15-03-2003 23:55									#31
	Remove this text

Polygamy's legal in New York, because of a loophole in their laws. It's illegal to get married to more than one person in New York, but it is not illegal to be married to more than one person. Therefore, if you can get away without getting caught for five years (the statute of limitation), you're legally married to multiple persons.

	16-03-2003 00:00									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I'm in agreement with the general sentiment that polygamy should be legal, however distasteful it may be.

	16-03-2003 00:05									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: To the contrary, God/nature created homosexuals and gave them the power and desire to love. To refuse them the right to join together like any hetrosexual couple is an affront to the will of God & of nature.

About halfway there, Zkribbler.

According to Christians, God gave them the ability to love one another in this way so that they might form families. One could argue that they have misused a gift from God, in pursuing homosexual relationships.

quote: All their lives, gay people have been hammered on, being told they're inferior, they're abominations, they're sinful.

First off, sinfulness = inferiority only if one presumes that some people can be without sin. Christians should teach that everybody is steeped in sin, and hence, no one is superior to homosexuals. It's just a different kind of sin.

MRT144:

quote: lets say they were christian but are liberal, and allowed women and gays to be priests. They dont advocate any of these things but allow them, and they dont use their religion for motives outside of religion.

Female priests can be accomodated within Christianity, but I don't think about gay unions or polygamy can. One of the most important parts of Christianity is the definition of marriage, which both gay unions and polygamy fall outside.

I could see civil unions as here in Canada, but not polygamous simply because of the inequalities often pervading polygamous systems. Where husbands are allowed to have more than one wife signifies that the man is somehow more important or valuable than the woman.

	16-03-2003 04:53									#34
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Would it be simpler to dump the whole idea of marriage and just use a cohabitation criterion for taxes and whatever else the State needs to know my marital status for?

It's none of the government's business as to whether I am boinking my roomie or not.

I do not see the difference between homosexuality, pedphillia and beastiality. In my opionion none of them are natural, scientifically justifiable or the will of God.

Bestiality is always rape.
Pedophilia is mostly rape.
Homosexuality is not rape.

Anything that's physically possible is natural.

	16-03-2003 05:39									#35
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The reason polygamy is illegal is because a large number of "Christians" decided to legislate their religion and polygamy is not allowed. These hypocrites then complain about the persecution of Christians in some Muslim countries?

Barley -

quote: If their church is not on this basis then what is their religion. Religion is being misrepresented these days and used to justify anything e.g. Rastafarians smoking pot, those others that want to create clones, Branch Davidians (ala Wako).

Since when do you get to dictate everyone else's religion? Don't complain when a Muslim fanatic tries to kill you for practicing a religion they consider a "mis-representation".

quote: Is this the world we want our children to grow up in?

Yes, a world where religious freedom exists. Apparently you want a world without religious freedom as long as you are the high priest.

	16-03-2003 13:28									#36
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I'm OK with women having several husbands.

That is unlikely, but it could happen.

	16-03-2003 13:34									#37
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Dissident I'm OK with women having several husbands. That is unlikely, but it could happen.

I once had a fling with a woman who was cheating on her husband and her boyfriend to be with me. I nominate her.

	16-03-2003 13:35									#38
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I hate to turn this thread into a gay bashing thread. that won't last long

whenever I see settler I think DL . I can't help it.

In any case homosexuality is not just a psychological condition. There are proven, I repeat, proven differences in brain chemistry of gay men and straight men. So homosexuality is just as much physical as psychological. And you have no right to discriminate people for physical differences.

'nuff said.

My paragraph above proves homosexuality is not the same as paedophilia and bestality. So get that crap out of my thread and create another thread for the subject. And I can provide links noting the phyical differences in brain chemistry of gay males and straight males. That is all you need to know.

	16-03-2003 22:34									#39
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Dissident, psychology is based on chemistry. What you just said proves the opposite.

Brain structure would be a different matter.

Bah. More power to everyone.

	16-03-2003 22:59									#40
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

no, some people are just ****ed up for the hell of it

	17-03-2003 04:06									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: There are proven, I repeat, proven differences in brain chemistry of gay men and straight men. So homosexuality is just as much physical as psychological. And you have no right to discriminate people for physical differences.

Dissident:

Behavioral changes can produce changes in brain chemistry.

Suppose one were to start smoking. The habit produces changes in the structure of the brain so that the brain becomes dependent upon nicotine to function at the same level as previous.

These brain changes are different from physical characteristics due to skin colour or disability.

	17-03-2003 06:07									#42
	Re: Why are gay marriages legal but not polygamist ones? Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Dissident Well gay marriages aren't legal yet for most U.S. states, but eventually they will be. But I don't think polygamy will ever be legal. Why not? Is there any valid reason for this to be illegal? If a man can handle that much PMS, then he deserves to have that many wives.

Well that is clearly discrimination on the rights of man, and woman willing to have multiple partners legally.

	17-03-2003 06:19									#43
	Suffering from ads?

If people want to enter this contract voluntarily and the end result doesn't hurt anyone, why not allow it?

	17-03-2003 06:39									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: If people want to enter this contract voluntarily and the end result doesn't hurt anyone, why not allow it?

Most, if not all societies that allow polygamy let males have multiple wives, but not to allow females multiple husbands.

Does someone know of an example of a society allowing females to marry multiple husbands?

Part of the problem is the parity. Suppose you have 4 wives, as Moslems will allow. Would you be able to take care of all four, to not neglect, and to satisfy all their needs?

Too many marriages already fail when the husband or wife ignores the other. Why should we increase this problem?

	17-03-2003 06:47									#45
	Put an end to popups!

People should be able to make their own decisions - and mistakes - without interference from the government.

Besides, these mistakes are self-rectifying. If one or more "partners" feel they aren't being satisfied in the relationship, they will be able to leave.

	17-03-2003 07:09									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Leo:

quote: Would it be simpler to dump the whole idea of marriage and just use a cohabitation criterion for taxes and whatever else the State needs to know my marital status for?

I agree completely. Do away with legal marriage, and just have the cohabitiation thing. If people want to have a religious or secular 'marriage' ceremony on their own, that's fine. But the gov't doesn't need to be involved.

Obi:

quote: One of the most important parts of Christianity is the definition of marriage, which both gay unions and polygamy fall outside.

Is the definition of marriage really one of the most important parts of Christianity? Did JC really make a big deal about it? Honestly, I'm asking, not arguing. Passages? I'd like to read up on it.

	17-03-2003 08:31									#47
	Remove this text

Obiwan -

quote: Most, if not all societies that allow polygamy let males have multiple wives, but not to allow females multiple husbands. Does someone know of an example of a society allowing females to marry multiple husbands?

Yes, but I can't remember the name of the people off hand.

quote: Part of the problem is the parity. Suppose you have 4 wives, as Moslems will allow. Would you be able to take care of all four, to not neglect, and to satisfy all their needs?

You assume only the husband cares for the family, the wives also care and share the burden. I've seen polygamist' wives interviewed and they're quite happy with the arrangement. What Muslims do is another matter...

quote: Too many marriages already fail when the husband or wife ignores the other. Why should we increase this problem?

Then why allow marriage at all or outlaw divorce? Telling people who they can or cannot marry based on divorcees punishes the innocent because of the "guilty".

	17-03-2003 09:39									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

it's harder to tax polygamy than gay marriages

	17-03-2003 09:57									#49
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Well, why would polygamy never be allowed? Suppose a male is allowed to have multiple wives, and a female is allowed to have multiple husbands. What happens next? Somebody will want it to be allowed to have several males and several females in the same marriage. That's where it is starting to get funky. First of all, even with couples nowadays, there is often times a lot of tension between the spouses, but suppose you had insted of one, two other husbands, and three wives? I mean, sure humans are social animals, and like to be in herds, but not to that extent.

Besides, suppose, such a group would want to divorse. How can you tell, which children belong to whom? And if you are the single male in the marriage, and every wife of yours claims that there is at least one child of hers in your family, the aliments would kill you.

Gay marriages? I don't want to start a flame war or offend any one, but I feel they shouldn't be allowed. Marriage should be done by love. Love is caused by chemical processes in the brain, which ensure reproduction. I'm sorry, but no matter how much one guy loves another one, or how often, or for how long, they won't reproduce. Thus it is unnatural to be gay. Seems kind of like mastrubation to me - you are only f-ing yourself. While I don't mind if other people do it, I don't think it should be encouraged through legalizing gay marriages.

	17-03-2003 10:44									#50
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Oh, so quick to define love. I'm sure you have information to back this up?

There's another thing that happens and is supposedly unnatural - 48% of the cases of deafness occur through unknown causes that happen while the baby is developing. Deafness is unnatural - while people who are deaf still have all the proper tools, somehow they are unable to use them.

Most scientists and geneticsists agree that there is something genetic about homosexuality.

Now tell me: if we can discriminate against a gay person because they are "unnatural", why can we not too discriminate against a deaf person?

	17-03-2003 11:22									#51
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by monkspider I'm in agreement with the general sentiment that polygamy should be legal, however distasteful it may be.

I disagree because of the inherent inequality that will inevitably result. Polygamy was once legal in China (even though only men could have multiple wives) and it was a royal mess.

	17-03-2003 11:25									#52
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Yes, but I can't remember the name of the people off hand.

You're talking about pre-historical tribes.

There is one exception: one minority tribe in China still keeps the "matriarch" sort of structure. There may be other exceptions, but I do not know of them.

	17-03-2003 13:29									#53
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I think the discussion has somewhat drifted away from the initial idea. And the man has a good point:

If we allow gay marriages, why not allow polygamy?

The problem I see is not the marriage itself. It is the birth/adoption of children. But thats another thread that I dont dare open cause Id probably get banned....

	17-03-2003 14:05									#54
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

UR -

quote: You're talking about pre-historical tribes.

No, there is a polynesian tribe and an african tribe where women have multiple husbands and this is still the practice.

	17-03-2003 15:27									#55
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous Oh, so quick to define love. I'm sure you have information to back this up? There's another thing that happens and is supposedly unnatural - 48% of the cases of deafness occur through unknown causes that happen while the baby is developing. Deafness is unnatural - while people who are deaf still have all the proper tools, somehow they are unable to use them. Most scientists and geneticsists agree that there is something genetic about homosexuality. Now tell me: if we can discriminate against a gay person because they are "unnatural", why can we not too discriminate against a deaf person?

It's an excellent analogy, but I'll go you one better.

In these arguments, the anti-gay-marriage position seems always to rest on one thing: marriage should happen between people who can reproduce. That's the whole point: form a family, perpetuate society, etc. etc. And it's the only way to justify sactioning something for heterosexuals but not homosexuals.

But then, my parents shouldn't have been able to marry.

See, I'm adopted. My family adopted me (and my sister) because Dad was shooting blanks and Mom was barren as the Sahara. This could have been established before they got hitched, and in at least my Mom's case it seems to be genetic (lots of history of uterus problems down her side of the family). Should they have been allowed to form a legal union with each other?

I challenge anyone to find a rational argument against homosexual marriage that doesn't also apply to heterosexuals who are infertile. Then, if they want to argue that only fertile heterosexuals should be allowed to marry, fine; but such theocratic-totalitarian fantasies are not for me, thank you.

	17-03-2003 17:12									#56
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker No, there is a polynesian tribe and an african tribe where women have multiple husbands and this is still the practice.

As I said, pre-historic

	17-03-2003 20:46									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous There's another thing that happens and is supposedly unnatural - 48% of the cases of deafness occur through unknown causes that happen while the baby is developing. Deafness is unnatural - while people who are deaf still have all the proper tools, somehow they are unable to use them. Most scientists and geneticsists agree that there is something genetic about homosexuality. Now tell me: if we can discriminate against a gay person because they are "unnatural", why can we not too discriminate against a deaf person?

The analogy is fairly good, but a little flawed and kind of supports my point. First of all, yes, deafness is unnatural. But deafness occurs by misfortune, while homosexuality is in about half the cases by choice. Thus, you can't compare the two... disabilities. (It's your analogy, not mine.)

Now, let's for a second assume that all homosexuality is defined by the genes. (Of which I hope you alse have some proof you could show.) Well, then I am not syaing we need to "discriminate" against them. But, back to your analogy, you wouldn't give the deaf free opera tickets, because if you don't, they would be discriminated against, now would you? In the same way, you wouldn't encourage marriage between gay couples.

	17-03-2003 21:07									#58
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I don't see why they don't just get rid of legal marriages altogether.

If you want to declare your love, sure have a ceremony and the like. If you want legal recognition of status (e.g. legal rights normally associated with marriage) then I don't see why you can't sign papers that give that status to anyone you choose.

	17-03-2003 21:27									#59
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

What's the intent behind marriage? If you see it's purpose to fruitfully multiply (have children), then there's no sense in gay marriages unless you allow adopting.
I, however, see marriage as a legal institution for a psychological bond between people. Most people strive for a partner, few want to be alone. Therefore the state should provide some form of acknowledging that fact, after all the state's there to serve people. There's no need to make opposite sex a requirement. In the same reasoning polygamy should be possible if it's people's wish but all people involved - multiple marriage however can disrespect the wishes of someone

A word to those argueing with their beliefs - you're entitled to your opinion based on beliefs. Above all, however, should stand tolerance - that is living your life like you want it and let other people live their life like they want without getting in each others way.

	17-03-2003 22:15									#60
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Polygamy was once legal in China (even though only men could have multiple wives) and it was a royal mess.

That's not polygamy. That's polygyny.