|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On September 17 2013 01:56 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 01:37 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 16 2013 21:32 Zaros wrote:
god talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you are so far up your own arse its unbelievable. Pretty much every study says immigration is beneficial to the economy which is beneficial at least in the long term to the native population. As for the radicalism of open borders its hardly radical it was the default position for the most of human civilization and that went pretty well seeing as it brought us here. That's because you have no understanding of the issue, no understanding of the things that matter in people's lives, and you suffer from the prejudice that GDP growth is the be all and end all of how immigration impacts an economy. If you open your mind and put aside your confirmation bias, you'll see you that there's actually many, many studies showing results like immigrants took 75% of jobs created in the UK in the last 15 years and half a million immigrants were given social housing while many natives sit on the waiting list for years. In fact, reports of such studies are such common currency in the British press that I'm inclined to say they're not giving the other side a fair hearing. Where do you live, an echo chamber? Its not just GDP, if you believe the government should be active in the economy which u do, then theres tax revenue which goes to pay for schools hospitals etc, economic growth tends to mean more jobs although most at the moment do go to the elderly and immigrants but theres no reason why that trend has to go on forever. As for social housing etc pretty sure most worries about it are scare stories, caused because houses aren't being built because of green belts and restrictive planning laws. "Green belts and restrictive plannning laws". Talk about scare stories. I'm sorry, but the people of the UK aren't especially that keen about your idea of building hundreds of thousands of extra social houses and laying much of the remaining countryside to waste for the sole and express purpose of housing the rest of the world.
I'm sure you can also pardon them for not being right behind you on your proposal of adding extra population, and creating tremendous short-term pressure on jobs and social services at a time when the government feels obliged to introduce measures such as the bedroom tax, over some conjectured small percentage increase in tax revenues years down the line. Even when we have the precedent of neighbouring countries with more generous immigration policies, like Sweden where there is great social unrest (to the point of riots lasting over a week) and where a third of people unemployed are immigrants.
|
On September 17 2013 02:36 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 02:31 Zystra wrote:On September 17 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:
I'm absolutely fine with polygamy, I have literally no idea why marriage, a contractual relationship between adults, is limited by the Christian model of a man and a wife. We've finally acknowledged that that model doesn't fit some people, like the gays, but we're still stuck on the number.
I sincerely doubt anyone looking after 25 kids is living like a king. Kids are little shits. My family do fostering for kids taken away from neglectful parents and we have 5 which takes my mother looking after them full time and my father part time to look after. Polygamy would be fine if the wife could then marry another man but it is only the man who can marry more wives to fulfill his dirty sexual fantasies with many different woman. Imagine if one of his wives married another man. Honour killing anyone??? pretty sure polygamy allows anyone to marry any number not just men, and if it doesn't most places if it was allowed here it would be for everyone.
Islam however does not and that is the only type of polygamy in the UK.
|
On September 17 2013 02:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 02:31 Zystra wrote:On September 17 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:
I'm absolutely fine with polygamy, I have literally no idea why marriage, a contractual relationship between adults, is limited by the Christian model of a man and a wife. We've finally acknowledged that that model doesn't fit some people, like the gays, but we're still stuck on the number.
I sincerely doubt anyone looking after 25 kids is living like a king. Kids are little shits. My family do fostering for kids taken away from neglectful parents and we have 5 which takes my mother looking after them full time and my father part time to look after. Polygamy would be fine if the wife could then marry another man but it is only the man who can marry more wives to fulfill his dirty sexual fantasies with many different woman. Imagine if one of his wives married another man. Honour killing anyone??? You actually post like the Daily Express. Foreigners have dirty perversions unlike those good honest fetishes good solid Englishmen have.
And you post like the guardian. Every other culture is better than ours. Every religion is better than christianity. Poor people deserve money for doing nothing. Rich people dont deserve the money they worked hard for. I really do not get why all these unhappy liberals don't just get up and leave. Go to some far away land full of poverty and "real culture" and emerse yourself.
When in reality, western culture and values have given by far the most to this world and although christianity was a militant religion 400 years ago, it is now an entirely peaceful religion unlike some others out there.
|
On September 17 2013 02:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 01:56 Zaros wrote:On September 17 2013 01:37 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 16 2013 21:32 Zaros wrote:
god talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you are so far up your own arse its unbelievable. Pretty much every study says immigration is beneficial to the economy which is beneficial at least in the long term to the native population. As for the radicalism of open borders its hardly radical it was the default position for the most of human civilization and that went pretty well seeing as it brought us here. That's because you have no understanding of the issue, no understanding of the things that matter in people's lives, and you suffer from the prejudice that GDP growth is the be all and end all of how immigration impacts an economy. If you open your mind and put aside your confirmation bias, you'll see you that there's actually many, many studies showing results like immigrants took 75% of jobs created in the UK in the last 15 years and half a million immigrants were given social housing while many natives sit on the waiting list for years. In fact, reports of such studies are such common currency in the British press that I'm inclined to say they're not giving the other side a fair hearing. Where do you live, an echo chamber? Its not just GDP, if you believe the government should be active in the economy which u do, then theres tax revenue which goes to pay for schools hospitals etc, economic growth tends to mean more jobs although most at the moment do go to the elderly and immigrants but theres no reason why that trend has to go on forever. As for social housing etc pretty sure most worries about it are scare stories, caused because houses aren't being built because of green belts and restrictive planning laws. "Green belts and restrictive plannning laws". Talk about scare stories. I'm sorry, but the people of the UK aren't especially that keen about your idea of building hundreds of thousands of extra social houses and laying much of the remaining countryside to waste for the sole and express purpose of housing the rest of the world. I'm sure you can also pardon them for not being right behind you on your proposal of adding extra population, and creating tremendous short-term pressure on jobs and social services at a time when the government feels obliged to introduce measures such as the bedroom tax, over some conjectured small percentage increase in tax revenues years down the line. Even when we have the precedent of neighbouring countries with more generous immigration policies, like Sweden where there is great social unrest (to the point of riots lasting over a week) and where a third of people unemployed are immigrants.
As i've said before you can double the amount of housing and make no ident on the countryside.
|
Ghastly Uprising, you have a very high view of yourself, that's unfortunate. Im not going to bother continuing a debate with someone seemingly incapable of reading a counter argument. For all the "lack of substance" of my posts you are yet to offer any evidence, or push a convincing point without contradicting yourself. That coupled with a passive aggressive tone makes it particularly unenjoyable debating with you.
|
On September 17 2013 03:38 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 02:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 17 2013 01:56 Zaros wrote:On September 17 2013 01:37 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 16 2013 21:32 Zaros wrote:
god talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you are so far up your own arse its unbelievable. Pretty much every study says immigration is beneficial to the economy which is beneficial at least in the long term to the native population. As for the radicalism of open borders its hardly radical it was the default position for the most of human civilization and that went pretty well seeing as it brought us here. That's because you have no understanding of the issue, no understanding of the things that matter in people's lives, and you suffer from the prejudice that GDP growth is the be all and end all of how immigration impacts an economy. If you open your mind and put aside your confirmation bias, you'll see you that there's actually many, many studies showing results like immigrants took 75% of jobs created in the UK in the last 15 years and half a million immigrants were given social housing while many natives sit on the waiting list for years. In fact, reports of such studies are such common currency in the British press that I'm inclined to say they're not giving the other side a fair hearing. Where do you live, an echo chamber? Its not just GDP, if you believe the government should be active in the economy which u do, then theres tax revenue which goes to pay for schools hospitals etc, economic growth tends to mean more jobs although most at the moment do go to the elderly and immigrants but theres no reason why that trend has to go on forever. As for social housing etc pretty sure most worries about it are scare stories, caused because houses aren't being built because of green belts and restrictive planning laws. "Green belts and restrictive plannning laws". Talk about scare stories. I'm sorry, but the people of the UK aren't especially that keen about your idea of building hundreds of thousands of extra social houses and laying much of the remaining countryside to waste for the sole and express purpose of housing the rest of the world. I'm sure you can also pardon them for not being right behind you on your proposal of adding extra population, and creating tremendous short-term pressure on jobs and social services at a time when the government feels obliged to introduce measures such as the bedroom tax, over some conjectured small percentage increase in tax revenues years down the line. Even when we have the precedent of neighbouring countries with more generous immigration policies, like Sweden where there is great social unrest (to the point of riots lasting over a week) and where a third of people unemployed are immigrants. As i've said before you can double the amount of housing and make no ident on the countryside. No. You've simply misinterpreted the statistics on this. Ask anyone who lived 70 years ago and they will not tell you that the countryside has hardly been "dented". In fact they'll tell you the exact opposite. I go hiking all the time and I'm constantly struck by the devastation. Perhaps only 2% of land has been built on, but that has little to do with how visible or how cumbersome that 2% is. If someone built a skyscraper next to your house, I'm sure you wouldn't be impressed by a letter from the local council assuring you that while they're sorry for the distress caused by the skyscraper, your objection can't be given high priority in view of the fact that it only occupies a small percentage of land in your neighbourhood.
|
On September 17 2013 03:52 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 03:38 Zaros wrote:On September 17 2013 02:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 17 2013 01:56 Zaros wrote:On September 17 2013 01:37 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 16 2013 21:32 Zaros wrote:
god talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you are so far up your own arse its unbelievable. Pretty much every study says immigration is beneficial to the economy which is beneficial at least in the long term to the native population. As for the radicalism of open borders its hardly radical it was the default position for the most of human civilization and that went pretty well seeing as it brought us here. That's because you have no understanding of the issue, no understanding of the things that matter in people's lives, and you suffer from the prejudice that GDP growth is the be all and end all of how immigration impacts an economy. If you open your mind and put aside your confirmation bias, you'll see you that there's actually many, many studies showing results like immigrants took 75% of jobs created in the UK in the last 15 years and half a million immigrants were given social housing while many natives sit on the waiting list for years. In fact, reports of such studies are such common currency in the British press that I'm inclined to say they're not giving the other side a fair hearing. Where do you live, an echo chamber? Its not just GDP, if you believe the government should be active in the economy which u do, then theres tax revenue which goes to pay for schools hospitals etc, economic growth tends to mean more jobs although most at the moment do go to the elderly and immigrants but theres no reason why that trend has to go on forever. As for social housing etc pretty sure most worries about it are scare stories, caused because houses aren't being built because of green belts and restrictive planning laws. "Green belts and restrictive plannning laws". Talk about scare stories. I'm sorry, but the people of the UK aren't especially that keen about your idea of building hundreds of thousands of extra social houses and laying much of the remaining countryside to waste for the sole and express purpose of housing the rest of the world. I'm sure you can also pardon them for not being right behind you on your proposal of adding extra population, and creating tremendous short-term pressure on jobs and social services at a time when the government feels obliged to introduce measures such as the bedroom tax, over some conjectured small percentage increase in tax revenues years down the line. Even when we have the precedent of neighbouring countries with more generous immigration policies, like Sweden where there is great social unrest (to the point of riots lasting over a week) and where a third of people unemployed are immigrants. As i've said before you can double the amount of housing and make no ident on the countryside. No. You've simply misinterpreted the statistics on this. Ask anyone who lived 70 years ago and they will not tell you that the countryside has hardly been "dented". In fact they'll tell you the exact opposite. I go hiking all the time and I'm constantly struck by the devastation. Perhaps only 2% of land has been built on, but that has little to do with how visible or how cumbersome that 2% is. If someone built a skyscraper next to your house, I'm sure you wouldn't be impressed by a letter from the local council assuring you that while they're sorry for the distress caused by the skyscraper, your objection can't be given high priority in view of the fact that it only occupies a small percentage of land in your neighbourhood.
You ask everyone for evidence facts and statistics, I show you facts and statistics and u throw anecdotal evidence at me. I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore just tiresome and pointless.
|
United States42704 Posts
On September 17 2013 03:23 Zystra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 02:51 KwarK wrote:On September 17 2013 02:31 Zystra wrote:On September 17 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:
I'm absolutely fine with polygamy, I have literally no idea why marriage, a contractual relationship between adults, is limited by the Christian model of a man and a wife. We've finally acknowledged that that model doesn't fit some people, like the gays, but we're still stuck on the number.
I sincerely doubt anyone looking after 25 kids is living like a king. Kids are little shits. My family do fostering for kids taken away from neglectful parents and we have 5 which takes my mother looking after them full time and my father part time to look after. Polygamy would be fine if the wife could then marry another man but it is only the man who can marry more wives to fulfill his dirty sexual fantasies with many different woman. Imagine if one of his wives married another man. Honour killing anyone??? You actually post like the Daily Express. Foreigners have dirty perversions unlike those good honest fetishes good solid Englishmen have. And you post like the guardian. Every other culture is better than ours. Every religion is better than christianity. Poor people deserve money for doing nothing. Rich people dont deserve the money they worked hard for. I really do not get why all these unhappy liberals don't just get up and leave. Go to some far away land full of poverty and "real culture" and emerse yourself. When in reality, western culture and values have given by far the most to this world and although christianity was a militant religion 400 years ago, it is now an entirely peaceful religion unlike some others out there.
I really don't. You should look up my posts on cultural relativism. I get pretty angry about it.
|
On September 17 2013 03:56 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 03:52 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 17 2013 03:38 Zaros wrote:On September 17 2013 02:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 17 2013 01:56 Zaros wrote:On September 17 2013 01:37 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 16 2013 21:32 Zaros wrote:
god talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you are so far up your own arse its unbelievable. Pretty much every study says immigration is beneficial to the economy which is beneficial at least in the long term to the native population. As for the radicalism of open borders its hardly radical it was the default position for the most of human civilization and that went pretty well seeing as it brought us here. That's because you have no understanding of the issue, no understanding of the things that matter in people's lives, and you suffer from the prejudice that GDP growth is the be all and end all of how immigration impacts an economy. If you open your mind and put aside your confirmation bias, you'll see you that there's actually many, many studies showing results like immigrants took 75% of jobs created in the UK in the last 15 years and half a million immigrants were given social housing while many natives sit on the waiting list for years. In fact, reports of such studies are such common currency in the British press that I'm inclined to say they're not giving the other side a fair hearing. Where do you live, an echo chamber? Its not just GDP, if you believe the government should be active in the economy which u do, then theres tax revenue which goes to pay for schools hospitals etc, economic growth tends to mean more jobs although most at the moment do go to the elderly and immigrants but theres no reason why that trend has to go on forever. As for social housing etc pretty sure most worries about it are scare stories, caused because houses aren't being built because of green belts and restrictive planning laws. "Green belts and restrictive plannning laws". Talk about scare stories. I'm sorry, but the people of the UK aren't especially that keen about your idea of building hundreds of thousands of extra social houses and laying much of the remaining countryside to waste for the sole and express purpose of housing the rest of the world. I'm sure you can also pardon them for not being right behind you on your proposal of adding extra population, and creating tremendous short-term pressure on jobs and social services at a time when the government feels obliged to introduce measures such as the bedroom tax, over some conjectured small percentage increase in tax revenues years down the line. Even when we have the precedent of neighbouring countries with more generous immigration policies, like Sweden where there is great social unrest (to the point of riots lasting over a week) and where a third of people unemployed are immigrants. As i've said before you can double the amount of housing and make no ident on the countryside. No. You've simply misinterpreted the statistics on this. Ask anyone who lived 70 years ago and they will not tell you that the countryside has hardly been "dented". In fact they'll tell you the exact opposite. I go hiking all the time and I'm constantly struck by the devastation. Perhaps only 2% of land has been built on, but that has little to do with how visible or how cumbersome that 2% is. If someone built a skyscraper next to your house, I'm sure you wouldn't be impressed by a letter from the local council assuring you that while they're sorry for the distress caused by the skyscraper, your objection can't be given high priority in view of the fact that it only occupies a small percentage of land in your neighbourhood. You ask everyone for evidence facts and statistics, I show you facts and statistics and u throw anecdotal evidence at me. I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore just tiresome and pointless. The ONLY way to get a handle on facts and statistics here would be to poll people to ask them about their opinions.
Lo and behold, what do we find? Green spaces have a significant positive effect on people's well-being and the quality of their lives.
|
|
|
So then, what is the chance Ed Miliband will wrest control of Parliament from the Conservatives?
|
UKIP poses such a serious threat to the Tory vote at the next General Election it could put Ed Miliband into No 10, a poll revealed last night.
The survey showed that support for the party has trebled in three years.
Ukip could stop the Tories taking 32 marginal seats, handing victory to Labour despite its leader’s unpopularity.
The poll of almost 13,000 voters in 40 Tory marginal constituencies expected to determine the 2015 Election result was carried out by Conservative peer Lord Ashcroft.
He said: “Though this is only a snapshot, the picture is clear – despite their narrow national poll lead, Labour are further ahead in the marginals where it matters.
“If Ukip do as well at the General Election as this poll suggests, Ed Miliband could become prime minister with a comfortable majority.”
The poll showed Labour leads the Tories by 43 per cent to 29 per cent in the 32 seats where it is the main opponent.
Source
|
Polygamy obviously doesn't work with misogyny, when it is only men that have many wives, not only would that be bad for females but that would leave plenty of frustrated males with no chance to get married. In fantasy land where genders are treated equally then there would be no problems with polygamy.
|
It's fashionable of late to say that Labour can't be trusted with the economy. Nick Clegg had the audacity to say recently it even though our recovery took the longest out of almost every nation in Europe. And in any case it's just a "GDP recovery" and has little bearing at this stage on whether it represents a recovery in living standards.
I see no evidence that the Keynesian approach is any worse than mega-austerity, which even the IMF counselled Osborne against. Logically, Osborne economics doesn't even make sense. The only function of a good credit rating is allowing future loans. By asserting that you need good credit rating to get the economy moving, you're implicitly accepting that loans are going to propel growth. It's the Keynesian model in disguise, only a back-to-front version.
|
A fantasy politics league for the conference season run by demos here: http://demosfantasypolitics.co.uk/
Points for headlines, appearances on tv and twitter mentions, just a fun thing if anyone wants to enter.
|
I can't really see why polygamy is still illegal in the first place.
|
The popularity of UKIP has changed the landscape quite considerably in the UK recently, though Im not sure for the better.
If it pushes the Tories to the right, alienating the centre then great, however, the concern is the British population is simply becoming more right wing. If the Tories win the election again or enter into another coalition (something hinted at by the Lib Dems at their conference recently) then the stronger mandate for pushing for privatisation in education, the prison system and of the NHS could have some real negative effects on the country.
What has really disappointed me about Ed is he ran straight to the centre as soon as he was appointed Labour leader. While the economics championed by Balls is Keynesian in name, but in substance, he favours lower levels of spending. On top of that they just dont seem like good politicians, their going to a Greggs (this one sticks in my mind) when the Tories were being hammered for the pasty tax was such a cheap attempt at scoring political points that it came off as farcical. Something written into The Thick Of It, rather than real politics.
|
On September 17 2013 04:01 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 03:56 Zaros wrote:On September 17 2013 03:52 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 17 2013 03:38 Zaros wrote:On September 17 2013 02:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 17 2013 01:56 Zaros wrote:On September 17 2013 01:37 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 16 2013 21:32 Zaros wrote:
god talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you are so far up your own arse its unbelievable. Pretty much every study says immigration is beneficial to the economy which is beneficial at least in the long term to the native population. As for the radicalism of open borders its hardly radical it was the default position for the most of human civilization and that went pretty well seeing as it brought us here. That's because you have no understanding of the issue, no understanding of the things that matter in people's lives, and you suffer from the prejudice that GDP growth is the be all and end all of how immigration impacts an economy. If you open your mind and put aside your confirmation bias, you'll see you that there's actually many, many studies showing results like immigrants took 75% of jobs created in the UK in the last 15 years and half a million immigrants were given social housing while many natives sit on the waiting list for years. In fact, reports of such studies are such common currency in the British press that I'm inclined to say they're not giving the other side a fair hearing. Where do you live, an echo chamber? Its not just GDP, if you believe the government should be active in the economy which u do, then theres tax revenue which goes to pay for schools hospitals etc, economic growth tends to mean more jobs although most at the moment do go to the elderly and immigrants but theres no reason why that trend has to go on forever. As for social housing etc pretty sure most worries about it are scare stories, caused because houses aren't being built because of green belts and restrictive planning laws. "Green belts and restrictive plannning laws". Talk about scare stories. I'm sorry, but the people of the UK aren't especially that keen about your idea of building hundreds of thousands of extra social houses and laying much of the remaining countryside to waste for the sole and express purpose of housing the rest of the world. I'm sure you can also pardon them for not being right behind you on your proposal of adding extra population, and creating tremendous short-term pressure on jobs and social services at a time when the government feels obliged to introduce measures such as the bedroom tax, over some conjectured small percentage increase in tax revenues years down the line. Even when we have the precedent of neighbouring countries with more generous immigration policies, like Sweden where there is great social unrest (to the point of riots lasting over a week) and where a third of people unemployed are immigrants. As i've said before you can double the amount of housing and make no ident on the countryside. No. You've simply misinterpreted the statistics on this. Ask anyone who lived 70 years ago and they will not tell you that the countryside has hardly been "dented". In fact they'll tell you the exact opposite. I go hiking all the time and I'm constantly struck by the devastation. Perhaps only 2% of land has been built on, but that has little to do with how visible or how cumbersome that 2% is. If someone built a skyscraper next to your house, I'm sure you wouldn't be impressed by a letter from the local council assuring you that while they're sorry for the distress caused by the skyscraper, your objection can't be given high priority in view of the fact that it only occupies a small percentage of land in your neighbourhood. You ask everyone for evidence facts and statistics, I show you facts and statistics and u throw anecdotal evidence at me. I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore just tiresome and pointless. The ONLY way to get a handle on facts and statistics here would be to poll people to ask them about their opinions. Lo and behold, what do we find? Green spaces have a significant positive effect on people's well-being and the quality of their lives.
You know that is a fucking terrible poll to bring up when talking about the quantity of green space being removed by more housing.
|
On September 18 2013 02:35 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
I can't really see why polygamy is still illegal in the first place.
Barring the convention of distaste for atypical relationships, historical precedence tells us that in practically all examples of polygamy, there exists some form of abuse or negligence. In the US, for instance, polygamy has been always conjoined with child abuse and kidnapping via the manner in which the religions backing polygamy practice marriage and child rearing (not to mention gender inequalities). In other words, whenever polygamy is practiced, someone involved wants out or had been basically sold into marriage at too early an age to know the difference.
Moving forward, I'm not sure these rules continue to hold, but you can see why legalizing the practice would likely bring with it a whole host of problems.
|
United States42704 Posts
On September 18 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 02:35 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
I can't really see why polygamy is still illegal in the first place. Barring the convention of distaste for atypical relationships, historical precedence tells us that in practically all examples of polygamy, there exists some form of abuse or negligence. In the US, for instance, polygamy has been always conjoined with child abuse and kidnapping via the manner in which the religions backing polygamy practice marriage and child rearing (not to mention gender inequalities). In other words, whenever polygamy is practiced, someone involved wants out or had been basically sold into marriage at too early an age to know the difference. Moving forward, I'm not sure these rules continue to hold, but you can see why legalizing the practice would likely bring with it a whole host of problems.
Pretty huge sample bias there. Polygamy has been typically favoured by religious wackos who then abuse their children but that doesn't mean people wanting to enter relationships with multiple people will do so. Plenty of people already love their children while being in de facto polygamous relationships but due to not having God on their side are not able to demand the state recognise it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
