ot. marriage is totally gay.

[Coronita]

[quote=ltsdd]Most people probably have the perception of polygamy being a one-to-many relationship. Would people feel differently about polygamy if it’s really a many-to-many relationship?[/quote]

That certainly would get really complicated if one gets pregnant. 🙂

[NotCranky]

[quote=ltsdd]Most people probably have the perception of polygamy being a one-to-many relationship. Would people feel differently about polygamy if it’s really a many-to-many relationship?[/quote]

That’s basically the perception I work from.
I am not sure if ever in the history of humankind that “many to many” has been effective in carrying the human race forward( ultimately this topic is about reproduction and survival) . But then maybe it has been fairly common? Not in recent western civilizations, of course, but with native americans or others? Maybe further back in European history?

Cultures where only the alpha males have much access to women seem to have been/are more common. You don’t see women even dreaming of such things. yet some DO cooperate with polygamy. It doesn’t seem like that big of a stretch, really. “One ( male) with many” is more common in other primates, and throughout the animal kingdom. This is why I tend to see it as “one( male) with many”. Seems more in line with what our internal wiring would be like, at least as much as we are wired for monogamy.

[an]

[quote=Blogstar]That’s basically the perception I work from.
I am not sure if ever in the history of humankind that “many to many” has been effective in carrying the human race forward( ultimately this topic is about reproduction and survival) . But then maybe it has been fairly common? Not in recent western civilizations, of course, but with native americans or others? Maybe further back in European history?

Cultures where only the alpha males have much access to women seem to have been/are more common. You don’t see women even dreaming of such things. yet some DO cooperate with polygamy. It doesn’t seem like that big of a stretch, really. “One ( male) with many” is more common in other primates, and throughout the animal kingdom. This is why I tend to see it as “one( male) with many”. Seems more in line with what our internal wiring would be like, at least as much as we are wired for monogamy.[/quote]What if these polygamists are bisexual? Why does it have to be one man to many women or one woman to many men?

[NotCranky]

Just looked your original post again, scaredy, You miss the gay life of the 70’s and the 80’s, but I remember it also as a very painful extremely dysfunctional time for gay people too.

[NotCranky]

[quote=AN][quote=Blogstar]That’s basically the perception I work from.
I am not sure if ever in the history of humankind that “many to many” has been effective in carrying the human race forward( ultimately this topic is about reproduction and survival) . But then maybe it has been fairly common? Not in recent western civilizations, of course, but with native americans or others? Maybe further back in European history?

Cultures where only the alpha males have much access to women seem to have been/are more common. You don’t see women even dreaming of such things. yet some DO cooperate with polygamy. It doesn’t seem like that big of a stretch, really. “One ( male) with many” is more common in other primates, and throughout the animal kingdom. This is why I tend to see it as “one( male) with many”. Seems more in line with what our internal wiring would be like, at least as much as we are wired for monogamy.[/quote]What if these polygamists are bisexual? Why does it have to be one man to many women or one woman to many men?[/quote]

Everybody is bi-sexual. Look at what I am saying though. Where has a free for all ever brought the human race forward? How could it. Maybe it could. I don’t know. I think it would not. We could not succeed doing that it’s to far off of how our complete package of instincts work together for social success. Poligamy, as I perceive it, and as it has existed and does exist , might not be.

[an]

[quote=Blogstar]Everybody is bi-sexual. Look at what I am saying though. Where has a free for all ever brought the human race forward? How could it. Maybe it could. I don’t know. I think it would not. We could not succeed doing that it’s to far off of how our complete package of instincts work together for social success. Poligamy, as I perceive it, and as it has existed and does exist , might not be.[/quote]I’m not arguing whether a many to many marriage would bring human race forward or not. It’s definitely a minority group, just like homosexuals are, but to a much larger extent. What I’m trying to say is, we shouldn’t deny a group of people (doesn’t matter how small/fringe they are) their constitutional rights just because you don’t think their action will bring the human race forward. Many anti-gay marriage say the exact same thing about gay marriage. They point to human history, they point to how it’s not natural, they point to how it’ll destroy marriage and some even will go as far as saying it’ll destroy society. I personally just want everyone to have the same constitutional right to marry.

[NotCranky]

[quote=AN][quote=Blogstar]Everybody is bi-sexual. Look at what I am saying though. Where has a free for all ever brought the human race forward? How could it. Maybe it could. I don’t know. I think it would not. We could not succeed doing that it’s to far off of how our complete package of instincts work together for social success. Poligamy, as I perceive it, and as it has existed and does exist , might not be.[/quote]I’m not arguing whether a many to many marriage would bring human race forward or not. It’s definitely a minority group, just like homosexuals are, but to a much larger extent. What I’m trying to say is, we shouldn’t deny a group of people (doesn’t matter how small/fringe they are) their constitutional rights just because you don’t think their action will bring the human race forward. Many anti-gay marriage say the exact same thing about gay marriage. They point to human history, they point to how it’s not natural, they point to how it’ll destroy marriage and some even will go as far as saying it’ll destroy society. I personally just want everyone to have the same constitutional right to marry.[/quote]

O.K.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl] You are referring to one husband living with two adult “spouses,” perhaps one legal spouse and one whom he’s not legally married to, correct?…

I personally don’t see what these “cults” practice (or even what “mainstream” LDS members practice) as a religion or a “church.”

[/quote]

Yes, kind of what I’m referring to. But I’m getting that you think I’m still talking about people that are somehow connected to a cult or a religion. I’m not. The one family I’ve known since the mid-90’s, are 3 atheists that live in Torrance and have been together since at least that time. Not a traditional home, but not any cult either.[/quote]

Yes, SK, I did realize that your friends didn’t use “religion” as the reason they were polygamists.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Blogstar]Just looked your original post again, scaredy, You miss the gay life of the 70’s and the 80’s, but I remember it also as a very painful extremely dysfunctional time for gay people too.[/quote]

So do I. I remember when gay men were getting sick and dying en masse in the late ’70’s thru about ’80 and doctors did not yet know at the time what was causing their infections nor why “mainstream” antibiotics did little for these patients. Many, many people died before life-prolonging drugs were developed, turning AIDS into a chronic illness instead of a death sentence.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=Blogstar]Just looked your original post again, scaredy, You miss the gay life of the 70’s and the 80’s, but I remember it also as a very painful extremely dysfunctional time for gay people too.[/quote]

So do I. I remember when gay men were getting sick and dying en masse in the late ’70’s thru about ’80 and doctors did not yet know at the time what was causing their infections nor why “mainstream” antibiotics did little for these patients. Many, many people died before life-prolonging drugs were developed, turning AIDS into a chronic illness instead of a death sentence.[/quote]

Failure of public health policy blinded by religious resurgence at the time.

Remember the born again Christians and the televangelists? That was their peak in the 80s.

[FlyerInHi]

On the issue of gay marriage, I don’t understand why anyone is viewing it having unknown consequences on the family.

We have data to support gay marriage. The Netherlands legalized marriage since 2001. The rest of the civilized world advanced gays rights way before we did.

Universal values have changed and opposition to gay marriage is a no-win proposition. Everyone knows that.

I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court would not have decided for gay marriage if it weren’t for the data from the rest of the world.

People who oppose gay marriage on conservative grounds come with the reasons why the Supreme Court should not have made it a constitutional issue: 1) The Court should have it left it to States (States rights issue), 2) it’s hypocritical to allow gay marriage but not polygamy (all or nothing argument).

Maybe polygamy will be legal one day. Supporters of polygamy are free to work to advance their cause.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=bearishgurl]
This “feminist” has already “weighed in” here :=0

Polygamy is a blatant exploitation of women and minor girls. I realize it takes two to tango but the polygamist lifestyle ends up trapping women and girls for life before they have had a chance to grow up and decide what they actually want to do, IMO. Practically speaking, the only way females can “escape” from this lifestyle after bearing children is to leave them behind as their “patriarchs” are politically powerful in their region. The under-the-table “gifts” they bestow upon their elected officials at all levels sustains their lifestyle without governmental interference.

That is, if these patriarchs’ local city councilperson or county supervisor just happens to see a female “clan” member obviously in the third trimester of pregnancy and dressed in their “clan’s” typical dress exiting from their compound or doing errands in public and are not quite certain she is 18 years old (or was at the time of becoming pregnant), they will simply look the other way.

It’s been going on like this for decades.[/quote]

BG, the way you describe polygamy is how it’s practiced by LDS.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. Real feminists would actually have the power. If there were solidarity among women, they would be stronger and hold the power. Women have what men want: sex and children.

Women just give themselves to men too cheaply.
Supply and demand.

Look at China. It’s changed in a couple generations. Women now demand a car and a house (often paid for without mortgage) before marriage. Men find themselves stressed out and working hard and saving up just for marriage.

[ltsddd]

[quote=FlyerInHi]

Failure of public health policy blinded by religious resurgence at the time.
[/quote]

How so?

[ltsddd]

Somewhat off-topic. Has anyone read Justice C. Thomas dissent or an an excerpt of it where he mentioned about slavery and the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII?

I found it very shocking. I am quite sure if the same thing was said by any of the other justices, we would still be hearing it in the news.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=ltsdd][quote=FlyerInHi]

Failure of public health policy blinded by religious resurgence at the time.
[/quote]

How so?[/quote]

There is tons of info on the Reagan’s Administration’s inaction on AIDS from indifference to lack of funding, to deference to the religious right.

I didn’t know that, but apparently Diane Feinstein’s budget for AIDS as mayor of SF was larger the Federal budget for the same for the first 2 years of the epidemic.

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/QQ/p-nid/87

With no cure and no vaccine, educating the public on how AIDS was transmitted, who was at risk, and how to protect oneself was the only way left to slow the spread of the disease. Since this task fell under the mandate of his office, Koop concluded that “if ever there was a disease made for a Surgeon General, it was AIDS.” Nevertheless, for the first four years in office, the nation’s top health officer was prevented from addressing the nation’s most urgent health crisis, for reasons he insisted were never fully clear to him but that were no doubt political.

[Author]

Posts