After gay marriage, where do I sign for poligamy?

Sorry Josh, but I did warn you.

  On 2/8/2014 at 10:04 PM, sheatheman said:

Humans exist to have children. Raising a child in a stable 2 parent home is the best thing for a child. I'll get out the brass knuckles if you disagree.

Yes, it's natural because every fucking organism on this planet reproduces, including viruses and bacteria. How else can you defeat time and "live" forever?

i don't understand what your point is but please remember i have brass on as we speak.

planning to buy a new monitor soon?

goddamnit. I think you probably know where I live. I'm sorry, please forgive me.

I have no issues with polygamy. Large familiar structures should be encouraged.

*realizes thread is filled with males for whom this type of intellectual masturbation often precedes actual masturbation*

  On 2/8/2014 at 11:20 PM, sheatheman said:

*realizes thread is filled with males for whom this type of intellectual masturbation often precedes actual masturbation*

o rly ?

  On 2/8/2014 at 10:04 PM, sheatheman said:

Humans exist to have children.

no they don't. it's an option sure, and a fine one for many people. definitely not the be all and end all of existence though.

  On 2/8/2014 at 9:32 PM, sheatheman said:

I'm already on my way out of here, to the hills in the badlands, and I'm not looking back, and I won't let my wife look back either.

Stop being so uptight. You just need to loosen up.

My ass. You have to sign my ass for that shit reasoning.

  On 2/9/2014 at 12:34 AM, 2WV said:

 

  On 2/8/2014 at 10:04 PM, sheatheman said:

Humans exist to have children.

no they don't. it's an option sure, and a fine one for many people. definitely not the be all and end all of existence though.

 

From an evolutionary standpoint, which I assume is where the majority of you are standing, it absolutely is the be all end all of existence.

Plus we wouldn't be existent if we didn't do it, so that's another way in which it truly is the be all end all, in that through procreation all may be and without it all will end.

I think "be all end all" was borne out of the problem of describing just how vital monogamous child rearing is to our species.

After polygamy, where do I sign for zoophilia?

  On 2/9/2014 at 2:52 AM, sheatheman said:

 

  On 2/9/2014 at 12:34 AM, 2WV said:

 

  On 2/8/2014 at 10:04 PM, sheatheman said:

Humans exist to have children.

no they don't. it's an option sure, and a fine one for many people. definitely not the be all and end all of existence though.

 

 

From an evolutionary standpoint, which I assume is where the majority of you are standing, it absolutely is the be all end all of existence.

 

Plus we wouldn't be existent if we didn't do it, so that's another way in which it truly is the be all end all, in that through procreation all may be and without it all will end.

 

I think "be all end all" was borne out of the problem of describing just how vital monogamous child rearing is to our species.

 

But all people do not have to procreate for the species to persist. Arguably, many of the people who fulfill roles that do not include direct procreation are in someway or another contributing positively to the procreation of others. So, procreation is important, but it is not important, nor is it desirable, for all humans to procreate. If anything the false expectation that all humans should procreate would actually contribute to our downfall more so than any type of alternative non-procreating relationships. Because if everyone has children, it will strain available resources a great deal more. The existence of non-child producing relationships, or even the acceptance of those relationships, will not effect the longevity of the species negatively. Furthermore, the idea that a monogamous relationship is somehow more beneficial to a child is unfounded. There are cultural examples that disprove this already. If anything the larger support mechanism you have for a person the greater their likelihood of success. This is a general idea that I think holds a great amount of water. It is also annoying that people talk about alternative relationships as if they are only currently coming into existence. They have existed from the beginning. So, please don't act like because you have only begun to experience them firsthand that somehow they have not existed since the dawn of man.

  On 2/9/2014 at 3:09 AM, Deer said:

After polygamy, where do I sign for zoophilia?

zoophilia is a cross-species sexual relationship. It has no bearing on human relationships. Slippery slope arguments are a proof of ignorance.

  On 2/9/2014 at 3:15 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/9/2014 at 2:52 AM, sheatheman said:

 

  On 2/9/2014 at 12:34 AM, 2WV said:

 

  On 2/8/2014 at 10:04 PM, sheatheman said:

Humans exist to have children.

no they don't. it's an option sure, and a fine one for many people. definitely not the be all and end all of existence though.

 

 

From an evolutionary standpoint, which I assume is where the majority of you are standing, it absolutely is the be all end all of existence.

 

Plus we wouldn't be existent if we didn't do it, so that's another way in which it truly is the be all end all, in that through procreation all may be and without it all will end.

 

I think "be all end all" was borne out of the problem of describing just how vital monogamous child rearing is to our species.

 

 

But all people do not have to procreate for the species to persist. Arguably, many of the people who fulfill roles that do not include direct procreation are in someway or another contributing positively to the procreation of others. So, procreation is important, but it is not important, nor is it desirable, for all humans to procreate. If anything the false expectation that all humans should procreate would actually contribute to our downfall more so than any type of alternative non-procreating relationships. Because if everyone has children, it will strain available resources a great deal more. The existence of non-child producing relationships, or even the acceptance of those relationships, will not effect the longevity of the species negatively. Furthermore, the idea that a monogamous relationship is somehow more beneficial to a child is unfounded. There are cultural examples that disprove this already. If anything the larger support mechanism you have for a person the greater their likelihood of success. This is a general idea that I think holds a great amount of water. It is also annoying that people talk about alternative relationships as if they are only currently coming into existence. They have existed from the beginning. So, please don't act like because you have only begun to experience them firsthand that somehow they have not existed since the dawn of man.

 

Yeah, your idea holds a lot of water: Septic, filmy water.

How about this: give me one example of a 3+ person parenthood that has resulted in a well adjusted, productive human being?

You are confusing the idea of children being raised by multiple men and women by necessity due to an initial broken home with the idea of willful polygamy as the progenitor to a child and that child's upbringing. Positive things can come out of brokenness, a family can be many things, but those alternatives exist because people put desire over what sex actually is: a union that creates another person.

Faithful monogamy gives solidarity to the children formed by that union. The more that is deviated from, the more a child questions her worth, questions whether her inception inspired dedication in her parents or if they are just dealing with her existence, or escaping from it through debauchery. I see polygamy as nothing but selfish and evil.

And your claim that monogamy is no more beneficial to a child than anything else? I could flood this thread with proof of otherwise, but I don't need to, because having brought it up, the burden of proof is upon you.

And you're right, in our highly specialized global society, it is not necessary or prudent for every couple to produce offspring. But specialization extending even to procreation is a result of an unsustainable system, and once people begin to take back skills and become more self-reliant, so will childbirth regain its position as a generally encouraged right. All of our rampantly proliferated desires are to blame for this.

Waste not, want not, therefore:

Want not, waste not.

  On 2/8/2014 at 4:02 PM, OneToThirtySix said:

 

  On 2/8/2014 at 2:19 PM, Allize said:

 

  On 2/8/2014 at 2:16 PM, OneToThirtySix said:

My view has been that polygamy is more like an exclusive dating group than actual marriage. Small selection, but with more options than traditional marriage has to offer. Why not just stick to dating?

But don't you feel it should be legal and accepted by society?

 

I don't think it NEEDS to be illegal, relationships aren't something that should be dictated by legislature anyway.

 

As for social acceptance, that's something beyond the control of legislature, some people will always consider polygamists to be small-scale sluts.

 

It's controllable if you have a powerful lobby and a just cause.

  On 2/8/2014 at 6:22 PM, Candiru said:

You can't stop people from lovin' but besides commitment, marriage is all about property rights and things of that nature. There are so many legal ramifications of getting hitched. Imagine how complicated it would be for a threesome, foursome. Then there would be limits on how many would be allowed and you could imagine people using the new laws to get away with some shit. Immigration would be insane. You'd have random people getting married to take advantage of the rights much more than you do now.

So, you're saying we should stop equality because of the fear of a potential law abuse?

This thread is highly theoretical.

  On 2/8/2014 at 10:28 PM, pafr said:

 

  On 2/8/2014 at 10:04 PM, sheatheman said:

Humans exist to have children. Raising a child in a stable 2 parent home is the best thing for a child. I'll get out the brass knuckles if you disagree.

Yes, it's natural because every fucking organism on this planet reproduces, including viruses and bacteria. How else can you defeat time and "live" forever?

 

In nature, poligamy is much more natural than monogamy, i'd say.

Lifelong monogamy exists in nature plenty.

  On 2/9/2014 at 3:09 AM, Deer said:

After polygamy, where do I sign for zoophilia?

I guess it stops when it goes beyond humans. But maybe I am being prejudiced,

  On 2/9/2014 at 4:04 AM, sheatheman said:

Lifelong monogamy exists in nature plenty.

What is your problem with poligamic families? The've been very proeminent throughout history. Monogamy is something that was imposed to us by our social structures, it is not a biological expression.

I charge you with the same thing I mentioned above: produce an example of a well adjusted, productive human being that came from a polygamic family.

Cardinals mate for life.

  On 2/9/2014 at 3:51 AM, sheatheman said:

 

  On 2/9/2014 at 3:15 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/9/2014 at 2:52 AM, sheatheman said:

 

  On 2/9/2014 at 12:34 AM, 2WV said:

 

  On 2/8/2014 at 10:04 PM, sheatheman said:

Humans exist to have children.

no they don't. it's an option sure, and a fine one for many people. definitely not the be all and end all of existence though.

 

 

From an evolutionary standpoint, which I assume is where the majority of you are standing, it absolutely is the be all end all of existence.

 

Plus we wouldn't be existent if we didn't do it, so that's another way in which it truly is the be all end all, in that through procreation all may be and without it all will end.

 

I think "be all end all" was borne out of the problem of describing just how vital monogamous child rearing is to our species.

 

 

But all people do not have to procreate for the species to persist. Arguably, many of the people who fulfill roles that do not include direct procreation are in someway or another contributing positively to the procreation of others. So, procreation is important, but it is not important, nor is it desirable, for all humans to procreate. If anything the false expectation that all humans should procreate would actually contribute to our downfall more so than any type of alternative non-procreating relationships. Because if everyone has children, it will strain available resources a great deal more. The existence of non-child producing relationships, or even the acceptance of those relationships, will not effect the longevity of the species negatively. Furthermore, the idea that a monogamous relationship is somehow more beneficial to a child is unfounded. There are cultural examples that disprove this already. If anything the larger support mechanism you have for a person the greater their likelihood of success. This is a general idea that I think holds a great amount of water. It is also annoying that people talk about alternative relationships as if they are only currently coming into existence. They have existed from the beginning. So, please don't act like because you have only begun to experience them firsthand that somehow they have not existed since the dawn of man.

 

 

Yeah, your idea holds a lot of water: Septic, filmy water.

 

How about this: give me one example of a 3+ person parenthood that has resulted in a well adjusted, productive human being?

 

You are confusing the idea of children being raised by multiple men and women by necessity due to an initial broken home with the idea of willful polygamy as the progenitor to a child and that child's upbringing. Positive things can come out of brokenness, a family can be many things, but those alternatives exist because people put desire over what sex actually is: a union that creates another person.

 

Faithful monogamy gives solidarity to the children formed by that union. The more that is deviated from, the more a child questions her worth, questions whether her inception inspired dedication in her parents or if they are just dealing with her existence, or escaping from it through debauchery. I see polygamy as nothing but selfish and evil.

 

And your claim that monogamy is no more beneficial to a child than anything else? I could flood this thread with proof of otherwise, but I don't need to, because having brought it up, the burden of proof is upon you.

 

And you're right, in our highly specialized global society, it is not necessary or prudent for every couple to produce offspring. But specialization extending even to procreation is a result of an unsustainable system, and once people begin to take back skills and become more self-reliant, so will childbirth regain its position as a generally encouraged right. All of our rampantly proliferated desires are to blame for this.

 

Waste not, want not, therefore:

 

Want not, waste not.

 

It's cute that you are being rude even though you are wrong.

I don't have to give you an example. For you to assert that it has NEVER produced at any point in history a well adjusted child would be to say that every single child existing as the product of a polygamist relationship is suffering psychologically. This is obviously not true. I don't have to prove this. It is statistically impossible for this to be true.

Then you go on to state that they might be able to be well-adjusted but they still came from a broken home. Well, that is your opinion, which is not based on fact, but mere subjectivity.

You are pushing a moral framework that is based on an idealogy. It is very obvious. It is unquestioned and unthinking.

You assert that sex only exists for procreation. This is false. Sex also exists for pleasure.

You assert that polygamy is "evil". well now you just look like a fool.

You can't provide proof that monogamy is more beneficial to children. You might be able to provide some kind of research on economic benefit, or some primitive necessity for survival but nothing substantive.

Your last 3 lines of text don't even make sense. There is no rebuttal. I think you are asserting that the only proper society is a society in which everyone is completely self-reliant and therefore in need of physical labor for properly maintaining their existence.

  On 2/9/2014 at 4:27 AM, sheatheman said:

I charge you with the same thing I mentioned above: produce an example of a well adjusted, productive human being that came from a polygamic family.

 

Cardinals mate for life.

Are you trolling? You are trolling, right? There are also large amounts of polygamist relationships in nature. What is your point? Both work.

You're unlikely to find many examples of that since polygamy is illegal in most places in the world. If it were common place you'd probably find many examples of productive humans coming out of polygamic families.

(to sheathman's post above...probably shouldn't get involved in this thread though... things are getting pretty ridiculous.)

Sorry.

I thought "want not, waste not," was a rather evocatively self explanatory axiom.

So what will your polygamist future look like? Is it better to have 1 male and multiple females like nature? That is the only way that makes biological sense to me. But that seems kind of sexist. So will you and 3 of your male friends share a couple of girls together?

To Zephyr nova, UTAH! Go to UTAH!

Though I already know what the faux-libertine mindset that is convinced polygamy a viable alternative thinks of Mormons. Yes, lets all be well adjusted mormons!