User Tag List

First 91718192021 Last

Results 181 to 190 of 223

  1. #181
    Senior Member TheLastMohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    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.
    Please, use the proper terminology; you are talking only about polygyny, and ignoring polyandry, which is the other form of polygamy.
    A "contributing factor" is precisely what I was suggesting. I thought my wording made that clear. Obviously most polygamy occuring is polygyny, with Mormon communities contributing to the "lost boy effect." The structure of the doctrine makes that imbalance inevitable. But I think religious doctrine greatly magnifies the daring of those who commit polygamy. Plenty of people would like to have multiple spouses, but few outside of religious communities would actually try it. That means that almost all the polygamy that does go on is within the common framework that creates the effects we can measure. More variation would be found following legalization.

    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.
    Okay, I might or might not get back to you on that.


    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.
    And would that be fair to same sex couples? I could cook up a lot of cases of discrimination using your precedent as justification.

  2. #182
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLastMohican View Post
    More variation would be found following legalization.
    Basically your argument is that we need to legalize polygamy in order to learn for certain whether or not we should legalize it. That is not a substantial case to make for polygamy.

    In addition to that, you are making the case that some forms of religious polygamy are indeed harmful. You have failed to prove that they are harmful simply because they are illegal or that making them legal would make them any less harmful.

    And would that be fair to same sex couples? I could cook up a lot of cases of discrimination using your precedent as justification.
    When it comes to adoption, what is most important is what is fair to the child, not the adopting couple. As long as same sex couples are shown to not cause significantly more trauma to a child than the child would endure with heterosexual parents, then there is no justification to deny them the right to adopt. However, if it were conclusively proven that same sex adoption would result in significantly more trauma, then it would be reasonable discrimination to prohibit or limit same sex adoptions.

    Feel free to provide any cases that fit that rational.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  3. #183
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    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?



    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.)



    And this is almost exactly the conclusion to genetic studies done about mating strategies in polygamy...

    How could sex satisfaction be better for women in a marriage where the guy has several women to chose from? Each time he has sex with someone else, that's less sex for the one not chosen.

    Why assume that just because the guy has a full house at home, he won't be just as keen to engage in risky sex with outside females?

  4. #184
    Senior Member TheLastMohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Basically your argument is that we need to legalize polygamy in order to learn for certain whether or not we should legalize it.
    No, my argument (which might or might not be my actual position ) is that polygamy should be given legal recognition if any other type of marriage is given the same, regardless of the perceived bad effects. The legality should be based on equality, not on what the government thinks the people should think is best for them.

    When it comes to adoption, what is most important is what is fair to the child, not the adopting couple.
    Suppose the bad outcomes of children being brought up by same sex couples had nothing to do with the parenting skills, and instead were caused by the tendency for bigots surrounding the families to pick on the kids and their adoptive parents. Is it then superior to place the kids in the bigots' homes, so that they would be in the majority and spared the persecution? Doesn't that only serve to compound the problem? (I think this hypothetical has some basis in reality.)

  5. #185
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    How could sex satisfaction be better for women in a marriage where the guy has several women to chose from? Each time he has sex with someone else, that's less sex for the one not chosen.
    Hence why I said "except for the subjective one at the end". I'd feel sorry for the guy, personally. The women can probably understand each other's bodies way better than a male can.

    Why assume that just because the guy has a full house at home, he won't be just as keen to engage in risky sex with outside females?
    Giving a group of individuals who are all equally likely to do something an 'allowed' outlet would reduce the use of the 'disallowed' outlet. The worst case that I see is that it is roughly equal (imbalances may come from those that engage in poly behavior preferring to cheat, mind you, but within the group, it should apply.)

  6. #186
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLastMohican View Post
    Suppose the bad outcomes of children being brought up by same sex couples had nothing to do with the parenting skills, and instead were caused by the tendency for bigots surrounding the families to pick on the kids and their adoptive parents. Is it then superior to place the kids in the bigots' homes, so that they would be in the majority and spared the persecution? Doesn't that only serve to compound the problem? (I think this hypothetical has some basis in reality.)
    But what about really shitty hetrosexual homes too?

    Should we thoroughly vet every parent extensively AND the surrounding communities before allowing any child to be adopted? Otherwise it seems unfair to discriminate on the basis that SOME parents could be the victims of discrimation and others might not be... or how about not letting minorities adopt in racist communities? These are just a few questions...

    And to PT... so you're saying that the ladies can please each other in a polygamist household? Seriously- I can't see polygamy being good for anyone's sex lives unless the wives are undercover lesbians who don't want to come out to society
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  7. #187
    Senior Member TheLastMohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    But what about really shitty hetrosexual homes too?

    Should we thoroughly vet every parent extensively AND the surrounding communities before allowing any child to be adopted? Otherwise it seems unfair to discriminate on the basis that SOME parents could be the victims of discrimation and others might not be... or how about not letting minorities adopt in racist communities? These are just a few questions...
    That's what I'm arguing against.

  8. #188
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    And to PT... so you're saying that the ladies can please each other in a polygamist household? Seriously- I can't see polygamy being good for anyone's sex lives unless the wives are undercover lesbians who don't want to come out to society
    Oh I suppose for about a month it would be great for the guy but then when all the bickering over his solitary penis broke out he'd been under such demands it seems he would soon suffer exhaustion...that is unless they were as you say simply lesbians who wanted a joint beard or something.

  9. #189
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    ...Giving a group of individuals who are all equally likely to do something an 'allowed' outlet would reduce the use of the 'disallowed' outlet.
    Well, it might... but I notice a tendency in human beings to be enticed by "that which they are not allowed to have."

    It's often the illicit, and not the accessible, that entices, ultimately.

    Or, to pay homage to "Masculine Theory" -- "Man is a hunter and must have his conquests."
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #190
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLastMohican View Post
    No, my argument (which might or might not be my actual position ) is that polygamy should be given legal recognition if any other type of marriage is given the same, regardless of the perceived bad effects. The legality should be based on equality, not on what the government thinks the people should think is best for them.
    Well then my argument (which might or might not be my actual position ) is that no marriage should have legal recognition so as to ensure that there is an equal application of the law and the state does not endorse any marriage practice which could have harmful effects. That way the legality (or lack of in this case) is based on equality, not on what the government thinks the people should think is best for them.



    Suppose the bad outcomes of children being brought up by same sex couples had nothing to do with the parenting skills, and instead were caused by the tendency for bigots surrounding the families to pick on the kids and their adoptive parents. Is it then superior to place the kids in the bigots' homes, so that they would be in the majority and spared the persecution? Doesn't that only serve to compound the problem? (I think this hypothetical has some basis in reality.)
    Huh? First off, there are no more bad outcomes for children being brought up in same sex homes than in heterosexual homes, so I'm not sure what justification you have to make that statement. Second, children should be placed in homes based on their parent's ability to parent and ability to provide a stable home, not based upon the cultural opinion of the time. And third, since when are bigots the majority?
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

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