego, status, etc come from owning things that are valuable. What was that made a woman valuable.

Also, marriage is not just limiting for women.

The bolded statement is 100% false. Duggar family had 17 (18? 19?) kids in a monogamous relationship.

 

[chucky2]

I don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore.

Oh I'm entirely clear:

1.) Gov only recognizing civil unions, gays being allowed full civil union rights same as hetero couples.

2.) Recognizing the absurd PC joke that is perverting the term marriage to include gays, and just not participating in it.

It's been fun watching you guys spin though, always entertaining! :thumbsup:

Chuck

 

[nehalem256]

The bolded statement is 100% false. Duggar family had 17 (18? 19?) kids in a monogamous relationship.

'I just love women': Deadbeat dad to 22 children

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...says-loves-kids-hes-proud-legacy-live-on.html

22 is more than 19.

Although trying to find one example is a horrible way to go about proving your point.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh I'm entirely clear:

1.) Gov only recognizing civil unions, gays being allowed full civil union rights same as hetero couples.

2.) Recognizing the absurd PC joke that is perverting the term marriage to include gays, and just not participating in it.

It's been fun watching you guys spin though, always entertaining! :thumbsup:

Chuck

I don't think the word spin means what you think it means.

Regardless, words change meanings all the time. This is just the latest change in a slew that have happened over the centuries, and in the near future people will look back on people who oppose gay marriage much like we today look back on those who opposed interracial marriage.

It's simply amazing to me how quickly a position has gone from mainstream to an embarrassment. It's one of the great stories of the 2010's.

 

[dank69]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...says-loves-kids-hes-proud-legacy-live-on.html

22 is more than 19.

Although trying to find one example is a horrible way to go about proving your point.

I wasn't providing an example to say that this is the most children anyone has had. It was a single example showing that marriage in no way, shape or form limits anybody's ability to reproduce. A woman can continuously have babies regardless of her marital status. This should not need to be explained.

 

[nehalem256]

I wasn't providing an example to say that this is the most children anyone has had. It was a single example showing that marriage in no way, shape or form limits anybody's ability to reproduce. A woman can continuously have babies regardless of her marital status. This should not need to be explained.

I would agree that having an essentially meaningless piece of paper that exists to get the government to give benefits to couples does nothing to limit anyone's ability to reproduce.

It is the values which marriage is an integral part of that limit reproduction. Values like adultery and having children out of wedlock being wrong.

 

[dank69]

I would agree that having an essentially meaningless piece of paper that exists to get the government to give benefits to couples does nothing to limit anyone's ability to reproduce.

It is the values which marriage is an integral part of that limit reproduction. Values like adultery and having children out of wedlock being wrong.

The bolded statement is false. Once again, values do not limit reproduction. A woman in a monogamous relationship with one man for her whole adult life can pop out kids just as fast as any other woman.