Welcome to PatsFans.com

From Same-Sex to Polygamy?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by State, Jun 7, 2009.

  1. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,516
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    #70 Jersey

    Next frontier? Polygamists demand multi-sex marriage

    It's a logical development, after all, even if it seems far-fetched.

    Ten or 15 years ago one would have been hardpressed not to have agreed with that on homosexual marriage, which wasn't even on the public's radar screen then.

    (Interspecie marriage is on deck.)
  2. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,768
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Polygamists have a long way to go and face a different challenge than gays. After all, while one's sexual preference is not a choice (you're either born gay or not), I think polygamy is a choice. Given that, the right of government to outlaw religious practices (such as smoking weed or engaging in animal sacrifice) has long been established.

    Those who favor interspecie marriage have an even longer way to go. The problem that the US Constitution refers to "people" will be difficult to overcome.

    Thus neither polygamy nor interspecie marriage seem to be logical developments, except in the fact that people who believe in such things are minorities and perhaps feel a little more confident in pursuing their beliefs.
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2009
  3. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,411
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +297 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    If you allow perversions of marriage you do so across all variations of perversions. It's only right.

    Regarding being "gay" as a choice, I do agree that attraction to the opposite sex likely isn't a choice; however I don't believe that most gays when presented with an attractive, naked woman wouldn't find something pleasing to do. I believe being bi-sexual isn't a choice - however I think it's a distinct minority of "gays" who are truly gay and not bi-sexual.
  4. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,768
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    That's simplistic. As society has evolved, it's become more tolerant of different types of marriage and less tolerant of others. Interfaith, interracial, and gay my marriage seem to me to be part of a trajectory towards liberalization. On the other hand, 100 or so years ago, incestuous marriages and marriages between young teens were far more prevalent. Mores change; they will never be locked into place, but the trajectory so far makes sense.

    Regarding being "gay" as a choice, I do agree that attraction to the opposite sex likely isn't a choice; however I don't believe that most gays when presented with an attractive, naked woman wouldn't find something pleasing to do. I believe being bi-sexual isn't a choice - however I think it's a distinct minority of "gays" who are truly gay and not bi-sexual.[/QUOTE]

    I lean more towards the view that sexual attraction is a continuum, where no one is really 100% one thing or another, but everyone has a leaning. We all fall somewhere the curve, but nature directs most people towards the straight side and society reinforces that. I bet mostly people who are 60% gay live straight, but anyone who's 70% gay or more is going to pay more attention to the same sex and, in terms of relationship building, naturally be drawn into that culture.

    If the Gisele Bundchen of my teenage years had stood naked in front of me and wanted to form a relationship, it probably would have worked for awhile, but that didn't happen :(
  5. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,411
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +297 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Interesting admission that it's not all of nothing - I mean that sincerely, not intending to sound like a jerk - and that's why I don't like gay marriage or acceptance of being gay, I think there are levels, from "not attracted to women at all" to "slight interest in men" for those who are gay; and I think it's better to discourage it so all but the "not attracted to women at all" group are not gay. It's what I've said here for a long time, it's not all or nothing and encouraging good, intelligent people to reproduce is a good thing for society.
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,768
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Many gay couples have children, and I've read a number of studies that show that children of gay parents are just as well adjusted as children of straight parents and are no more likely to be gay.

    As far as encouraging good, intelligent people to reproduce, I basically agree with that, and support tax incentives for families as well as lower cost higher education to promote that. Of course, there is no way of encouraging good, intelligent people to reproduce without also encouraging bad, stupid people to do so. Is there?
  7. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,411
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +297 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    That's different because they're adopted. They aren't bringing anything new into the world.

    That's another issue where we could have an "interesting" discussion ;)
  8. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,768
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Actually, I couldn't find any statistics, but there are a lot of gay parents who do not adopt. They had kids from previous marriages, or make arrangements through clinics or friends or other organization to have their own kids. Also, is it necessary to bring something new into this world with so many kids around the world and nation in need of good homes.
  9. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,411
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +297 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    One of the reasons for our continued demise is "smart people" having too few kids relative to "dumb people". Sure, kids being dumped then adopted helps there a little (not that I encourage kid dumping) but in general, yes, the more intelligent kids that are born the better.
  10. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,025
    Likes Received:
    109
    Ratings:
    +190 / 7 / -23

    Next it will be sheep.. maybe multiple sheep.
  11. godef

    godef Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    The odd thing is that, in defining polygamy as a religious practice, it really fuzzes the desire to remove the tag of religiousness from marriage, an essential part of the debate by those who would disallow gay marriages. But I think your ascertion of choice in homosexuality and choice in polygamy practices still overrides that.
  12. Mogamedogz

    Mogamedogz Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    I wouldn't mind a couple of hot wives.... But im atheist so I really cant use the sky god cover. dammit. :(
  13. godef

    godef Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Sheep are boring. They put me to sleep.
  14. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,169
    Likes Received:
    128
    Ratings:
    +353 / 1 / -9

    Me Too...........:p
  15. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,768
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    I think most people would agree with that, but disagree on what is meant by intelligence. For instance, on IQ tests, some great artists, musicians, political leaders, and others have not fared as well in those tests. On the other hand, Jane Mansfield's IQ was 163!

    Perhaps rather than promote childbirth among the intelligent, it would be better to promote it among those who are most accomplished. I think that's the aim of college scholarships -- Try to identify young people who will succeed and help make their road forward a little easier. As far as promoting propagation among that species, I think liberals have done all they can. We're getting them to sleep together, but how do we get them to actually propagate? :)
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2009
  16. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,173
    Likes Received:
    228
    Ratings:
    +344 / 6 / -8

    Both within America and outside America, when you improve the status of women, you concommitantly decrease the birth-rate.

    The key in America would be to provide opportunities outside the home to those women "opting out of" or left behind by the changes of the 70's to the present.

    Of course, as everywhere, the religious institutions will exacerbate this aspect of class divide. Those among the poor who pry themselves loose from organized religion have a better shot at "getting it" and breaking the cycle.

    Universal access to and universal use of birth control, unless a child is intended, would be a really good place from which to discover a decrease in what you claim is the over-breeding of stupid people.

    More likely of course it's the over-breeding of the stupid-by-lack-of-opportunity, and the underbreeding of the willfully-dumb-for-purposes-of-class-perpetuation-and-aggrandizement, that we're talking about.

    It would seem that the way to handle problems of overpopulation is by universally addressing overpopulation. An excellent starting point would be easy universal access and promotion of birth control use of all varieties, including of course the "morning after pill."

    But an interesting thing that works through good ol' self-interest, is that if you focus energy on the opportunities of poor women, you catch the cycle before it begins. A girl who thinks she's going nowhere but who is told and told and told it's important when she gives birth, might very well dump her abstinence-only program with her first cold duck, bong hit, or martini.

    A girl who thinks she's going to, ohhhh let's say work on computers and has already got some kind of internship learning the basics, just for example, has something to lose.

    A woman, biologically speaking, is where babies come from. A woman can, however, also view herself as having lifetime goals for which it is a good idea to put off the fulfillment of the biological function.

    If she is smart enough to know this, give her the means to protect herself from an enforced cycle of poverty, in the form of readily accessible birth control -- and of course, freely available abortion.

    If she hasn't seen that behavior modeled, to the extent you change the mass-breeding phenomenon, you need to instill one thing only: a real hope that tomorrow can be different from today. While they're young, if they catch the hope of a better future and they see the tools available to prevent disqualifying life events (those precious little miracles...) you are on your way to changing the behavior you decry.

    If you want to feel good because you're scolding "inferior" people, abstinence education is the way to go.

    If you want to affect peoples' behavior, give them something to lose, and a way not to lose it. And it's idiotic to think "their virginity" is the thing to lose we need to focus on. Show, don't tell, put your money where your mouth is. Make birth control easy to get and increase access to educational opportunities for young women at risk of teen pregnancy. Remove the tax exempt status of any religious institution that preaches against birth control, if you really want to fix the problem. But if you really just want to scold, preach, and think of yourself as superior, knock yourself out. The difficulty is it's utterly ineffectual in terms of solving the problem you've identified.

    Ta-da.

    PFnV
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2009
  17. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,173
    Likes Received:
    228
    Ratings:
    +344 / 6 / -8

    Wow. So probably she could have lost a third of her brain and still be above average...

    I know. I know. 50 years ago and it's still "too soon" for that one.

    Interesting fact though, because Maritska Haverty or Marita Havitsky or whatever her name is positively radiates intelligence if you ask me (especially given how attractive she is, even though they down-play it.)

    Okay, see my above post. I think we're all in an elitist lather over the wonderful wonderful people we are because we can type in complete sentences.

    I mean, we could go that way, no doubt: have a one-child policy and build "parent prisons" for the scofflaws. Sorta like China. Give high achievers a special permit for a second child... you could even use it as a non-monetary incentive at some phase in life... then a third-child permit for really really special people. We'd end up putting people in jail for not having access, and rewarding the guy who knows someone who knows someone, I guarantee it.

    By and large, however, gay couples are, couple for couple, more affluent than straights, and have higher IQs.

    Maybe the way to do this is to allow straight couples to take their babies home if a gay couple could not be found to adopt them within 30 days.

    And you'd want the married gay kind, so kids get the stability of marriage and the higher incomes and IQs of the gay parentage, whenever it is possible for them to be so blessed.

    PFnV
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2009
  18. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Idiocracy:(
  19. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,768
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    I think it could be demonstrated that the overwhelming number of criminals, including terrorists, were raised by straight people. Therefore, it would make more sense for kids to be raised in gay households. :)
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2009
  20. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    marriage in itself is a choice......it doesn't matter if you are gay or hetero......marriage is still a choice........

    there is no logical argument against polygamy.......I would not do it, but there is no argument you can make against it............

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>