EPTPagan wins human rights polygamy case - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
sirachman
United States270 Posts
| ||
|
sirachman
United States270 Posts
On December 19 2011 08:28 RoosterSamurai wrote: Except that not everybody in the world is gay....Though almost everybody in the world has an interest in sex/marriage. Do you see, now, why your attempt at a slippery slope doesn't work? Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition.. | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On December 19 2011 08:33 sirachman wrote: Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition.. Where are you getting these facts from? I'd like to see a study that shows that many women would prefer multiple husbands. | ||
|
rickys
United Kingdom16 Posts
| ||
|
Ceril
Sweden1343 Posts
And with marriage losing its value, it used to be a pretty set in stone deal. Now its an excuse to throw abit of a party more then anything. Sign some papers, maybe get some tax cuts. And oh, dont forget to sign the 'If we divorce anything we owned before marrying is ours 100% just things after marriage that we gotten as a couple should be split 50/50" deals, no sane person forgets that today. Ehm, with that lose of value attached to the label "marriage" girl/boyfriend/dating is the only status your after. Your marrige going sour? Oh, we are not married/dating anymore. Its roughly the same level of seriousness. With multiple girlfriends being acceptable already. Polygamy does not destroy our civilization. My eyes read 'polygamist marry their daughters!' and other such things. Maybe thats historicaly true, polygamist being a kinky kind. Nowdays to? Ok to marry your underage daughter? Law most likely says: Eh No. Ok to force someone? Law most likely says: Eeeh, No stupid. And thus with equalness before the law there is nothing wrong with multiple offical partners. They must obey the law. If the law dosent say you cant marry your 12 year old daughter we should probably put it in there just to make sure. Do you see a ton of girls after every rich guy out there? Hmm, bad example. Ofc there is. But theres also a frackton of girls/boys out there finding a partner or partners that dont have high social status even to they could given their genetics(Attractiveness etc etc) blah. I should once again not try to do any debate in english and I will now stop with the lcosing. Theres all sorts out there: Golddiggers, People wanting only one partner, people wanting/accepting multiple, people that think soft eyes and warm hands trumph a high social status; or potentialy they can brag to their friends who dream of love but get cold reality served for dinner each night, that money certainly isnt what you should fancy when looking for a partner. | ||
|
jaerak
United States124 Posts
Interesting case, wonder what the results would be in American court... | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
| ||
|
khaydarin9
Australia423 Posts
On December 19 2011 08:35 RoosterSamurai wrote: Where are you getting these facts from? I'd like to see a study that shows that many women would prefer multiple husbands. Possibly it's also worth asking (the hypothetical and unanswerable question) how many men would be comfortable being in a relationship with a woman with multiple male partners - and if the answer isn't approximately the same as women who would be comfortable being in a relationship with multiple female partners, then the next question would be: why the double standard? | ||
|
Humanfails
224 Posts
[QUOTE]On December 19 2011 00:24 doubled wrote: [QUOTE]On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote: I wonder why polygamy is illegal [/QUOTE] There is a very good reason polygamy is illegal. If it is not, we end up with the same situation as with money, 1% of the men would have more than 50% of the women. And this is also what happened in ancient societies, leaders would have harems of hundreds of women while farmers would be single for their entire life. This is not a stable ground for a society. Monogamy makes sure that everybody at least has the potential to get a mate.[/QUOTE] Yeah I might kill someone if they were hording women for themselves. Over time I could only grow bitter at what I don't have. [QUOTE]On December 19 2011 07:18 Humanfails wrote: [QUOTE]On December 19 2011 00:19 Nightfall.589 wrote: [QUOTE]On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote: I wonder why polygamy is illegal [/QUOTE] 1. child abuses will occur in a legal atmosphere or illegal. redundant, and laws against abuse will trump any legality or illegality. Its really about control via old time christianity. Don't put the new age spin on it. Also, if you want to tie it to kids getting married off to cult leaders, throughout europe 12-14 year old girls were often married off to kings and other nobles by Christianity up until very recently. The individuals responsible for the anti-polygamy law didn't give two shits about the marriage of child to man issue. Look up when the law was actually passed. You can't claim is for reason X when it was really for reason Y and reason X wasn't even an issue when the law was introduced. that's bad ethics.[/QUOTE] WTF is reason X? I don't have time for algebra I failed math in school alright well passed it but it was hard. Ps. the moment I read reason X I had no idea what I was reading anymore.[/QUOTE] The last two lines of this post is the actual content of the poster. two lines that are basically trolling. I'll say it for him and for the edification of others. X and Y are variables in math, math is a form of argument and the argument is solved via the equation becoming =. Math, or argument, is also used by people who want to use logical argument. Philosophers frequently use notation. An example, from the book "Probabilities, Problems, and Paradoxes" ([url=http://www.amazon.com/Probabilities-problems-paradoxes-Readings-inductive/dp/082210010X]the book at amazon[/url]) is this: [quote]I shall bring about E. Bringing about E implies doing A at t, if in circumstances C at t. I am in C now. So I shall do A.[/quote] Or, more simply for grade school students: All Y's are Z's. All X's are Y's. Therefore all X's are Z's. Please don't add vacuous two liners about disliking math to a thread anymore. | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On December 19 2011 08:02 doubled wrote: Fair point, we really don't know if women's situation have changed so much that they now would choose mates differently now. But since there is no evidence to support that they would (is their situation that different, women have always been working?), I would default to the proven conclusion. I was going to post some further argumentation, then I realized I was on the internet and I'm not going to change anyways mind anyways.  Perhaps, but that seems like an incredibly dangerous experiment in the name of liberty, as a few generations would be fucked over by a decision like that in the long run (Edit: if you're wrong, otherwise it's just green meadows ahead!). You seem quite ignorant to just how different society was only a couple hundred years ago. The majority of men in a society were in non-land holding and didn't have the same rights as those in the aristocrat class. Women had even less rights and had pretty much zero chance to be self supporting. Outside of being supported by a husband, there were generally 2 options of surviving - be a maid or prostitute. In either case, they were usually indentured to the job and received food and board instead of pay. Marrying a wealthy man was the only way for women to move up in society. To draw conclusions based on the society of then, and use them for today, is asinine. | ||
|
llKenZyll
United States853 Posts
On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote: I wonder why polygamy is illegal It's just not right. | ||
|
Keyboard Warrior
United States1178 Posts
I concur. I believe deep in the heart of every man is a genuine desire to have sex with all the beautiful women in the world. | ||
|
redviper
Pakistan2333 Posts
On December 19 2011 01:48 Thorakh wrote: Wow, that is one perspective I've never even considered before! Nothing in the law or otherwise is stopping this situation from happening right now. Rich men have mistresses (and rich women have misteresses or whatever the male word is). The corruption in polygamy comes when women are forced against their will (see middle east, FDL sects). If this family is not forcing anyone against their will then I can't imagine a reason why it would be wrong. | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
On December 19 2011 00:19 Nightfall.589 wrote: Two reasons. 1. Kids occasionally getting married off to cult leaders. 2. Mainstream religious organisations feel insecure about anything besides the concept of heterosexual monogamous marriage. Religion is separate from courts I'm pretty sure this is one of laws that make the court system fair and just. ^^^ this better be trolling who are you to say what's right and wrong? everyone has their own opinion | ||
|
Humanfails
224 Posts
On December 19 2011 06:46 frogrubdown wrote: I used to think that people who thought like this were made up as strawmen in arguments against the more extravagant conclusions of evolutionary psychology. Apparently, these strawmen exist and have absolutely flooded this thread with sexist nonsense. Do you people know any women at all? Any? No woman I know would even think of entering into a massively polygamous marriage with some random rich male who used his power to collect attractive women. Not a single one. Do such women exist at all? Presumably, and there are also presumably corresponding men who would act in a parallel fashion. So legalizing polygamy might result in a slight decrease in the number of women eligible for marriage to the non-rich. However, 1) I find it immensely implausible to suppose that the number would be significant enough to be noticeable by the typical male. 2) Why would one want to be with a woman who would respond to the legalization of polygamy in such a shallow way? 3) People who think like this should probably be more concerned about how their sexist and simplistically reductionist worldview affects their chances at finding a mate. Hugh Hefner, playboy owner. take a gander at his lifestyle and all the women, (mostly 18-20!) that he's had in his life due to his money, affluence, etc. You don't know anyone personally? maybe because noone you know will admit it. Don't kid yourselves or attempt to kid us. | ||
|
llKenZyll
United States853 Posts
who are you to say what's right and wrong? everyone has their own opinion Still. If you are dating some girl of your dreams and she is cheating with someone else behind your back, wouldn't you find yourself betraid? Acts like that are sick in my opinion. Disagree with my opinion if you want, but I stand firm thinking that its not right. If somehow you have your partners consent to sleep with others (god knows how) then by all means go for it. But secret intercourse is just sad. This is an opinion post, disagree with it if you will. | ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On December 19 2011 08:54 Lebzetu wrote: Still. If you are dating some girl of your dreams and she is cheating with someone else behind your back, wouldn't you find yourself betraid? Acts like that are sick in my opinion. Disagree with my opinion if you want, but I stand firm thinking that its not right. If somehow you have your partners consent to sleep with others (god knows how) then by all means go for it. But secret intercourse is just sad. This is an opinion post, disagree with it if you will. Polygamy is by definition consensual. | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On December 19 2011 08:52 Humanfails wrote: Hugh Hefner, playboy owner. take a gander at his lifestyle and all the women, (mostly 18-20!) that he's had in his life due to his money, affluence, etc. You don't know anyone personally? maybe because noone you know will admit it. Don't kid yourselves or attempt to kid us. You have a very fitting username. Anyway, thanks for telling me about the secret desires of my friends. And here I was under the impression that they wanted to do something with their lives. Really they're just saying that because Hef won't have them. | ||
|
Humanfails
224 Posts
On December 19 2011 08:59 frogrubdown wrote: You have a very fitting username. Anyway, thanks for telling me about the secret desires of my friends. And here I was under the impression that they wanted to do something with their lives. Really they're just saying that because Hef won't have them. I know its not polygamy, The real issue is you seem to think women won't do it. Polygamy is the legal announcement of such large partnerships between a group of people. Polygamy can still exist as simply "Open relationships' and "many girls for one guy" as in the case of Hugh Hefner, which is not illegal at all. The only illegal aspect is marrying them all. They can still have the exact same relationship without being married. Which is what Hugh has with his multiple women. It's not legal polygamy, because there is no marriage, but it is still the same thing you are saying women would never do. Think of it this way, A relationship is the core idea, the car. The marriage license and legality of it is like the extra packages for the car, i.e. satellite radio and so on. On number 3: Are you saying people shouldn't want to find a "mate" and have reasonable access to what they want? What would have happened if your parents didn't get together? You wouldn't be here. You owe your existence to this idea. And you're rejecting it? As I see it, you're still A free willed agent, under the guise of Self determination. Therefore you had the choice of saying "You have a very fitting username.". Your name isn't idra is it? That's a very poor behavior from you, stop trolling please. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On December 19 2011 08:31 sirachman wrote: Polyamory is the way to go, take out the religion and maintain the multiple male and female partners. With open communication and sanity, which I admit is hard for some people, it works out far better than serial monogamy. As someone who's witnessed both scenarios, agree wholeheartedly. Bizarrely, most of the monogamous relationships I've witnessed have ended worse than the polyamorous ones (which normally ended with a degree of heartbreak, but everyone stayed friends afterwards). Bad roll of the dice, most likely. On December 19 2011 08:41 Shiori wrote: The basic problem is that it's pretty much unavoidably unequal. I actually feel the exact same way about Monogomy. I can only think of one such relationship which is equal, in every other case one partner makes vastly more than the other or is the sole earner, who could walk out tomorrow and the other one who be completely bollocked. Relationships in general tend to be unequal to some degree. | ||
| ||
