Anthropologist explains why polygamy is the next marriage rights frontier.

reply to post by Superhans


What you are typing is fairly unintelligible. I think I get the gist of what you are saying.

I didn't just look up anything. You obviously think you are talking to an idiot. And I made the mistake of thinking I wasn't engaging a mendicant.

Carry on. Just don't have children. Please.

Originally posted by Superhans
I am prepared, are you laughing at me now? Am i supposed to feel it or care?

Yes. I am laughing at you now. Right his very second. My wife is, too. And the dog is running in circles wagging her tail as she shares in our excitement and laughter.

Why do you ask?

Having listened to part of what was discussed in the video, there are a few things that can be stated:

The issue of Polygamy is going to be a much harder and rougher issue to get accepted and allowed in the USA, than gay marriage. The reason for this is that this topic is not a new one in the eyes of the law, and has been around for a very long time. And there will be some bias against those who choose to have mutliple partners, and the excuses against such will run the entire gambit.

There are 2 primary blocks in a legal sense to the entire question of polygamy, that will have to be overcome before it can even be broached on the part of the social aspect and that stems to the laws that are against bigamy, and the other aspect, the 1850 Supreme court decision.

The first aspect would be to decriminalize the laws of the USA, state by state, to allow for one person to marry more than one spouse. That in itself would require either a changing of the criminal law, or a decision by the Supreme court of the US to get such revoked. In such cases, where a criminal law is challenged, there has to be legal ground work established to show precident and an actual justification for such, to get the court to even consider if not issue a writ of Centori to review and make an actual judgement. Any argument on the grounds of morality or trying to get the court to issue a blanket ruling to cover an the entire country, will cause it to fail. It has to be all on the grounds of the law.

Then there is the second part of that, and it will be much more difficult to achieve, and that would be for the Supreme court of the USA, to rule that the earlier court decision, namely the 1850's case, was in error and make a new ruling on such, thus allowing for there to be a new legal interpretation of the law to allow for polygamy to occure.

Of course there would have to be a review and a change in the laws and rules when it came to social services, and studies done to that aspect. And the military would have to accept such within its ranks. As one person put out, there would have to be a review in the tax laws as well, along with what is and is not acceptable when it came to children from such a union of several consenting adults.

On the social aspect of this issue, there would have to be greater support and understanding of the primary groups that have in the past and currently do practice and have as part of their cultural make up such practices, to include those who are a part of the Mormon faith, the branch that practices and encourages such, and those who are Islamic of faith, as there are some countries in the world, where such is acceptable. As it becomes a part of the social make up, then you would also see where women are wanting to have 2 or 3 husbands, for a means of equality on the part of the law. And currently, the view that the western world has of the Islamic world is not such a pretty picture, and actually terrifies people. Some would see this as another step towards those who are muslim of using it as an excuse to start to allow for Sharia to enter into the picture as well.

Until there is a greater understanding and acceptance of different cultures and beliefs, it is not going to happen or be readily acceptable. From what I understand, most who do practice polygamy in the USA, are just wanting the criminal laws to be removed from the books, the first and only real step for such.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Superhans

 

What you are typing is fairly unintelligible. I think I get the gist of what you are saying.

I didn't just look up anything. You obviously think you are talking to an idiot. And I made the mistake of thinking I wasn't engaging a mendicant.

Carry on. Just don't have children. Please.

See, no real argument. Just more blah blah blah, don't even bother wasting any more of your yankee time responding.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

As I posted earlier, I have to agree with superhans, and expressed why I can't find a reason based in logic to deny various types of marriages.

As far as no one wanting to marry an animal, I must disagree. The first half of page one of my search engine gave me several examples. Here's a link to one showing fourteen marriages. Many are outside the US and UK, but the first example was interesting:

The Jerry Springer Show raised a fair few eyebrows in its time, but hit new heights/depths (delete as appropriate) in an episode that featured the shock revelation that a man had married a horse.The episode back in 1998 was considered so shocking that it wasn't aired by many US TV stations. That didn't change the reality that American Mark Matthews had indeed been married to a horse called Pixel for five years.The Jerry Springer audience got a little outraged when Pixel the horse was brought onto the show and shared an on-air kiss with her 'husband'. Give the couple a break though - they had been seeing each other for 10 years, so it wasn't like they rushed into things.

psycheskinner.hubpages.com...

It's really not a question of whether anyone wants to, the question is, is there a logically coherent argument against it? I don't see one.

P.s. I don't think Superhans is employing a "slippery slope" fallacy. Rather, it appears to be a perfectly logical Reductio ad absurdum critique. Ok, I'll grant that it's not air tight, but it's certainly good enough for this discussion.

(Reductio ad absurdum: reduction to an absurdity; the refutation of a proposition by demonstrating the inevitably absurd conclusion to which it would logically lead)

Marriage rights in a FEMA camp.
Enjoy the popcorn and diversion while it lasts.

Love to all.

reply to post by charles1952


The gay community just gets offended the same way conservatives get mad at gays being married. They all think that it somehow transforms themselves and their marriage into what they disapprove of. It would be easier to ask them "how does a man marrying a dog threaten your gay marriage" THEN they might understand as they used that same line so many times in support of gay marriage.

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
Marriage rights in a FEMA camp.
Enjoy the popcorn and diversion.

Enjoy the Alex Jones world and his delusions.

reply to post by Superhans


Don't watch Alex Jones.

U.S. Government Preparing for Collapse
www.educateinspirechange.org...

reply to post by charles1952



With you, I can discuss this. With hans, no. You at least can give honor to common logical concepts of debate.

If we are to discuss animal marriages, and the logical arguments for or against them, we should do so in another thread. It has nothing to do with polygamy. Polygamy is a well documented part of human history. Our current cutlure doesn't do it....but that is just our current culture. We also don't typically eat horses. But you can see from that other thread that discussing THAT has created quite the uproar.

In any event, there is no logical connection between a human marrying other humans, and a human marrying an animal. Yes. There are fetishists for just about everything. I am not going to argue that. Polygamy is not a fetish. If we are to reduce it to only sex, then you can make that argument. But doing so cheapens the human experience. We are more than our sexual habits. Our relationships tend to be, as well.

So if you want to start that other thread on marrying animals, I will be happy to try to answer your questions.

reply to post by charles1952


BTW, your logical reason is "public health". Unless you are referring to a sexless marriage, then public health wouldn't matter. In that case, or in both cases, "informed consent". If you believe another animal can provide informed consent, prove it. Then we will see.

See what happened here? He basically said he is at a loss for words and was really talking out of his rear this whole time and when pressed for a response all he can do is give long drawn out versions of "blah blah blah no comment wha wha"

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by charles1952

 

BTW, your logical reason is "public health". Unless you are referring to a sexless marriage, then public health wouldn't matter. In that case, or in both cases, "informed consent". If you believe another animal can provide informed consent, prove it. Then we will see.

Does an animal give consent to be slaughtered and eaten, do birds give consent to stay in cages? Hell no, screw all those little furry bastards.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Dear bigfatfurrytexan,

I really appreciate your kind words. And I would love to follow your suggestion. There is one little problem which will prevent me from making such a thread.

I posted a thread on a man and his goat in the RATS forum a while back. The purpose was to explore the logical differences, if any, between the less conventional forms of relationships. I was banned for a week. I'm a little reluctant to travel that road again. I'm not sure that the Mods would appreciate the subtle difference between sex and marriage.

I'm a wimp, I know, but I'd hate to be kicked off ATS. Sorry.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Superhans

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by charles1952

 

BTW, your logical reason is "public health". Unless you are referring to a sexless marriage, then public health wouldn't matter. In that case, or in both cases, "informed consent". If you believe another animal can provide informed consent, prove it. Then we will see.

Does an animal give consent to be slaughtered and eaten, do birds give consent to stay in cages? Hell no, screw all those little furry bastards.

what are you talking about?

Marriage has nothing to do with food.

Those animals also don't give consent to be born, for you to look at them, or for the water to flow down the stream. What does any of this have to do with marrying animals?

You might have a point in there somewhere. But you communicate horribly and are doing a poor job of stating it.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Its pretty clear what im saying. You just have a way of stretching what should be silence into long sentences which say nothing and waste time.

Originally posted by Superhans
See what happened here? He basically said he is at a loss for words and was really talking out of his rear this whole time and when pressed for a response all he can do is give long drawn out versions of "blah blah blah no comment wha wha"

See hans, this is horrible communication. It looks as if a drunk child got on here and decided to be obnoxiously petulant.

When you try to debate by boiling down someone's statements (which are based on the core fundamentals of debate) into "blah blah blah", you do a disservice to the people talking with you.

You might walk away thinking you have won an argument. Meanwhile, everyone who reads it thinks less of you for your lack of effort which support a false sense of accomplishment.

Originally posted by Superhans
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Its pretty clear what im saying. You just have a way of stretching what should be silence into long sentences which say nothing and waste time.

If that is your position, I will take it to mean you don't care to try to be more clear. For whatever motives, I have no idea.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Dear bigfatfurrytexan,

I really appreciate your kind words. And I would love to follow your suggestion. There is one little problem which will prevent me from making such a thread.

I posted a thread on a man and his goat in the RATS forum a while back. The purpose was to explore the logical differences, if any, between the less conventional forms of relationships. I was banned for a week. I'm a little reluctant to travel that road again. I'm not sure that the Mods would appreciate the subtle difference between sex and marriage.

I'm a wimp, I know, but I'd hate to be kicked off ATS. Sorry.

With respect,
Charles1952

Yes, sadly even the moderators give into political correctness rather than logic, which is ironic considering the "motto" of the site. Simple minds find simple solution and when a simple mind sees same sex marriage and animals on the same page their primitive logic only permits them to think "bad man call gay man animals, bad man wrong"

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Dear bigfatfurrytexan,

I really appreciate your kind words. And I would love to follow your suggestion. There is one little problem which will prevent me from making such a thread.

I posted a thread on a man and his goat in the RATS forum a while back. The purpose was to explore the logical differences, if any, between the less conventional forms of relationships. I was banned for a week. I'm a little reluctant to travel that road again. I'm not sure that the Mods would appreciate the subtle difference between sex and marriage.

I'm a wimp, I know, but I'd hate to be kicked off ATS. Sorry.

With respect,
Charles1952

Understood.

And a 1 week ban? That was wholly inappropriate. I am very familiar with you and what you post. Whoever made that decision obviously was not.