| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| What are the benefits to society; of Polygamous Marriage? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 8 2007, 03:07 PM (1,300 Views) | |
| LWpianistin | Jan 8 2007, 10:15 PM Post #51 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Right. And right now, it is arbitrary because people have differing views...what is not making sense? How is it NOT arbitrary? |
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Jan 8 2007, 10:51 PM Post #52 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
LW, I don't want us to talk past each other. Basically, you're right. 89th is wrong. I hope this clears things up. ![]() |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jan 9 2007, 03:47 AM Post #53 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Err....but he said it's arbitrary, too. |
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Jan 9 2007, 04:38 AM Post #54 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
You seem to think changing it would be drawing an arbitrary line; it's not an arbitrary line to say that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated the same way. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jan 9 2007, 05:24 AM Post #55 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I think they should be treated the same, but I also think it is an arbitrary line. |
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Jan 9 2007, 05:35 AM Post #56 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
I object to the question in the first place. These slippery slope arguments are an evasion of the issue and a scare tactic. Sam noted that people aren't making an issue of polygamy and there's a reason for that. It's a non-issue. If where the line is drawn is arbitrary then it makes no sense where it's drawn. I don't think that's true. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jan 9 2007, 05:39 AM Post #57 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Go tell people in Utah it's a non-issue. Go tell Warren Jeffs. |
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jan 9 2007, 05:40 AM Post #58 |
|
MAMIL
|
I can't abide slippery slope arguments either. They basically say 'I don't have a valid reason for not liking X other than it might lead to Y which nobody likes.' Well, if nobody likes Y then we don't let anybody do Y, we don't ban X. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jan 9 2007, 06:33 AM Post #59 |
|
You may view it as such, but the same logic is in place there as it is with homosexual marriage. You see, I have just as much a problem with gay marriage as I do with polygamous marriage and other forms of unions I wont mention. I draw my line where I think its best for society based on the general rationale of both history, tradition, and biology - one man and one woman. However, once you get past that and go into relatively abnormal sexual orientations attractions and various unions, the logic is the same - I cant help who I'm attracted to, it's not hurting anyone, dont treat me as second class, let us have the same rights as hetero couples, etc. In fact, if you support gay marriage but not polygamous marriage, that IMO is being more of a bigot than my view! :lol: |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jan 9 2007, 06:47 AM Post #60 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
I must be a bigot too as I am not keen on returning to a semi-nomadic tribal society- as in the Bible- to which the practice of polygamy seems to compliment. |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jan 9 2007, 06:58 AM Post #61 |
|
Exactly! Everyone is a bigot in some regard, including me. |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jan 9 2007, 07:00 AM Post #62 |
|
MAMIL
|
It's pretty obvious that there's a difference between gay marriage and polygamous marriage. I don't object to polygamy because it's sinful, or against God's will, but because it will inevitably allow exploitation and servitude of human beings which has no place in a modern society. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jan 9 2007, 07:03 AM Post #63 |
|
No, that's just one form of polygamy. I believe you are referring to the polygyny type of polygamy. |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jan 9 2007, 07:09 AM Post #64 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
:wacko: Ok...what are the others? Polygamy is polygamy. |
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jan 9 2007, 07:12 AM Post #65 |
|
IIRC, polygamy is having more than one spouse - often but not always the mormon type with one man and many women. Polyandry is having multiple partners, not necessarily married or in a union. Polygyny is multiple wives. Polyamory is multiple husbands. I know... :wacko: |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jan 9 2007, 07:14 AM Post #66 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Wow. I didn't know all the terms. Polyamory could also involve slavery. Actually, all three types could. So, again, polygamy is polygamy. |
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jan 9 2007, 07:15 AM Post #67 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
ACK!!!! I've been a polyandrist!....... |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| 1hp | Jan 9 2007, 07:16 AM Post #68 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Historically men went to battle and didn't come home, leaving a shortage. Polygamy was one way of keeping the population going. WW1 killed a huge swath of young men, and I should imagine this can be seen in the census figures for countries such as the UK. Just as men find certain women attractive, the same is true of women. I can imagine that more women would rather have Brad Pitt's or Orlando Bloom's child than, say some average Joe walking in the street. Would they care if Orlando Bloom was fathering six other children at the same time? Not quite polygamy, but along the same lines. Here's a question - are there approximately the same percentage of gay women as gay men in the US? |
| There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and................ | |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jan 9 2007, 07:20 AM Post #69 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Errrmmm....I wouldn't want Pitt or Bloom. I also would care if they had other kids, or were at least sleeping with other women (or men....). Who knows what diseases they could catch! Any women who don't care should be banned from the planet. Or confined. |
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jan 9 2007, 07:29 AM Post #70 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I found this...which is not very surprising. From 2000, in the UK Men Ever had a sexual experience, not necessarrily including genital contact, with a partner of the same sex - 8.4% Ever had sex with a same sex partner - 6.3% Have you had a same sex partner in the last 5 years - 2.6% Women same questions. 9.7% 5.7% 2.6% So, we can see that: 1. Men have more gay sex 2. Women have more gay experiences that AREN'T sex 3. The sexes are equal when it comes to gay relationships. |
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jan 9 2007, 07:35 AM Post #71 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Yeah - hardly anyone does it. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Jan 9 2007, 07:35 AM Post #72 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
89th, If I can be blunt. Your views about same-sex marriage are grounded in your religious views about sex. Although 'society' agrees with you, at this point, there are people who believe that civil marriage should be available to homosexuals and heteosexuals. If I recall, 2-1 on this board according to my poll. Of course my poll started a string of threads. I guess it was a slippery slope to ask the question. ![]() |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jan 9 2007, 07:37 AM Post #73 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I'm 100% sure the numbers have gone up since 2000. I just don't know how much. |
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jan 9 2007, 07:42 AM Post #74 |
|
No, my views about same-sex marriage isn't based on religion. However, my views about same-sex *activities* are based on both religious and non-religious reasoning. There's a big difference. I'm not sure how this applies to the slippery slope point. |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jan 9 2007, 07:47 AM Post #75 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
HA! You've had more than one husband?!?! I realized that 89th got his definitions backwards, except for polygyny. |
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |











6:40 AM Jul 11