Do you support Polygamy?

Ofcourse it should be legal : ))) but I dont support .

 

For unrelated, consenting adults ... certainly.

 

I do not like raw seafood....thus I avoid sushi.
I do not care to be accosted and robbed...thus I avoid areas where this is common.
I do not enjoy the company of idiots, bigots, and the intellectually corrupt...thus they are not counted amongst my friends.

I do not feel the need to subject myself to more than one woman....thus I do not want more than my beauty.

But....this does not mean no one should eat sushi, live in a bad part of town, or torture themselves with multiple mates of insanity.
To each their own.

 

Thanks boss.

 

It has not set that forth at all. Pedophelia is still illegal despite a lot of lobbying from groups like NAMBLA. Obviously there are limits. Homo marriage does not breach those limits.

The Supreme Court is a reflection of the general population on this issue. The elected president supports it (and has been re-elected). 12 states so far has legalized it, and that trend is likely to continue. Most polls are showing increasing support for it.

lets find out. If you really think you should have those rights, try to take them to the courts like the homos did, or lobby for their legalization like the homos did.

Not sure why this is such a big deal but cousin marriage was not. I still have not seen a single gay marriage opponent address that...why are you all giving cousin marriage a pass? Do you tacitly support it?

 

It will only happen if a majority of Americans want it to happen. How many elected officials have come out in support of polygamy so far?

 

Why does the Right object to Individual Liberty, but only not for guns?

 

Yes, here we are in Comrade Obama's progressive paradise where cousins can marry, Moms can marry their children (single or multiple). I might want to marry my Dad, and my Uncle, and the guy that my Uncle goes to "see" when his wife is away, and, her, too, for that matter. Hey, why should the fun ever end?

 

Who has asked for that to be legal?

If you want that, then agitate for it and explain to society why you think it is wrong to deny it to you. Just like the gays did.

What makes you so special that you don't have to go through the same system?

 

Do you support Polygamy?

Read the part of Twain's Roughing It when he (fictionally) talks with Brigham Young on the subject. Be prepared to laugh so hard your side hurts.

 

Don't really care, no matter how morally insane it is. I'm just a huge romantic and believe everyone should fall dangerously, almost obsessively in love. Think falling deeply in love is life's greatest adventure and greatest joy.

I know it's different for everyone and who am I to judge, but I don't see how you can fall as hard as I say with a multiple person relationship. Oh well to each his own.

As for laws, yeah I agree like i said, to each their own. My opinion is the same as that of gays, who really cares and why?



I am surprised however that not more women and woman's groups aren't severely against this. I would think a large majority of polygamist practice is one man and several women. I'd think they would equate that with some type of negligence/abuse/control that would be bad for the woman's rights movement.

 

No, there just needs to be a simple rule: no tax consequences to marriage. Problem solved. Nobody should ever be choosing to marry, not marry, divorce, not divorce, have kids, or not have kids for TAX reasons.

 

Too low. Think of all the millions of fine, deserving young women all over the world who are so cruelly deprived of me.

 

bad list of options. No, i don't support polygamy, just like I don't support incestual marriage, gay marriage, or traditional marriage. None of them need any legal 'license', only recognition/acknowledgement by the state. Basically no more than a heads up.

But, it's an if/then scenario. If we are to have the marital benefits as we have them for traditional marriage and gay marriage, we should have them for incestual marriage and polygamy. The argument against polygamy is basically the same as gay marriage (argument being: "ew!"), and the argument against incestual marriage is invalid (the argument being that if incestual couples procreate their kids have a higher chance for genetic deformities). Seriously, does anyone think that's a valid reason? 1) gays can't procreate except by using someone else's sperm, which would work just as safely for incestual couples, and 2) does anyone seriously think that gays in Texas, or any other state with a ban on gay marriage, don't f*** because they can't get married?

 

With polygamy, there really could be enough nice guys to around for you chics.

 

How much financial backing do polygamists have? The gay movement has one advantage most others don't - lots of funding.

- - - Updated - - -

millions of women deserving of you? You don't need to be mean to millions of women at once.

 

Then you don't know many liberals on PF. Take "ComeHomeAmerica", for example: big gay marriage supporter, refuses to support or even acknowledge polygamy. Sadly, there are many liberal bigots just like him/her. It's simply a matter of you either opening your eyes or perhaps... well, let's leave it at that.

 

Perhaps the question to be asked should be, "why CAN'T it (i.e., anything imaginable!) be legal?".... Why should anybody be forbidden to do whatever they damned well please? Why should anybody have to go through some "same system", now that we ripped the institution of marriage as being between a man and a woman out from under the nation's foundation? I want complete anarchy and debauchery, without any conventions or rules! I want to **** my Mother! I want to **** your Mother! Then, I want to "marry" them both -- and my Father, and your Father, too! Why should any society or civilization tell me I can't do that, even though civilization has had MARRIAGE between a man and a woman as the main pillar in its bedrock foundation since the beginning of civilization...?

Mmmm... maybe we should include pets, too. I know a Welsh Corgi with a really cute ass...!

 

In fact, the great majority of the societies known to anthropology have been polygamous (i.e., polygynous), and this would be expected based on the biological characteristics of human beings.

- - - Updated - - -

Bingo! Every single woman of a certain age knows the best reason to support polygamy: "All the good ones are married."

 

If only, I could find nice girls who are willing to be friends.

 

Correct, up to a point. Due to the very short life spans and extremely high infant mortality rates of ~10,000 years ago, Upper Paleolithic humans
often had polygynous tribal societies. But to say that this is reflective of "biological characteristics of human beings" is not supported by the evidence once mankind emerged into truly civilized organizations, beginning approximately 9,000 years ago. Remember, back in the Neolithic period, cannibalism was widely practiced by humans, along with the polygynous behavior you correctly identified. But, as we continued to evolve physically, culturally, technologically, and philosophically, there was no further need for the conventions of the prehistoric past, except among the most primitive people still left on Earth.

So, what are doing in the 21st-Century? We're wallowing perversely in the past, like a dog that turns around and eats its own excrement, with all the worst parts of our prehistoric behavior being resurrected and "celebrated" in the name of "freedom". . And Polygamy? Ha! No problem! And next we'll go back to devouring each other, like the anarchic savages whose behaviors we thought we had transcended....

 

As did almost all known Neolithic ones. Polygyny doesn't reflect lifespan or infant mortality. It reflects reproductive advantage, and as soon as the fitter males gained significant advantages in providing for their offspring, polygyny became inevitable. Darwin guaranteed it.

False. Most of the early civilized societies known to anthropology were polygynous, and the biological characteristics consistent with polgyny include the intersex body mass disparity and other physical characteristics that are known to be proxies for degree of polygyny among mammals in general and primates specifically.

No. While cannibalism did occasionally occur, all the evidence points to its being a rarity.

Polygyny is very well attested by evidence. Unlike cannibalism.

False again. Warfare has continued to deplete the ranks of eligible young males right up to the present day. Polygyny is the natural remedy, and has been observed to increase sharply in many nominally monogamous societies that suffered high casualties in war.

<yawn> I haven't noticed any resurgence of cannibalism or human sacrifice...

Grotesque absurdity and illogic.

 

Interesting extrapolations, marble-caked with accuracy. My view is that, essentially, we are both correct, but the "story" (which could cover several college courses) is incomplete. So, in the interest of time and efficiency, tell us what did begin to happen in human civilization that lead us away from the primitive behaviors of our Upper Paleolithic ancestors? Did someone just flip a switch about 9,000 years ago and give us cultivation agriculture, cities, armies, religions, philosophies, and governments? No. None of this happened "over night". But, it did happen. Now, we want to go into a peculiar societal "retrograde amnesia", and adopt again the behaviors of thousands of years ago, and worse...? For what reason would we do this, in the 21st-Century...?

 

They shouldn't be making those choices FOR tax reasons, but when people get married or have kids, etc, they DO get breaks. Since they get breaks automatically regardless of the reasons for them choosing to marry, etc, these things need thought about.

Having NO tax breaks for marriage would have those who are monogamous up in arms.
If it were for the first marriage, what happens if a man has seven wives - would that be unfair for wives 2 - 7?

 

I am sure many people have specific arguments against it. The only way to find out why is to agitate for change and see what they say.

If no one can defend their position, your marriages will become legal by default. The burden of proof is on the people who want to deny you a right, not the other way around. The government needs a compelling reason to make stuff illegal.

If it does not harm anyone else, they should not be forbidden at all.

The function of the government is not to be your parent. They government is not there to replace your mother and father.

Unless everyone else wants the same thing, you will not get it. Sorry. Thats how a democracy works.

- - - Updated - - -

If enough people support it, they will donate, and you will have funding for your cause. Right?