The next great step in civil rights?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Sure. Polygamy tends to create such a situation.
However, people should be allowed to, if they so choose, enter into such a relationship. It simply isn't the place of government to say "No, you don't *really* love each other, so we won't let you get married"

The government has the power, and the obligation, to prevent people from doing all sorts of silly things.

[Jon Miller]

Dude, it was years ago. I do still have the information, but I no longer have a computer that could read it (it is on an old mac disk).

All I did was go to nearby libraries, and check out like 10+ books on Utopias.

If I could do that in highschool, you can do something similiar now. I am sorry I don't remember the name of the books, however, I think that any reasonable selection of books would work. In fact, I bet you could do it a lot quicker with the internet.

And yes, there were communities of polygamous groups that treated women as equals.. you really don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

I really find you rude and worthless to talk to. I say I remember something. You tell me I am wrong, but don't tell me any reason why I should be wrong other then the fact you are right in the argument.

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

And yes, there were communities of polygamous groups that treated women as equals

And these polygamous groups ending up oppressing their women? If they were treated as equals how can that be so? Or was it that 19th Century's version of "equality".

I really find you rude and worthless to talk to.

Yes, because saying I HAVE EVIDENCE and they saying, oh it was a book somewhere that I read back in high school, I don't remember the name or anything is a worthwile debate technique .

I've given you plenty of reasons that you'd be wrong, but your response is, go to the library and find out why I'm right! To echo you, I ain't doing your homework for you .

Come back with proof, rather than I read it in a book somewhere about something (and of course you filtered out all the biases in readings of these so-called 'books' I'm sure). Don't blame me if you can't back up your statements with anything other than, it was in books (but I don't remember which ones)!

[johncmcleod]

I remember similar arguments with homosexuality. Humans were meant to be heterosexual and that's what works psychologically. The ONLY reason it works psychology for everyone was (and for the most part is currently) because homosexuality was sanctioned and thus it was a struggle to be gay in a world where that behavior was banned.

And why should the state recognize heterosexual monogamous marriage? That type of social engineering is not something the state should get involved in.

No, gays are biologically gay, it is part of their brain chemistry. And there is no such thing as someone who's brain chemistry makes them have to have 3 wives. There is nothing pyschologically proven that homosexuality doesn't work psychologically. Monogamous homosexual relationships work in the same way as monogamous heterosexual relationships. However, once we start talking about these equal power, messed up polygamous marriages, the relationship dynamic is way different and isn't something humans were meant to partake in. Homosexuality is, however, and has been around in us (and in primates) for a while.

Uh . . . . . as to regards of your comment that monogamous marriages are more inherently equal that is blantantly false.

Historically, traditional monogamous marriage has been male-dominated and until later in the nineteenth century (maybe even into early twentieth), wives were pretty much property. Although even then, women found other ways to assert themselves around some of the laws.

But at least today, monogamous marriage is much more equal between husbands and wives than in the past -- at least in Western countries.

I already stated the answer to this in my first post. Yes, monogamous relationships have been mostly male dominated because of the culture they came in. But the relationship is not inherently dominative, it is inherently egalitarian. However, polygamous relationships inherently give more power to one side (just as a relationship between a 4 year old and a 40 year old would, which is why such a thing is banned). That's why they aren't ok. However, if you can construct a equal power polygamous marriage (3 of same gender or equal number of husbands and wives), things are different. But I still don't believe in legalizing such a thing because I think it is physically impossible to have a psychologically healthy relationship in such a manner. I do believe it is possible for gays to have a psychologically healthy relationship, that's a reason why gay marriage should be legal.

Other than this all of my arguments have been dropped.

Allowing gay marriage=benefits social good.
Allowing polygamous marriage=does not benefit social good

originally posted by Bkeela:
That's not the next great step: legalised beastiality should be next. Then beastial marriage, then paedophilia can be dealt with.

You're an idiot. If you can honestly explain to me how an animal can properly consent to marriage or how a child can be allowed to make such a decision, be sure and tell us, but if not, **** off.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, gays are biologically gay, it is part of their brain chemistry. And there is no such thing as someone who's brain chemistry makes them have to have 3 wives.

Biological explanations for homosexuality are fairly new, however. Not to equate the two, but psychologists have indeed found strong non-conscious impulses for serial killing. Now it may be as a result of some stimulus, but no one knows for sure.

Polygamous relationships have been a part of the world for a very long time. Perhaps there is a biological yearning for them. You do hear the refrain that perhaps humans weren't meant to be monogamous... maybe that is hardwired into us?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And yes, there were communities of polygamous groups that treated women as equals

And these polygamous groups ending up oppressing their women? If they were treated as equals how can that be so? Or was it that 19th Century's version of "equality".

I really find you rude and worthless to talk to.

Yes, because saying I HAVE EVIDENCE and they saying, oh it was a book somewhere that I read back in high school, I don't remember the name or anything is a worthwile debate technique .

I've given you plenty of reasons that you'd be wrong, but your response is, go to the library and find out why I'm right! To echo you, I ain't doing your homework for you .

Come back with proof, rather than I read it in a book somewhere about something (and of course you filtered out all the biases in readings of these so-called 'books' I'm sure). Don't blame me if you can't back up your statements with anything other than, it was in books (but I don't remember which ones)!

You haven't given me one reason why I am wrong. You say something, which is obviously wrong to anyone who has studied the subject at all (even Che knows it is wrong). And when I call you on it, you want the exact book that I Read 10 years ago.

I am saying you don't even need to look at the exact book, any book that is a decent discussion of the topic (more broad then just focusing on a single one, or a single type) would show you that you are wrong. You don't understand the subject. You are ignorant.

But instead of doing some reading (Which I have done, unlike you), you tell me that I am wrong, and base it on your ignorant, baseless ideas.

I find that supremely arrogant.

There has been quite a breadth of social experiments, by people who were quite libertine, in the past.. and to say that such things never existed is very ignorant.

And I never said that all polygamous groups ended up oppressing their women. I said most would now (just like most would then)... In many utopian groups the women weren't oppressed at all.. (Which is my ****ing point). Most people who support polygamy (and would practice it) are not libertines.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

For example, call the Oneida Society what you will.. but it definitely didn't reflect the mores and ideas of the time. And would be considered very libertine by our own standards.

This isn't one of the communities that best reflect my point (Their were female dominated communities), but does show your inability to conceptualize what has occured before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Society

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

You haven't given me one reason why I am wrong.

I've given you more than a few common sense reasons. One being that when a practice is illegal (as it has been in the US for a very long time), you don't have mainstream people practice it. And it is no surprise if women have historically been oppressed in polygamous marriages, because they've been oppressed in monogamous marriages throughout most of history as well.

You come about and say, I have proof, they are in books of which I don't remember the title. Go to the library and read it.

But instead of doing some reading (Which I have done, unlike you), you tell me that I am wrong, and base it on your ignorant, baseless ideas.

I find that supremely arrogant.

Its far more arrogant to say, I have proof, but I don't know where exactly it is. You go and read it yourself! Perhaps that is what Bush should have done! We have proof of WMD's, but you are questioning us without doing the reading? We're not doing your homework, you read the reports about WMD's yourself and then you can say I'm wrong!

How much worse can you get? You STILL haven't referenced a book, just saying there is proof without indicating where it is or even what it is. Just vague and cryptic messages that these utopian communities that did polygamy turned out bad. Hell, I'm not even sure what the 'bad' is, really... is it oppression of the women, is 'unstability'? You are just frothing at the mouth with no clue about anything.

I'm sure you'd accept an argument if someone told you that you had to do the reading yourself and didn't tell you what books they read to come to their conclusion.

There has been quite a breadth of social experiments, by people who were quite libertine, in the past.. and to say that such things never existed is very ignorant.

And people said that.... when exactly?

You realize that some people who do drugs are pretty 'libertine', but that doesn't mean they are inside the mainstream. People that disobey the law aren't usually the 'normal' folk. And when things are legalized, more mainstream people start to do them.

Great example, Prohibition. While it was highly unpopular, the people who flaunted the law tended mostly not to be those of the 'mainstream' folk (though the law was highly disobeyed).

I said most would now (just like most would then)

And why is that? And do you think those people don't oppress their wives NOW? There are plenty of women who don't have jobs outside the home. And in some areas, I'm sure that's due to pressure from the husband. There are men that beat their wives to "keep them in line".

Why would you think that polygamists be more apt to perform such behavior? Is it because the examples of polygamy are those that have flirted the law and are fringe members of society (like crazy LDS).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
For example, call the Oneida Society what you will.. but it definitely didn't reflect the mores and ideas of the time. And would be considered very libertine by our own standards.

This isn't one of the communities that best reflect my point (Their were female dominated communities), but does show your inability to conceptualize what has occured before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Society

JM

You realize this SUPPORTS my point. The Oneida Society had complex marriages which did not cause a devaluation in women's rights and did not lead to 'instability'. In fact this is the perfect pitch for polygamy!

And yet you think this is a notch in your side's column?

Give me a break.

Though to think these people weren't a bit... nuts, to be diplomatic, and that they weren't out of the mainstream is very silly.

[Jon Miller]

Dude, you are ignorant. Societies have existed that are broader than your narrow mind can fathom, please go educate yourself.

It's like you are telling me the world is flat, because you look around at it looks flat. Can I think of one book, or what have you, that I need to site to change your mind? No, I can tell you to read any book on the subject (whch is broad/complete) and it will serve the purpose.. to educate you.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thanks for giving victory to me

It's like you are telling me the world is flat, because you look around at it looks flat. Can I think of one book, or what have you, that I need to site to change your mind? No, I can tell you to read any book on the subject (whch is broad/complete) and it will serve the purpose.. to educate you.

Why wouldn't you be able to think of one book that dispels that idea? That's ridiculous. There are plenty out there that you could do a simple search on, if the postulation is true.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You realize this SUPPORTS my point. The Oneida Society had complex marriages which did not cause a devaluation in women's rights and did not lead to 'instability'. In fact this is the perfect pitch for polygamy!

And yet you think this is a notch in your side's column?

Give me a break.

Though to think these people weren't a bit... nuts, to be diplomatic, and that they weren't out of the mainstream is very silly.

No. It support my point.

It shows that societies existed which are well outside the norm.

So apparently you claim that the male dominance has been such a big part of the norm then any of the things that the Oneida community was different on. And while their might be communities like Oneida which broke up the parent/child relationship, and complex marriage (Where every person was married to every person of the opposite sex), the criticsm thing, etc... but there can't be any that existed that had male/female equality.. or even female dominance.

Give me a break

There isn't much difference between willful ignorance and being an idiot.

JM

[johncmcleod]

Biological explanations for homosexuality are fairly new, however. Not to equate the two, but psychologists have indeed found strong non-conscious impulses for serial killing. Now it may be as a result of some stimulus, but no one knows for sure.

Polygamous relationships have been a part of the world for a very long time. Perhaps there is a biological yearning for them. You do hear the refrain that perhaps humans weren't meant to be monogamous... maybe that is hardwired into us?

How can you equate homosexuality to serial killing? There is something inherently costly to society, illegal, immoral, etc. about murdering someone, that's why it is illegal. However, there is nothing about homosexuality that harms society. The comparison is a very bad one.

Slavery has been part of the world for a long time, but it doesn't make it right. The only biological aspect to polygamous marriages would be that it is advantageous for a male to spread his genes to as many partners as possible. But this is something that doesn't necessarily involve marriage, and it doesn't benefit society, so there is no reason to sanction such behavior. And I think its bs that humans weren't meant to be monogamous-the family structure of primates and early humans was a monogamous one.

You're trying to lump together homosexuality and polygamous marriage, and they're two entirely different things. Humans were meant to have monogamous relationships, either heterosexual or homosexual (homosexuality has been around in primates since before the time of humans). It is problematic for society to ban homosexuality. It causes great harm to the homosexuals, because as we (all intelligent people, especially people with any background in psychology) all know, it is impossible to change one's biological makeup and force this person to be straight. It will make him very unhappy, and there is absolutely no reason to do so, it doesn't benefit society.

However, you don't need to go through hardship to not participate in polygamy. One doesn't have to go against their sexuality, they could still particpate in heterosexual relationships. They just shouldn't be allowed to participate in polygamous relationships because these harm society as a whole.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It shows that societies existed which are well outside the norm.

Which was my point. Those societies are outside the norm.

So apparently you claim that the male dominance has been such a big part of the norm then any of the things that the Oneida community was different on. And while their might be communities like Oneida which broke up the parent/child relationship, and complex marriage (Where every person was married to every person of the opposite sex), the criticsm thing, etc... but there can't be any that existed that had male/female equality.. or even female dominance.

Nope, my claim is that historical societies that oppressed women are not out of the norm in that aspect of things compared to monogamous relationships.

Do keep up will you?

There isn't much difference between willful ignorance and being an idiot.

Indeed, and you have shown yourself to be quite the idiot.

--

How can you equate homosexuality to serial killing?

No, polygamy to serial killing. Though I guess homosexuality can imply as well. The thing that may relate them is psychological impulses. I don't see why serial killing is illegal has anything to do with that. The people that engage in it are psychologically compelled to do what they do.

The only biological aspect to polygamous marriages would be that it is advantageous for a male to spread his genes to as many partners as possible. But this is something that doesn't necessarily involve marriage, and it doesn't benefit society, so there is no reason to sanction such behavior.

In societies like Europe, where the birth rate is well below the death rate, how can it not benefit society? Not that I think that state sponsored marriage necessarily benefits society.

And I think its bs that humans weren't meant to be monogamous-the family structure of primates and early humans was a monogamous one.

I believe that the relationships among early humans was far more open than the locked in monogamous ideal we have today (though with divorce being so common that ideal is changing).

However, you don't need to go through hardship to not participate in polygamy.

Tell that to the Mormons and what they had to go through to continue their polygamy until it was finally stamped out by the government.

They just shouldn't be allowed to participate in polygamous relationships because these harm society as a whole.

In what way do they harm society? At all? I think there is great benefit in letting people partner up in any way they want to. The state should not be involved in marriage... doing so has merely harmed society as people have been left out.

[MrFun]

In my opinion, it's less important to use the "it's not a choice" when discussing issues concering gays and far more effective to use the principle of right of conscience when advocating for equal rights for gays and lesbians.