User Tag List

First 81617181920 Last

Results 171 to 180 of 223

  1. #171
    Senior Member TheLastMohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Polygamous families have historically been shown to lead to the ostracization of young males from the family and to have a higher incidence of child sexual abuse, whereas studies have shown that the children of same sex families turn out no better or worse than the children of heterosexual families.
    Correlation does not equal causation. It makes perfect sense that families already engaging in one criminal activity would be less inhibited to engage in others. Also, certain religious institutions are almost always the cause for the boldness of committing polygamy (which has male and female varieties, polygyny and polyandry, not to mention larger group marriages with multiple members of both sexes). If polygamy was granted government recognition as valid marriage, I think your statistics would start to even out after a few decades.

    But that is neither here nor there. Why should the statistical results matter anyway? Aren't we going by legal principle, and means rather than ends? If it was found that children from same sex families had worse prospects on average, would you support a ban on same sex couples adopting children?

  2. #172
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    So I did find stats for the CA 2008 election finally:
    Political Radar: Did Blacks Tank Gay Marriage in California?

    70-30 among Affrican Americans, but the article cautions against drawing too much from that.
    African Americans only make up about 6.7% of California. Let's say they all voted. Is that enough to tank the marriage vote?

  3. #173
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLastMohican View Post
    Correlation does not equal causation. It makes perfect sense that families already engaging in one criminal activity would be less inhibited to engage in others. Also, certain religious institutions are almost always the cause for the boldness of committing polygamy (which has male and female varieties, polygyny and polyandry, not to mention larger group marriages with multiple members of both sexes). If polygamy was granted government recognition as valid marriage, I think your statistics would start to even out after a few decades.
    Even before it was illegal, the lost boy effect was observed in polygamous families. And polygamous families are inherently structured to marry off their daughters as young as possible. There is no basis to make the assumption that the criminality of polygamy is what causes these things to occur, although it may be a contributing factor.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLastMohican View Post
    But that is neither here nor there. Why should the statistical results matter anyway? Aren't we going by legal principle, and means rather than ends?
    Here is my method for determining social policy.

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...00-post91.html

    If you can utilize my method to establish a case for polygamy then I would be open to changing my mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLastMohican View Post
    If it was found that children from same sex families had worse prospects on average, would you support a ban on same sex couples adopting children?
    Yes. If it were conclusively found that children of same sex homes turned out significantly worse than those of heterosexual homes then I would support a ban, or at least a limitation on adoption to same sex parents.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  4. #174
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Here is my method for determining social policy.

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...00-post91.html

    If you can utilize my method to establish a case for polygamy then I would be open to changing my mind.
    Every single thing listed is stronger in polygamy than in monogamy, as far as I can tell... let me cut and paste:



    Higher household incomes
    Save more of their income
    Live longer because they engage in less risky behaviors
    Children are better off financially and emotionally
    Derive greater satisfaction from sex


    Ignore the subjective one at the end, all seem to apply to polygamy over monogamy. Especially in a top-down polygamy, where there are multiple earners (a modern phenomena) in a household. Do you disagree?

    Homosexuality has also proven to be quite natural, as it is observed in over 400 species in the animal kingdom, including our closest genetic relative, the bonobo.
    IRC, monogamy is under 5% of mammals. And a minority in human cultures too ( Ethnographic Atlas Crosstabulations: The Standard Cross-cultural Sample , same as I posted earlier, is somewhat interesting.)

    That is not to say that morality should be dictated by nature, but rather that there is evidence that homosexuality is a part of the natural world and serves some yet to be distinguished evolutionary purpose.
    And this is almost exactly the conclusion to genetic studies done about mating strategies in polygamy...

  5. #175
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Every single thing listed is stronger in polygamy than in monogamy, as far as I can tell... let me cut and paste:



    Higher household incomes
    Save more of their income
    Live longer because they engage in less risky behaviors
    Children are better off financially and emotionally
    Derive greater satisfaction from sex


    Ignore the subjective one at the end, all seem to apply to polygamy over monogamy. Especially in a top-down polygamy, where there are multiple earners (a modern phenomena) in a household. Do you disagree?
    So when is the government going to let me have multiple husbands?

    guys earn more than women, and then when one rolls over and falls asleep before I'm happy, I can just go find another husband to please me!

    Of course, we'll all live a happy, child free life with several pet dogs wandering about and have a huge refrigerator dedicated to beer alone

    I really don't think I could live in a house with a bunch of other chicks though, so polygamy is out of the question

    aka- why is the discussion always about polygamy when polyandry is so much more fun!!!

    Oh, and on the OP- if people just had the sense to not care about others the whole gay marriage thing wouldn't be a big deal- really, who gives a f- about what other people are doing as long as it doesn't interfere with thier lives?

    (in other words, there wouldn't be such a debate if it weren't for all the feelers out there and J types.... lets just make the world all TPs and then nobody would really care, they'd just argue for the fun of it and people would do whatever!)
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  6. #176
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    guys earn more than women,
    In part due to the lifestyle choices. Polygamy might make women a lot more equal (earlier reference to the rational 1:1 economic choice for child rearing is different than any x:y mix).

    and then when one rolls over and falls asleep before I'm happy, I can just go find another husband to please me!
    There were a few cultures like this, but it's pretty rare

    So when is the government going to let me have multiple husbands?
    Polygamy includes polyandry - polyandry and polygyny are equivalent. So, more or less when polygamy is legal.

  7. #177
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Every single thing listed is stronger in polygamy than in monogamy, as far as I can tell... let me cut and paste:



    Higher household incomes
    Save more of their income
    Live longer because they engage in less risky behaviors
    Children are better off financially and emotionally
    Derive greater satisfaction from sex
    I'll give you the first three, but the last two are debatable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  8. #178
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    In part due to the lifestyle choices. Polygamy might make women a lot more equal (earlier reference to the rational 1:1 economic choice for child rearing is different than any x:y mix).
    Hey- I live like a dude (with exception to the fact that I tend to date guys!) and I have been turned down for jobs because "it's too dangerous for a girl" That one is NOT my choice- for goodness sake, I don't want kids, I don't want to keep house and I don't want to make a living by doing something soft and squishy and pink collar! :steam:

    Not entirely lifestyle.... and because of this it would be to my advantage to marry multiple men!


    There were a few cultures like this, but it's pretty rare
    *note to self- find one of these earthly paradises and settle there*


    Polygamy includes polyandry - polyandry and polygyny are equivalent. So, more or less when polygamy is legal.
    Why is this something like the first time ever that the female form of a word is used over the male form of the word? (except for widow/widower....)

    I think I'll be offended for a while... then the multiple husbands can make it all better by drinking and watching a dumb movie with me!

    (personally, I think that discussing polygamy in this thread is rediculous- that's why I'm just playing )
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  9. #179
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,126

    Default

    Oh- and on another note- I would NOT be more satisfied with sex if I had to share the man... that would mean less for me and that other people would be hitting that as well... I don't care if my guy has a girl best friend or what, but I'd prefer to be the one who sleeps with him!
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  10. #180
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    Why is this something like the first time ever that the female form of a word is used over the male form of the word? (except for widow/widower....)
    The words have their own roots. Polyandry is just rare enough that conventional meaning carries that weighting.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-03-2013, 10:30 AM
  2. The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
    By teslashock in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 04-12-2010, 02:51 PM
  3. whats the big deal about being me?
    By ThatGirl in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-09-2008, 07:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO