Another cnn opinion piece supporting polygamy

[WinterBorn]

Apparently these people think that if they do not allow the marriages, then poly relationships will not exist. It works the same with gay couples. Somehow, if they are not allowed to marry there will me fewer gays.

It is not the idea of marriage that sets them off....it is the sex

They think that by stopping the marriage, they can stop the sex that they find offensive

Its the idea you can marry anything you choose to have sex with. And societies have to respect your choice.

Horseshit.

Sorry, but that is bullshit. Throughout it all, most people stick with the "consenting adults" standard.

 

[WinterBorn]

Once polygamy becomes acceptable, equality demands that women be allowed to have more than one husband and each of those husbands can have more than one wife, and each of those wives can have more than one husband.

The communes of the 60s will finally be legitimized.

And? As long as it is consenting adults and everyone knows the score, why would you care?

What effect does a polygamist's marriage have on you or your life? If you have a married woman with a guy on the side, or a woman married to two men, why does one effect you and not both?

 

[WinterBorn]

Who cares?

Who is harmed?

Nice to see all the non-answers given. Of course, the typical response involves claiming it will be pedophiles and incest next.

Ridiculous answers.

By just adding a tag of "ridiculous" or other such comment meant to demean anyone who finds meat in worthy and logical argument, your subsitution for actual substance in your position is duly noted..

There is a well known culture of pedophilia in polygamy cults and a lesser known one in the LGBT cult:

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

Mayo Clinic 2007
http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abusedabusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place

Now, there's the substance. I'll await your single-shot demeaning remark meant to bully people into feeling bad about taking it seriously...

The arguments ARE ridiculous. There has been little of substance posted and much belittling polygamists and those who maintain that they should be allowed to marry.

Once again, the overwhelming majority of people in favor of allowing polygamy use the "Consenting Adults" standard. I have not seen anyone provide any reasonable argument advocating allowing underage marriages. And, if I am not mistaken, most of the examples of underage marriages in poly situations involves religious groups. The secular polygamists are simply people wanting a committed relationship with more than one person, and the safety and benefits that it affords.

 

[WinterBorn]

Who cares?

Who is harmed?

Nice to see all the non-answers given. Of course, the typical response involves claiming it will be pedophiles and incest next.

Ridiculous answers.

By just adding a tag of "ridiculous" or other such comment meant to demean anyone who finds meat in worthy and logical argument, your subsitution for actual substance in your position is duly noted..

There is a well known culture of pedophilia in polygamy cults and a lesser known one in the LGBT cult:

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

Mayo Clinic 2007
http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abusedabusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place

I'll await your single-shot demeaning remark meant to bully people into feeling bad about taking it seriously...

I notice you don't seem to mind the demeaning remarks meant to bully people into opposing polygamy or gay marriages. Funny how its only bullying when it is a point you oppose.

 

[hazlnut]

Opinion: Plural marriages are real families - CNN.com

Running out of victims, libs. Pedophiles will be up really soon

It is "traditional" marriage.

Or have you not read your bible.

Not sure why we banned it--what's the history behind the banning of polygamy.

It's not for me, but consenting adults should be able to do what they want. It would really complicate family law courtrooms, but lawyers would love that.

Your analogy to Pedophilia is as stupid as can be as children can not consent.

 

[hazlnut]

Apparently these people think that if they do not allow the marriages, then poly relationships will not exist. It works the same with gay couples. Somehow, if they are not allowed to marry there will me fewer gays.

It is not the idea of marriage that sets them off....it is the sex

They think that by stopping the marriage, they can stop the sex that they find offensive

Its the idea you can marry anything you choose to have sex with. And societies have to respect your choice.

Horseshit.

Feeble straw man.

Consenting adults.

Look up both words then you'll understand what it means.

 

[OODA_Loop]

It is not the idea of marriage that sets them off....it is the sex

They think that by stopping the marriage, they can stop the sex that they find offensive

Its the idea you can marry anything you choose to have sex with. And societies have to respect your choice.

Horseshit.

Sorry, but that is bullshit. Throughout it all, most people stick with the "consenting adults" standard.

Not bullshit.

You can engage in the gay as consenting adults. More power to ya.

Society does not have to sanction or formally recognize that sexual choice.

 

[WinterBorn]

Its the idea you can marry anything you choose to have sex with. And societies have to respect your choice.

Horseshit.

Sorry, but that is bullshit. Throughout it all, most people stick with the "consenting adults" standard.

Not bullshit.

You can engage in the gay as consenting adults. More power to ya.

Society does not have to sanction or formally recognize that sexual choice.

I don't give a rat's ass about what society sanctions or recognizes. But our gov't (again , not society) will damn sure offer the same benefits to others, whether they fit the good, white, Christian ideal or not.

Personally, I think the gov't should not be in the marriage business at all. I am the sort of conservative that believes the gov't should be less involved in our lives, not more. But as long as it is going to be recognizing and rewarding committed relationships, it will do so with an equal hand.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I don't give a rat's ass about what society sanctions or recognizes. But our gov't (again , not society) will damn sure offer the same benefits to others, whether they fit the good, white, Christian ideal or not.

Society expresses its legislative will through government.

The constitutional amendment in my State defining marriage as between a man and woman was not racial or religious in nature. I know by paring the motivation down to two buckets, religious and racist, it makes it easier for you.

You can be gay. There is no right to government protection or societal acceptance of the choice.

 

[rightwinger]

Its the idea you can marry anything you choose to have sex with. And societies have to respect your choice.

Horseshit.

Sorry, but that is bullshit. Throughout it all, most people stick with the "consenting adults" standard.

Not bullshit.

You can engage in the gay as consenting adults. More power to ya.

Society does not have to sanction or formally recognize that sexual choice.

Marriage is about a relationship, not sex

Society has no right to ban a consensual relationship

 

[OODA_Loop]

Sorry, but that is bullshit. Throughout it all, most people stick with the "consenting adults" standard.

Not bullshit.

You can engage in the gay as consenting adults. More power to ya.

Society does not have to sanction or formally recognize that sexual choice.

Marriage is about a relationship, not sex

Society has no right to ban a consensual relationship

The consensual relationship isn't banned.

The state has the determination of what marriage is.

 

[emilynghiem]

Who cares?

Who is harmed?

If any more public time or resources are wasted in courts or legislatures
fighting over this issue instead of resolving it in private

I would say taxpayers are harmed if money is wasted lobbying for nonissues
instead of addressing real solutions to real issues of
relationship abuse, sexual abuse, legal abuse etc.

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't give a rat's ass about what society sanctions or recognizes. But our gov't (again , not society) will damn sure offer the same benefits to others, whether they fit the good, white, Christian ideal or not.

Society expresses its legislative will through government.

The constitutional amendment in my State defining marriage as between a man and woman was not racial or religious in nature. I know by paring the motivation down to two buckets, religious and racist, it makes it easier for you.

You can be gay. There is no right to government protection or societal acceptance of the choice.

There is no right to any of the benefits that married couples receive from the federal, state and local gov'ts. But they are there anyway.

Society also expresses its will in things that are blatantly wrong. During the civil rights era in the south there was never a majority backing the Civil Rights movement.

As for the paring down, I am simply responding to the plethora of racist and religious nonsense posted on these pages. If you dislike these comments, perhaps you would like to first correct the many blatantly racist posts or the people claiming religious dogma is sufficient reason for federal & state laws.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not bullshit.

You can engage in the gay as consenting adults. More power to ya.

Society does not have to sanction or formally recognize that sexual choice.

Marriage is about a relationship, not sex

Society has no right to ban a consensual relationship

The consensual relationship isn't banned.

The state has the determination of what marriage is.

And why are you so willing to have the state determine something so personal and so basic? Why is less gov't better, except in this case? Why does the gov't have any say in marriages (other than age limits)?

 

[hazlnut]

Marriage is about a relationship, not sex

Society has no right to ban a consensual relationship

The consensual relationship isn't banned.

The state has the determination of what marriage is.

And why are you so willing to have the state determine something so personal and so basic? Why is less gov't better, except in this case? Why does the gov't have any say in marriages (other than age limits)?

Well, the state is involved with marriage because of the property and ownership implications -- that is the most basic function of the state.

I'm not sure when in our history we started banning polygamy. I'm guessing the issue came to a head in the state of Utah.

 

[OODA_Loop]

And why are you so willing to have the state determine something so personal and so basic? Why is less gov't better, except in this case? Why does the gov't have any say in marriages (other than age limits)?

State acted on the will of the electorate. If more government is required, then State government at arms length, is better than more Federal government.

Other States took a positive gay marriage affirmation on the will of electorate. Bravo for freedom.

You just don't want the people of a State to engage in political free will.

You want centralized control of power and application of power uniformly across the states.

 

[WinterBorn]

And why are you so willing to have the state determine something so personal and so basic? Why is less gov't better, except in this case? Why does the gov't have any say in marriages (other than age limits)?

State acted on the will of the electorate. If more government is required, then State government at arms length, is better than more Federal government.

Other States took a positive gay marriage affirmation on the will of electorate. Bravo for freedom.

You just don't want the people of a State to engage in political free will.

You want centralized control of power and application of power uniformly across the states.

I am all for free will. I am not the one arguing that mob rule can remove the need for our gov't to treat it's citizens equally.

I have no problem with the idea that some people hate gays or polys, or whomever. I just have a problem when those people try and punish who they hate thru our laws.

What I want is far less power for any gov't, centralized or not. You make the claim that I am trying to centralize control after I have denounced you for giving control over the most basic relationships we have to the gov't??? lmao Too funny.

 

[rightwinger]

Not bullshit.

You can engage in the gay as consenting adults. More power to ya.

Society does not have to sanction or formally recognize that sexual choice.

Marriage is about a relationship, not sex

Society has no right to ban a consensual relationship

The consensual relationship isn't banned.

The state has the determination of what marriage is.

Yup......and that is changing by the day

 

[hazlnut]

Marriage is about a relationship, not sex

Society has no right to ban a consensual relationship

The consensual relationship isn't banned.

The state has the determination of what marriage is.

Yup......and that is changing by the day

I've always believed that the LDS supported Prop 8 in 2008 because they knew they were creating the perfect test case. As Prop 8 came closer to being overturned, the LDS flipped.

It's just a theory.

What was the show on HBO called?

 

[OODA_Loop]

I am not the one arguing that mob rule can remove the need for our gov't to treat it's citizens equally.

A state constitutional amendment is majority rule, not mob rule.

Citizen's are not treated equally in every aspect of their life.

Some citizens get specialized rights based on age, disability, veterans status, etc. which I don't get.