Dimitri Valko Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 You really gonna try and call out my lackluster rebuttal after the above? And so soon? At least wait 2 pages son. When something is so ridiculously retarded, with obvious reasoning as to which I don't even have to say why it is, then I sure can just call it retarded. I can assure you that I have many flaws, and it's not hard to pick up on them, so why don't you use those as part of your arguments against me? Mayhaps you find it not to be the easiest way if arguing in opposition to someone, but it is certainly effective. Anyway, I tire of this petty conversation, so I'll be on my leave, sir. Have a good evening, and may you construct better arguments on the next occasion in which we cross paths again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadir Aminu Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Ä°t's not hard to figure that someone needs to come up with some dick jokes in this thread. I hit that on the head right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 When something is so ridiculously retarded, with obvious reasoning as to which I don't even have to say why it is, then I sure can just call it retarded. I can assure you that I have many flaws, and it's not hard to pick up on them, so why don't you use those as part of your arguments against me? Mayhaps you find it not to be the easiest way if arguing in opposition to someone, but it is certainly effective. Anyway, I tire of this petty conversation, so I'll be on my leave, sir. Have a good evening, and may you construct better arguments on the next occasion in which we cross paths again. You have no basis for dismissing this, and you've provided no evidence. Why do I have to reach a standard that you've clearly not willing to hold yourself to? The entire gamut of arguments against free love are either pearl clutching Helen Lovejoy sentiments or baseless accusations that normally follow the same slippery slopes as gay marriage. Having been on this side of this argument for years, I can safely assume that almost every single one of the arguments you would bring if you didn't "tire of this petty conversation" would be tracked back to simple western social conditioning and you would not have a single concrete reason why you or your government should be allowed interfere in the lives of consenting adults. Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 I had no clue people still cared if the State recognizes their marriage or not, except for tax purposes. Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 once again, cancer Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share Posted January 31, 2016 It does affect monogomus people, beacuse a Monogamous people could be affected when their partners cheat on them, and say "it's polgymamy, and get with the time" or some s**t How is that different than the normal cheating that is rampant among monogamous relationships? Going behind someones back on the matter is wrong that I much I agree and the partner who finds out their partner went behind their backs on the matter is well within their rights to end the relationship on those grounds, however if everything is done correctly and all parties know of the relationship and consent to it then where is the issue? I'm sure there are plenty of men and women married to each other who would very much like another party involved, more money all round, more love, more people to enjoy your life with, and more. In regards to the bedroom who knows, perhaps the woman likes some Lesbianism, perhaps the man likes some buggery, who are we to judge? Still it's worth noting your point as perhaps a reason why this is more resisted. Perhaps there are a lot of people who fear that without society looking down on people having more than one partner then they won't be able to maintain their own partner? That their partner will ask to get another partner one day, they'll refuse, and then that partner will say "Ciao"? Well I'm sorry, but if people can't maintain their relationships without the shaming of society then thats really bad too bad for them, git gud I suppose. It's a judgment call, isn't it? A handful of people with a premonition of the future isn't convincing enough to act, but neither is waiting until every stick-in-the-mud dies a good reason to wait. The common sense approach is to be sceptical of fads but also try not to be a silly Cnut! I disagree, gradual change is terrible. It can be done in the very near future if those who support Intermarriage and Homosexuality all supported it, all if people didn't take your attitude of "well we can do it in 100 years or so, no worries" (I don't see difference from what you said then the wait and see). So you see instead of being "sensible", your view is anything but. once again, cancer You going to make an actual comment or just post cancer over and over? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Haggar Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) I had no clue people still cared if the State recognizes their marriage or not, except for tax purposes. The issue is that many nations ban polygamy, and I think that all have a complete ban on polyandry. I'm on the side of no government in marriage period, other than to restrict it to legal adults. It should go back to religious authorities, who can regulate their records as they wish. Anyone who wants a civil union should have a contract drafted that is open about the obligations, rather than a simple certificate that every family judge interprets differently. Edited January 31, 2016 by Mike Haggar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 You going to make an actual comment or just post cancer over and over? If you can find something positive to be said about this thread then you'll have found something for me to talk about. Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Vietnam Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 polygamy is linked to capitalism where rich business owners use money to get lots of wife. should ban with capitalism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share Posted January 31, 2016 If you can find something positive to be said about this thread then you'll have found something for me to talk about. A thread doesn't have to be "positive". The subject matter is polygamy/polyandry and saying the thread is "cancer" doesn't say anything, you could be for or against for all we know. polygamy is linked to capitalism where rich business owners use money to get lots of wife. should ban with capitalism Polygamy was at it's strongest before capitalism so poppycock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abu Haddad Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Well back then you would take the female daughter of the kingdom that you had defeated and took them as a wife. The more wives you had as a ruler showed your military might. Well lots of wives means lots of kids which means lots of monies Quote Caliph of The Caliphate of Arabia. Caliph of the Islamic State of Arabia. Principle of The Principality of Chechnya. Grand Emir of The Emirate of The Caucus. Emperor of the Empire of Persia. Sultan of The Sultanates of Turkey and The Crimea. Czar of the Tsardom of The Balkans. Archon of The Archonate of Greece. Supreme Consul of The Consulate of Italy. Shah of The Shahdom Of Khorason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Von Dietrich Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Well lots of wives means lots of kids which means lots of monies That's why countries in Africa that have it legalized are largely undeveloped and poor? It doesn't increase income, it does the opposite. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) That's why countries in Africa that have it legalized are largely undeveloped and poor? It doesn't increase income, it does the opposite. Countries in Africa aren't poor or undeveloped due to Polygamy, the two things aren't connected and we're talking about Polygamy in a developed nation here, not the third world. In the first world it depends. If a person gets another partner and that partner either works or allows the other same sex partner to work/work more then it does indeed mean more money. The only time it'll result in a decrease would be if both partners of the person didn't work, which would mean adding a second would just add another mouth to feed so to speak while bringing in nothing money wise. Of course many relations may well go even with standard relationships as such units will likely have an increased want for children as having more members in the family unit means taking care of the children becomes easier. The increased births taking away the "need" for immigration is another boon I'd say. Edited January 31, 2016 by Rozalia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) It's worth noting that most of us are talking about consensual polyamory and Abu brought up an example of medieval forced polygamy. That's rape your referring to bro. Edited February 1, 2016 by durmij 1 Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterbake Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Although polygamy is a practice that has been romanticized on recent television programs, I do not believe that the popular fascination with it should extend to legalization. I think that polygamy is a misogynist practice that lends itself to the abuse of small children and women. Polygamist leaders are notorious for cases of abuse. But hey, that's my perspective. I understand and sort of agree with this but I have to go with the government should have no role in marriage crowd. Civil unions yes, marriage no since in most cultures it's a religious bond anyway. Pedophiles can be dealt with by simply making it illegal for anyone under 18 getting a civil union. On an unrelated note I am for government sponsored castration of sex offenders in exchange for a more lenient sentence. The surgical kind and not the chemical kind. Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDkykbBIJxI&feature=youtu.be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 The issue is that many nations ban polygamy, and I think that all have a complete ban on polyandry. I'm on the side of no government in marriage period, other than to restrict it to legal adults. It should go back to religious authorities, who can regulate their records as they wish. Anyone who wants a civil union should have a contract drafted that is open about the obligations, rather than a simple certificate that every family judge interprets differently. It should be left up to the ones getting married. The only "illegal" marriages should be the forced ones which the young adults do not agree to. 1 Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abu Haddad Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 polygamy could allow nations liken Japan and Germany because they both suffer from ageing populations. When i am old and if i had 30 kids and they each earn 50k a year, they would help mewhen i can't work and provide me with money. 600k a year my kids would earn Quote Caliph of The Caliphate of Arabia. Caliph of the Islamic State of Arabia. Principle of The Principality of Chechnya. Grand Emir of The Emirate of The Caucus. Emperor of the Empire of Persia. Sultan of The Sultanates of Turkey and The Crimea. Czar of the Tsardom of The Balkans. Archon of The Archonate of Greece. Supreme Consul of The Consulate of Italy. Shah of The Shahdom Of Khorason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Von Dietrich Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 polygamy could allow nations liken Japan and Germany because they both suffer from ageing populations. When i am old and if i had 30 kids and they each earn 50k a year, they would help mewhen i can't work and provide me with money. 600k a year my kids would earn Even though you're trolling, who's going to fund your kids into them gaining an education? Feed them? House them? inb4hesaysallah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Haggar Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Even though you're trolling, who's going to fund your kids into them gaining an education? Feed them? House them? inb4hesaysallah Ah, the old dependents debate. Kids are generally cheaper on upkeep than the elderly (when you take medical bills into account), but the elderly are more capable of contributing to their family unit for the most part. Everyone seems to be really stuck on polygamy, without considering polyandry or even line marriages. There's a few scenarios where a group marriage would be more capable of caring for children than a monogamous marriage. 1. Two males, one female. The males would all be able to contribute more for the female's children than a single male. 2. Stay-at-home spouse and two working spouses. It's much easier for two partners (male or female) to support the stay-at-home partner than a monogamous stay-at-home spouse and their working partner. 3. In the event of a partner experiencing a disability or medical emergency, it's much easier to cover the expense or loss of income if you have more than one partner. 4. In the case of a line marriage, a young couple with fewer resources could join up with an older one that had more resources. 5. Housing and cooking expenses are likely to go down, especially if you are sharing them across multiple people. Anyone with roommates would appreciate this. 6. Females that don't want to have children could still experience caring (and paying) for children without the drastic sacrifices to career, health, and lifestyle that their own children would require. A career woman could easily join up with a maternal woman to assist with costs and chores. Contrast this with the current career woman and single mom scenario where this isn't a possibility for either one. Kinda sucks that a childless woman is forced to have her own children if she wants a family, while the single mom is closed off from a potential avenue of support. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abu Haddad Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Even though you're trolling, who's going to fund your kids into them gaining an education? Feed them? House them? inb4hesaysallah small investment on my behalf and allah Quote Caliph of The Caliphate of Arabia. Caliph of the Islamic State of Arabia. Principle of The Principality of Chechnya. Grand Emir of The Emirate of The Caucus. Emperor of the Empire of Persia. Sultan of The Sultanates of Turkey and The Crimea. Czar of the Tsardom of The Balkans. Archon of The Archonate of Greece. Supreme Consul of The Consulate of Italy. Shah of The Shahdom Of Khorason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 small investment on my behalf and allah You sound like a 5 year old playing house. 1 Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abu Haddad Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 You sound like a 5 year old playing house. do i Quote Caliph of The Caliphate of Arabia. Caliph of the Islamic State of Arabia. Principle of The Principality of Chechnya. Grand Emir of The Emirate of The Caucus. Emperor of the Empire of Persia. Sultan of The Sultanates of Turkey and The Crimea. Czar of the Tsardom of The Balkans. Archon of The Archonate of Greece. Supreme Consul of The Consulate of Italy. Shah of The Shahdom Of Khorason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Man Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 People keep saying that the slippery slope argument is wrong, but it has happened. First it was allowing inter racial marriages, the conservatives said that after this, gays would be allowed to wed and society said that was just a slippery slope. Then the gays got married and now conservatives say that would lead to polygamy. Now people are talking about polygamous relationships and whats next? Pedophilia, beastiality, incest, marrying objects. The conservatives were right, so why should I not believe them? it may not happen now, but eventually it will. What happened to marriage along the way? what does it even mean anymore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 People keep saying that the slippery slope argument is wrong, but it has happened. First it was allowing inter racial marriages, the conservatives said that after this, gays would be allowed to wed and society said that was just a slippery slope. Then the gays got married and now conservatives say that would lead to polygamy. Now people are talking about polygamous relationships and whats next? Pedophilia, beastiality, incest, marrying objects. The conservatives were right, so why should I not believe them? it may not happen now, but eventually it will. What happened to marriage along the way? what does it even mean anymore? Because the stuff that is legal and we are asking to be made legal involves consenting adults, and the other stuff doesn't. I know being a troll is your whole shtick, but try to add some originality next time. 3 Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrezj Kolarov Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Anyone who is OK with their significant other screwing another person must have something broken in their brain. 1 Quote People's Republic of Velika: National Information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.