Fundie Mormons going the way of the Branch Dravidians.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Modern monogamous relationships are far more equitable than modern polygamous relationships.

Because while you can break power in half, you can't break it in 4ths?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Nevada has legalized and regulated prostitution, as an economic activity. It'd be far more difficult to regulate polygamous marriages...

Why would you need to regulate it at all? Prostitution is a business.. all business is subject to regulation. Polygamy is a form of marriage.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Because while you can break power in half, you can't break it in 4ths?

You still dodge the point I made earlier about how monogamous, heterosexual relationships do offer means to reach towards equality and true intimacy compared to polygamous relationships.

Give me a serious explanation as to why you disagree with my claim that, in spite of the flaws and failures in some monogamous relationships, they still offer greater means to successful relationships based on equality and true intimacy.

[TCO]

How about bathhouse sex? Let's outlaw that too. I think it's degrading the guy who gets stuck eating the cookie.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by TCO
How about bathhouse sex? Let's outlaw that too. I think it's degrading the guy who gets stuck eating the cookie.

What does sex between two people of the same gender have to do with reinforcing sexist subordination/exploitation of women?

[TCO]

Originally posted by MrFun



What does sex between two people of the same gender have to do with reinforcing sexist subordination/exploitation of women?

Bottoms like you have rights too.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
You still dodge the point I made earlier about how monogamous, heterosexual relationships do offer means to reach towards equality and true intimacy compared to polygamous relationships.

Give me a serious explanation as to why you disagree with my claim that, in spite of the flaws and failures in some monogamous relationships, they still offer greater means to successful relationships based on equality and true intimacy.

How am I dodging anything? I think it is simply a ludicrous point that 2 offers equality and intimacy but somehow 4 cannot!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because while you can break power in half, you can't break it in 4ths?

See the OP.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why would you need to regulate it at all? Prostitution is a business.. all business is subject to regulation. Polygamy is a form of marriage.

Said regulation is the reason legalized prostitution in Nevada isn't a problem.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by TCO


My religion requires me to kill all dope-smoking, word-parsing Libertarians!

I don't parse my words, so byte me.

[TCO]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


I don't parse my words, so byte me.

sloww and Eyes...sitting in a tree...

[Elok]

Well, institutionalized polygamy is typically disastrous just because it "favors" one gender. Whether polyandry or polygyny, with large numbers of one sex being bound to a smaller number of the other it skews society badly.

Without such restrictions (i.e., one man can have six wives, one woman three husbands, or three men and two women can all be "married" to one another), the biggest problem I can foresee is just that large groups of people are by nature unstable in their relationships. When a husband and wife split up, it can traumatize their kids. When you've got several other spouses/children in the mix, a single dysfunctional relationship can poison a massive family. I've taken the rare step (for me) of actually trying some research on this; "polyamory" websites themselves acknowledge that such relationships are difficult to maintain due to the abundance of possible straining points. They don't seem to think of how this messes things up a lot more though.

As I've been single all my life, I should probably refrain from exposing my ignorance on the subject of relationship dynamics by commenting further, so I'll just leave it at that.

[MrFun]

Good post, Elok.

One other thing Imran -- it's good that you brought up polyandry relationships. However, there may still be the case that even polyandrous, heterosexual relationships are inherently based on sexist exploitation and subordination of women. The one woman may have multiple husbands, but that only means that instead of one husband lording over multiple women as in polygamy, the multiple husbands lord it over the one wife in polyandry.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by TCO


Bottoms like you have rights too.

Well, if you really want to know about my private sex life, I am a top.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"polyamory" websites themselves acknowledge that such relationships are difficult to maintain due to the abundance of possible straining points.

Of course not saying it is easy, but is that a reason to ban something? I mean marriage is NOT easy. But people work through it... and it does, of course have a very high divorce rate.

[q=Kuci]See the OP.[/q]

How is that different from Muslim families who marry off their teenage daughters to older men in monogamous relationships (which has happened... and has brought the authorities in)?

Monogamy is not immune from such things.

Marriage, throughout history, has been HELL on women, who were considered property for the most part. The solution wasn't banning the institution, but giving women more power. When you ban something you bring out the worst aspects of it (ie, if drug use was legal, the main example of drug users probably wouldn't be crackheads), so to say look at how these *******s are doing it isn't a valid response, IMO.