User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 104

Thread: Polygamy

  1. #81
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    I think they can do what they want, but I don't think I could be able to handle more than one honestly.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  2. #82
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    What we want is almost universally trained into us.
    If we were talking about consumer goods, I might agree with you. But we're not. What humans want, sexually, is mostly instinctual. I don't think modern civilization has wiped out millions of years of evolution just yet.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  3. #83
    Earth Exalted Thursday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sp/sx
    Socionics
    LIE
    Posts
    3,965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    If we were talking about consumer goods, I might agree with you. But we're not. What humans want, sexually, is mostly instinctual. I don't think modern civilization has wiped out millions of years of evolution just yet.
    but they are trying to - how uncivilized
    I N V I C T U S

  4. #84
    No moss growing on me Giggly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    iSFj
    Enneagram
    2 sx/so
    Posts
    9,666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Wait, I don't get the argument. You're saying:

    *The gov't gives benefits to married couples because they will produce future tax payers.
    *Gay couples are biologically incapable of producing future tax payers.
    *Benefits will be wasted on couples that won't produce future taxpayers if gay marriage is legal.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Therefore gay marriage is bad for society.

    But there's always the question of why, if this is the criteria for marriage, it is not denied to heterosexual couples who have no intention of breeding, or to couples who are incapable of breeding for other reasons (sterile). I don't think that there's a "must have children" clause in the marriage contract.
    It is assumed that hetero couples in the U.S. will reproduce and most do.


    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Oh Im sure Hmm doesn't mind.
    Nah, I don't mind.

  5. #85
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    If we were talking about consumer goods, I might agree with you. But we're not. What humans want, sexually, is mostly instinctual. I don't think modern civilization has wiped out millions of years of evolution just yet.
    We want to have lots of sex.

    But then we are taught marriage is good and normal, so we get married.

    Sure, we have programming, but the programming is blind. It is society that tells us how our programming should be directed.

  6. #86
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    I operate on the assumption that natural rights exist out of enlightened self-interests-utilitarian ethics are much too easily twisted to say what people want them to say (you can also do that with rights-based justifications, but its far more difficult). I think utilitarian consequences must always be considered, but such consequences have to be VERY negative in order to override individual rights. In the case of polygamy, I think the negative consequences are sufficiently dire to overwhelm the immediate issue of individual freedom, while the consequences of gay marriage are not.
    When I say enlightened self interest, I am not including all the baggage of being an enlightened self interest believer, merely that by not engaging in the practise, I am both acting in my own self interest (securing a mate - if others defect, I am unlikely to be able to secure said mate) and in the interest of others (leaving other males mates).

    It is a natural equilibrium. It does *not* serve evolution well, and so it is not a "natural" outcome, but given that my own personal happiness will not be affected by serving evolution, I do not care. In that sense, it would likely be utilitarian (as a maximiser of all future life) to support polygamy, while decidedly against self-interest to support it (for males in particular).

    Marriage is sub-optimal in the long run, and socially inoptimal due to the nature of selective breeding (and association of positive traits with less offspring, on average.) However, in all cases, it is generally in favor of self-interest to engage in either open relationships or marriage - IOW, only claiming a single mate, or less, except for the top 5-10% of males (hence, the "superstar" effect of highly desirable males).

    Also note that there are tons of assumptions involved. The distribution of wealth is a very critical input on social stratification, including mate selection. You can only have equality in equal societies, effectively, and so any assumption that monogamy is efficient actually comes from a narrower distribution of wealth. There are a lot of others inputs in this - there is absolutely no reason why polygamy is not more efficient on large scales, given the right conditions and desires.

  7. #87
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    What rights? Legal rights? Or are you one of those God-given natural rights theory proponents?
    The only legitimate forms of rights are those that come from God. Otherwise, they're just legal privledges guranteed by the arbitrary will of the state. The state allows you such, but it's also clear that it can take them away as well. A right given from God cannot be taken away by the state.

  8. #88
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    The only legitimate forms of rights are those that come from God. Otherwise, they're just legal privledges guranteed by the arbitrary will of the state. The state allows you such, but it's also clear that it can take them away as well. A right given from God cannot be taken away by the state.
    What do you know about the "Is-ought problem" and naturalistic fallacy? You can probably see where I'm going with this.

  9. #89
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    The only legitimate forms of rights are those that come from God. Otherwise, they're just legal privledges guranteed by the arbitrary will of the state. The state allows you such, but it's also clear that it can take them away as well. A right given from God cannot be taken away by the state.
    I find this terrifying, especially considering the ramifications that most religious espouse for violating God's will (violating others "rights", even!). What, you didn't mention religion? Well, then I suppose I can use any definition of God, and thus any rights that I deduce from that are immediately valid...? So you must mean a specific God, and the codified beliefs. Funny how that works - you refuse to honor progressive rights by holding onto your own personal version of them.

    How is that "legitimate" at all? Legitimate to you, perhaps, but your belief system doesn't make it legitimate, because it requires assumptions on God's nature, which cannot be universal.

    If you truly believe that the only rights that can exist are ones written thousands of years ago, and all others can be taken away... No matter how you reframe progress, it is precisely that comment - no rights but what God gives you - that makes me cringe.

  10. #90
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    We want to have lots of sex.

    But then we are taught marriage is good and normal, so we get married.

    Sure, we have programming, but the programming is blind. It is society that tells us how our programming should be directed.
    I didn't say we always follow our instincts, only that our desires come from our instincts.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. Polygamy
    By themightyfetus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-28-2016, 12:01 AM
  2. Polygamy: Do You Support It?
    By Passacaglia in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 08-18-2015, 02:32 AM
  3. Polygamy and Gay Marriage
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-03-2014, 08:59 PM

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