How Come Polygyny/Polygamy Is Not Considered A Legal Form of Marriage In The U.S?

[Politicz]

(Polygyny means the condition of a man having more than one wife or female mate at one time.)
(Polygamy means the custom or practice of having more than one wife or husband at the same time-applies to both men and women.)

Is marriage really a sacred institution sanctioned by God-or was it created by man in order to increase the populace of the human species? Well, it was created by man. From the beginning of humankinds existence, mankind has always created tools, rules and laws, etc. in the pursuit of harnessing and controlling his environment, and garnering more security for himself-and marriage is no exception.

So, the issue is, why isn't polygyny/polygamy a legally recognized formed of marriage in the U.S.? Polygynous/polygamist are all about procreation, economic security, and stable households for children, etc, too. And, married couples commit adultry all the time, and many have secret lovers on the side-not to mention a lot of married men with a few children out of wedlock running around that they are in denial about helping create. Some of you might sight sexual hygiene, or higher risks of STDs. However, a lot of men johning for prostitutes are married, and the incidents of STDs in polygyny/polygamy communities is relatively the same as that in married couples' households. And, many polygyny/polygamy communities tend to be just as educated as married couples, and on average are middle class households with more economic stability, and several incomes contributing to the community as a whole.

And, some of you might sight pedaphilia in the polygyny/polygamy communities-which should be abolished. However, this is not the norm in most polygyny/polygamy communities (however it is a huge problem amongst the Mormon polygynist), and there is pedaphiles amongst single adult males/females in America, too, which is a big problem that needs to be dealt with on the federal level, so that the problem can be more efficiently addressed, and so the feds can keep better track of pedaphiles by creating a national data base that ensures these criminals are registered as sex offenders, and are kept away from children as much as possible.

Finally, the government can listen to, and go out of their way to address the homosexuals fighting for the right to marry, or form civil unions that are recognized by the government as legal and binding, so that they can obtain all the economic, insurance, health benefits, and securities privileges, etc. that married heterosexual couples have-and homosexuals can't even procreate with each other-yet a few states have passed laws granting them civil unions-and I'm mentioning this fact, because this is one of the reasons why most states haven't granted homosexuals the right to marry-because they can't procreate. But, polygynous/polymists can-so, why are their unions considered illegal in the eyes of the U.S. government? How come polygynous/polygamist in America are not recognized as being legally married-or granted civil unions for economic security, and benefits, etc.? From your point of view, why do you or don't you think polygyny/polygamy should be considered as another legal form of marriage? I know what I think-but I want to hear what you think. :p :D

[Linkster]

I do think it should be recognized as with the separation of church and state obviously there would be no prohibition if we truly followed that separation

[Southern Man]

Traditional marraige is the backbone of civilized society and the government should have the ability to provide special recognition of that, which it does. This is a simlar situation as to home ownership: it increases value of community, so the government encourages that as well.

[kres24GT]

Government should have no place in determining what a marriage is. If 26 dudes want to call themselves married they should be able to.

[kres24GT]

Traditional marraige is the backbone of civilized society and the government should have the ability to provide special recognition of that, which it does. This is a simlar situation as to home ownership: it increases value of community, so the government encourages that as well.


You are great at telling other people how to live their lives. You should vote for Hillary.

[Linkster]

Actually traditional society did allow for Polygamy - the only places that dont are those that adopted the popes rulings on marriage in the 4th century - for many thousands of years prior to that most religions and society as a whole didnt care one way or the other. Today there are many civilized societies that still practice it - the ones that dont are adhering to their feeble minded fear of the church and its doctrines - just another example of people trying to label themselves "better than anyone else" based on foolish beliefs - of course - that seems to be the common thread of anyone that has to place their beliefs anywhere but in themselves to calm their own fears.

[Moby]

Traditional marraige is the backbone of civilized society
How do you define traditional marriage? It's roots go way back and since the 1970s the government has been encouraging divorce. You think they should be responsible for defining marriage?

[kres24GT]

How do you define traditional marriage? It's roots go way back and since the 1970s the government has been encouraging divorce. You think they should be responsible for defining marriage?


There should be no legal definition of marriage. Give no special government treatment to married couples and let the free market determine spousal privileges with things like benefits and insurance.

[Southern Man]

You are great at telling other people how to live their lives. You should vote for Hillary. No, my post speaks for itself. The goverment should encourage civilized society, not some 4th century or new century vision.

[Southern Man]

How do you define traditional marriage? It's roots go way back and since the 1970s the government has been encouraging divorce. You think they should be responsible for defining marriage? Traditional marraige is between one man and one woman. Its very simple.

[kres24GT]

No, my post speaks for itself. The goverment should encourage civilized society, not some 4th century or new century vision.


So you only support freedom when it benefits your lifestyle? If other people want to be free, fuck them?

[Bill]

Politicz, I don't understand why you think this is a serious question.

[Southern Man]

So you only support freedom when it benefits your lifestyle? If other people want to be free, fuck them? What part of my posts indicates to you that I don't want others not to be free? Answer: nothing.

[kres24GT]

What part of my posts indicates to you that I don't want others not to be free? Answer: nothing.


So any consenting adults of sound mind should be allowed to marry, regardless of gender or how many?

[Southern Man]

So any consenting adults of sound mind should be allowed to marry, regardless of gender or how many? Not quite. But two queers can basically do the same thing by filing some paperwork. Just don't call it marraige, like I don't call a Chevette a Corvette.

[Politicz]

I do think it should be recognized as with the separation of church and state obviously there would be no prohibition if we truly followed that separation
I think if the American politicians are going to go out of their way to make room for homosexual unions/marriage, then polygynous and polygamist have the right to advocate for their unions to be recognized as legal and binding. Their unions are about procreation-but stable economics, too. And, who are they hurting by having all of these unions? And, the bible itself gives several examples of polygyny, and several sects of Mormons still practice polygyny inside the U.S. today-not to mention all the underground illegal polygyny/polygamy unions. Either everyone should be able to have fair unions/marriages in the U.S., or none should be able to marry at all. That's my take on all this.:D

[Politicz]

Traditional marraige is the backbone of civilized society and the government should have the ability to provide special recognition of that, which it does. This is a simlar situation as to home ownership: it increases value of community, so the government encourages that as well.
How do you know "traditional" marriage is the backbone of civilized society-especially when it is the tradition of those making the laws, and polygyny/polygamy were and still are so called "traditions" of many past and present civilized societies. What exactly makes traditional marriage more moral or civilized than all of these other unions-especially when adultry is rampant in so called "traditional" marriage, and so is a lot of homosexuality, too. So, how is traditional marriage helping to civilize society?:D

[Politicz]

Government should have no place in determining what a marriage is. If 26 dudes want to call themselves married they should be able to.

I agree, because it is happening anyway-it's just not recognized as legal by the government.:)

[Politicz]

[QUOTE=Linkster]Actually traditional society did allow for Polygamy - the only places that dont are those that adopted the popes rulings on marriage in the 4th century - for many thousands of years prior to that most religions and society as a whole didnt care one way or the other. Today there are many civilized societies that still practice it - the ones that dont are adhering to their feeble minded fear of the church and its doctrines - just another example of people trying to label themselves "better than anyone else" based on foolish beliefs - of course - that seems to be the common thread of anyone that has to place their beliefs anywhere but in themselves to calm their own fears.[/QUOTE

True, and some of these same people are really going to have psychological trauma when they discover that religion was created by man, too. If a person/s are not hurting anyone else, and are in agreement concerning their multiple unions, then they should be legally aloud to have multiple unions. If it turns out to be sin, then that is between them, and God-not us, them, and God. :D

[Politicz]

Politicz, I don't understand why you think this is a serious question.

It's not that I think this is a serious question, I just wanted to know what other people thought about polygyny/polygamy, and why the government isn't taking their issues seriously-but are going out of their way to address homosexual unions/marriage. I find it hypocritical on the government's part to considered homosexual unions as just another chosen lifestyle-yet find polygyny/polygamy to be illegal, and immoral, especially when it is between three or more consenting adults. Haven't you ever wanted to know how other people felt about a simple question?:D

[Bill]

You do know the current sociobiological theories, I imagine.

The size difference between male and female proves, they say, that over large portions of history humans were polygamous - that most women bred with a small percentage of men.

Socially, monagamy is pretty recent, and probably an invention of the agricultural revolution and even more the metallurgical revolution. They think this because monogamy burial practices, males and females buried together in pairs, doesn't seem to start until about 5000bc.

Supposedly monogamy was invented as a response to the invention of organized war - you had to control the young males, or the attractiveness of becoming warlike, joining a war gang, was irresistable.

Interestingly enough, this is the period where the roots of most modern religions was invented. So, it looks like monogamy became a part of religion, to prevent constant war and raiding. By making sure that the best wifes weren't all monopolized by the biggest and most powerful males, you kept the young men at home and working for the wealth of the community.

If they got no wife, it makes sense to become a warrior, raid the neighbors, kill them and take their wives.

So that's why, it's part of the religious roots of western civilization.

[kres24GT]

Not quite. But two queers can basically do the same thing by filing some paperwork. Just don't call it marraige, like I don't call a Chevette a Corvette.

If they want to call it marriage, who gives a fuck? Marriage isn't a trademark term.

[Southern Man]

How do you know "traditional" marriage is the backbone of civilized society-especially when it is the tradition of those making the laws, and polygyny/polygamy were and still are so called "traditions" of many past and present civilized societies. What exactly makes traditional marriage more moral or civilized than all of these other unions-especially when adultry is rampant in so called "traditional" marriage, and so is a lot of homosexuality, too. So, how is traditional marriage helping to civilize society?:D Perhaps you could name one sucessful society that has adultery, polygyny/polygamy, and homosexuality as its backbone.

[Southern Man]

If they want to call it marriage, who gives a fuck? Marriage isn't a trademark term. Apparently it is considered as such. If you're building a Chevy, don't call it a Rolls.

[Moby]

Traditional marraige is between one man and one woman. Its very simple.
I didn't ask for a sound bite. I can turn on Fox News and get that any time. I was asking for a definition. You know, something that actually describes it.

Does it stay with the tradition of women becoming property?
Do women give up everything that they own accept for what they're wearing?
Does the father of the woman still have to buy the favor of the husband?
Should these things still be arranged?
Should divorce be allowed?
Should we follow the tradition of the village bearing witness to the consummation of the marriage?
Is the governor still allowed to pop the cherry of all virgin brides?
Is the marriage valid if the bride is not a virgin?

Please explain which of these traditions we should continue to abide by. If you look at the history of traditional marriage and how it effected civilization then you know that there are many more traditions in marriage. Which ones should we follow, which ones should we ignore and why.

[kres24GT]

Apparently it is considered as such. If you're building a Chevy, don't call it a Rolls.


Where is there a trademark on the word marriage? Who holds it? Court case that upholds the trademark.

[Southern Man]

I didn't ask for a sound bite. I can turn on Fox News and get that any time. I was asking for a definition. You know, something that actually describes it....... You're making it much too complicated. On top all all this now you want a trademark case to argue about.

Maybe it sounds like a sound bite to you but sometimes things really are that simple.

[Politicz]

You do know the current sociobiological theories, I imagine.

The size difference between male and female proves, they say, that over large portions of history humans were polygamous - that most women bred with a small percentage of men.

Socially, monagamy is pretty recent, and probably an invention of the agricultural revolution and even more the metallurgical revolution. They think this because monogamy burial practices, males and females buried together in pairs, doesn't seem to start until about 5000bc.

Supposedly monogamy was invented as a response to the invention of organized war - you had to control the young males, or the attractiveness of becoming warlike, joining a war gang, was irresistable.

Interestingly enough, this is the period where the roots of most modern religions was invented. So, it looks like monogamy became a part of religion, to prevent constant war and raiding. By making sure that the best wifes weren't all monopolized by the biggest and most powerful males, you kept the young men at home and working for the wealth of the community.

If they got no wife, it makes sense to become a warrior, raid the neighbors, kill them and take their wives.

So that's why, it's part of the religious roots of western civilization.

You're correct, however, I would also like to add that organized religion also had a hand in traditional single couple marriage, and considered it to be a solemn commitment reflecitng the ties between the married couple and the divine. Through research, anthropologists have suggested that marriage was never so called traditional or confined to single couples. The ancient Hebrews were polygamous, so were many people in ancient Roman societies. And, in some Native American cultures, transgendered women born as biological males (called berdache) were highly sought after as wives. And, the early American settlers brought a variety of marriage traditions to the Americas with them. Traditional marriage came into play when when the elite wanted to consolidate their wealth, power, and property. Common law and informal marriages were more customary among the lower classes. Indentured Servants and African slaves were forbidden to marry, because both were considered property to whoever owned them. However indentured servants and slaves did engaged in polygamy type unions that were not recognized by the government. So called traditional marriage was born out of necessity-not love. According to social historians, romantic love didn't factor into the marriage equation until around 1920. Even today, women still say they would marry a man they did not love if he met most of their other criteria, such as having money, education, etc. Marriage has already been changed by heterosexuals, so that it is no longer about "tradition" but more about personal statisfaction, having a mate, and love. The industrial revolution, more women in the work force, birth control, and, viagra changed so called traditional marriage back to the dynamic marriage was before civilized societies emerged, and at the beginning of civilized societies. Polygyny/polygamy is as old as mankind itself, and was even before the creation of religion. Traditional marriage has always been used as a tool of sorts to control populations-usually for various political or religious reasons. You have to ask the question, "What's behind all the hoopla about homosexuals having the right to marry, yet polygynous/polygamists are considered to be in violation of the law. What is the political b.s. behind all this?" I smell a big fat elephant lip servicing for votes.:)

[Politicz]

Perhaps you could name one sucessful society that has adultery, polygyny/polygamy, and homosexuality as its backbone.


That would take too long, because every society on planet earth has engaged in all of these types of adult behaviors at one time or another-and the majority still do. It's man's law that says these types of relationships are immoral-not nature, because even animals in nature engage in homosexual behaviors, and they don't worship God as we do. And, the Catholic church is full of homosexual priests, and priests who slip around and have sex with women. Sexuality can't be controlled or sanctioned. Hell, even after God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, homosexuals are still alive and well today, and so is polygyny/polygamy, adultery (rampant in America), swinging, and all kinds of sexual behaviors. What we might find repulsive, another person might find arousing or pleasurable-however, we don't have to engage in that particular type of sexual behavior-and that's our right-just like its their right to engage in that type of behavior if they want to, so long as it is with another "consenting" adult. It's societies that need to make laws to try and sanction sexuality so that they can create an erroneous sense of having a backbone themselves, because sexuality of all kinds was always around before civilized societies were, and are always around after civilized societies fall too. Get a clue, sexuality is of nature-not man made or man controlled.:disbelief:

[Southern Man]

That would take too long, because every society on planet earth has engaged in all of these types of adult behaviors at one time or another-and the majority still do. It's man's law that says these types of relationships are immoral-not nature, because even animals in nature engage in homosexual behaviors, and they don't worship God as we do. And, the Catholic church is full of homosexual priests, and priests who slip around and have sex with women. Sexuality can't be controlled or sanctioned. Hell, even after God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, homosexuals are still alive and well today, and so is polygyny/polygamy, adultery (rampant in America), swinging, and all kinds of sexual behaviors. What we might find repulsive, another person might find arousing or pleasurable-however, we don't have to engage in that particular type of sexual behavior-and that's our right-just like its their right to engage in that type of behavior if they want to, so long as it is with another "consenting" adult. It's societies that need to make laws to try and sanction sexuality so that they can create an erroneous sense of having a backbone themselves, because sexuality of all kinds was always around before civilized societies were, and are always around after civilized societies fall too. Get a clue, sexuality is of nature-not man made or man controlled.:disbelief: Nice speech, but you totally avoided my question. Key word: backbone.

[Bill]

You have to ask the question, "What's behind all the hoopla about homosexuals having the right to marry, yet polygynous/polygamists are considered to be in violation of the law. What is the political b.s. behind all this?" I smell a big fat elephant lip servicing for votes.:)

So, basically you are saying, "Hey, if faggots win the right to marry, I should be able to marry two wives, or 100, if I'm rich enough.".

You're conflating homo marriage with bigamy, like Ex Senator Santorum.

Or, conversely, you are saying "If I can't marry two women, fags shouldn't be able to marry each other.".

Or, in other terms, you are saying that ancient european christian moral rules are the rules that should apply in the modern US.

Altho, technically, what you are really saying is that faggots shouldn't get the legal benefits of marriage. You don't seem to be saying, if two foggots are living together in a common law kind of marriage, they should be stoned to death, you just don't want them to have US legal rights associated with het marriage.

So, it's not so much about marriage, as it is about money. You don't want fags to have the same money rights that you have.

[Southern Man]

That argument makes zero sense.

[Judy___]

Polyandry?? Anyone consider women's options?

Especially with all the war wounded. It would allow women to have a functional husband without abandoning the first and increase the security of the children.

Almost anything is better for children than serial monogamy with or without divorce.

[disrupter]

hey jude.

i just registered.

happy postings.

[Bill]

Polyandry?? Anyone consider women's options?

Ultimately, marriages are economic relationships, and where the economics favor polyandry, polyandry appears.

It's just not common, given our planets dominant economic structures, that females have enough economic clout to make polyandry likely.

Here in the US, possibly in europe, it's probably most likely. They say china is developing a huge surplus of males, we might see forms of it there in the next hundred years.

I have some friends with a kind of line marriage in california - the oldest woman is the biggest earner.

[Judy___]

hey jude.

i just registered.

happy postings.

Hi there. Good to see you.

[Politicz]

So, basically you are saying, "Hey, if faggots win the right to marry, I should be able to marry two wives, or 100, if I'm rich enough.".

You're conflating homo marriage with bigamy, like Ex Senator Santorum.

Or, conversely, you are saying "If I can't marry two women, fags shouldn't be able to marry each other.".

Or, in other terms, you are saying that ancient european christian moral rules are the rules that should apply in the modern US.

Altho, technically, what you are really saying is that faggots shouldn't get the legal benefits of marriage. You don't seem to be saying, if two foggots are living together in a common law kind of marriage, they should be stoned to death, you just don't want them to have US legal rights associated with het marriage.

So, it's not so much about marriage, as it is about money. You don't want fags to have the same money rights that you have.

Quit the contrary, actually, I don't give a rat's ass what homosexuals have. My argument is that I think it is completely ludicrous that the U.S. government and the Christian church view single couple marriage as holy due to procreation. Yet, the bible is full of polygyny/polygamy type unions, and marriage is not even mentioned in the bible, instead it talks about men "taking" women to be their wives-not going before an alter or preacher to get married. And, polygynous/polygamists form unions for basically the same things that single couple marriages do-for stability, procreation, insurance benefits, etc. And, so do homosexuals. So, I find it to be political prejudice on the governments part to go out of their way to address homosexual unions, but considered polygyny/polygamy unions to be illegal, and criminal-especially when they can procreate, and are forming unions for the same reasons as single married couples. It really doesn't make sense if you compare the two. Homosexuals can't procreate, yet the government is taking the time to address their union/marriage issues, while polygynous/polygamists are having to slip around and hide their unions. I think there should be equality for all three types of marriage, and that all should be recognized as legal unions with all the benefits that come with legal unions.:)

[Politicz]

Polyandry?? Anyone consider women's options?

Especially with all the war wounded. It would allow women to have a functional husband without abandoning the first and increase the security of the children.

Almost anything is better for children than serial monogamy with or without divorce.

That's already going on as we speak-it's just not legal in the eyes of the U.S. government. However, again if it is between three consenting adults, then that should be between them and God.:D

[Bill]

I think there should be equality for all three types of marriage, and that all should be recognized as legal unions with all the benefits that come with legal unions.:)

I'm not personally interested in multiple marriage. One woman is enough for me.

And, when I see how polygamy is handled among the mormon sects, and in other cultures around the world, it looks like it has often been horribly abused, involving arranged marriages of quite young females to rich significantly older males, sometimes looking as much like rape as marriage.

Among the mormon sects that practice it, one reads stories of the young men being disowned from the sect and exiled, just so the old men can force their girlfriends into unwanted marriage, essentialy raping them to turn them into baby factories.

Don't they call them the "lost boys" - those young men exiled from the polygamous communities?

But, I have no great objection to making multiple marriages legal. If that's your isssue, go for it.

[Southern Man]

.....

Among the mormon sects that practice it, one reads stories of the young men being disowned from the sect and exiled, just so the old men can force their girlfriends into unwanted marriage, essentialy raping them to turn them into baby factories.

Don't they call them the "lost boys" - those young men exiled from the polygamous communities?

But, I have no great objection to making multiple marriages legal. If that's your isssue, go for it.

You have correctly identified the main problem with polygamy, that is these older, wealthier men push out the young men. These young men then become potential problems for society, with no mate to temper the male tendancies for dominance and violence. But yet you don't feel the need correct a serious problem with an obvious, simple solution. It sounds like you are more of an anarchist than a liberal.

[kres24GT]

So, basically you are saying, "Hey, if faggots win the right to marry, I should be able to marry two wives, or 100, if I'm rich enough.".

You're conflating homo marriage with bigamy, like Ex Senator Santorum.

Or, conversely, you are saying "If I can't marry two women, fags shouldn't be able to marry each other.".

Or, in other terms, you are saying that ancient european christian moral rules are the rules that should apply in the modern US.

Altho, technically, what you are really saying is that faggots shouldn't get the legal benefits of marriage. You don't seem to be saying, if two foggots are living together in a common law kind of marriage, they should be stoned to death, you just don't want them to have US legal rights associated with het marriage.

So, it's not so much about marriage, as it is about money. You don't want fags to have the same money rights that you have.


I don't care if gays married or if there is polygamy, neither should be against the law. Marriage should be no concern of the government and there is no need for a government definition.

[kres24GT]

You have correctly identified the main problem with polygamy, that is these older, wealthier men push out the young men. These young men then become potential problems for society, with no mate to temper the male tendancies for dominance and violence. But yet you don't feel the need correct a serious problem with an obvious, simple solution. It sounds like you are more of an anarchist than a liberal.


More big government to tell us what is best for us. I have to laugh at you for being a supposed lover of freedom.

[Bill]

It sounds like you are more of an anarchist than a liberal.

I'm libertarian, which, where I'm from, means I'm basically a liberal with guns.

Libertarian means not agreeing with government interfere in private consensual behavior among adults, which means, as far as I'm concerned, if people want to be polygamous, it shouldn't be governments role to tell them they can't.

Governments role, in cases like this, should be to provide neutral courts to decide the equitable distribution of costs in the event of legal disputes among the adults and any minor children.

[Southern Man]

More big government to tell us what is best for us. I have to laugh at you for being a supposed lover of freedom.
Anarchy is not freedom. Real freedom requires some common sense laws and enforcemnt of same.

[Southern Man]

I'm libertarian, which, where I'm from, means I'm basically a liberal with guns.

Libertarian means not agreeing with government interfere in private consensual behavior among adults, which means, as far as I'm concerned, if people want to be polygamous, it shouldn't be governments role to tell them they can't.

Governments role, in cases like this, should be to provide neutral courts to decide the equitable distribution of costs in the event of legal disputes among the adults and any minor children. So if two consensual adults want to race their vehicles down Main Street at 100mph you have no problem with that? What about if they decide to build an oil refinery in your neighborhood? Or they sell drugs?

Again that all sounds like anarchy to me, certaintly not liberty.

[kres24GT]

Anarchy is not freedom. Real freedom requires some common sense laws and enforcemnt of same.


So you only support freedom when fits your agenda. Liberals do the same.

Freedom ends when it infringes on the freedom of another. I should not be free to murder you, that violates your freedom to live. I should however to be free to kill you if you agree freely to die at my hand.

Same with marriage. If Bob wants to marry Steve, and they both agree, what the fuck do you care? There classification of their selves as being married means nothing to you.


Loving freedom does not mean you are an anarchist, it means as long as two or more consenting adults engage willfully in any deal or contract without directly affecting others against their will, it should be legal.

[kres24GT]

So if two consensual adults want to race their vehicles down Main Street at 100mph you have no problem with that? What about if they decide to build an oil refinery in your neighborhood? Or they sell drugs?

Again that all sounds like anarchy to me, certaintly not liberty.


If the road is privately owned, of course not. Since most roads are owned by the government, as they should be (this a true function of government), government must set the rules for their roads.

[Bill]

So if two consensual adults want to race their vehicles down Main Street at 100mph you have no problem with that? What about if they decide to build an oil refinery in your neighborhood? Or they sell drugs?


Main Streets are rarely private, so unless it's a truly private street, the objection wouldn't apply. If it were truly private, the owners could either allow the behavior or refuse to allow it.

Oil refineries have to be built somehwere - however, since the courts aren't rigged to favor the rich in a libertarian society, there would be a natural tendency to build refineries in places that attracted the right cost-balance of legal objections. So, no more government sponsored free rides for the corporations or big business.

Selling drugs would have legal risks, as would any other business, but if done between adults there would be no reason to interfere. Except, of course, that the courts would be available to mediate disputes, if, for instance, someone was selling inferior drugs, or cheating customers, or the like.

[kres24GT]

Main Streets are rarely private, so unless it's a truly private street, the objection wouldn't apply. If it were truly private, the owners could either allow the behavior or refuse to allow it.

Oil refineries have to be built somehwere - however, since the courts aren't rigged to favor the rich in a libertarian society, there would be a natural tendency to build refineries in places that attracted the right cost-balance of legal objections. So, no more government sponsored free rides for the corporations or big business.

Selling drugs would have legal risks, as would any other business, but if done between adults there would be no reason to interfere. Except, of course, that the courts would be available to mediate disputes, if, for instance, someone was selling inferior drugs, or cheating customers, or the like.


Sounds great to me, will never happen voting for Dems and Reps like you and Southern do.

[Bill]

Sounds great to me, will never happen voting for Dems and Reps like you and Southern do.

I make a cost-benefit analysis and vote accordingly.

The cost of allowing the republicans to create a plutocratic tyranny masquerading as a theocratic race-state is too great for me to vote my preference.

My estimate, (which might be flawed, however, obviously, I have decided that it is not) is that the dems present far less of a risk of tyranny within the next ten years.

When that risk is abated, I plan on returning to my long-term agenda.

And the coming end of the oil age will change the game so completely that in 30 years, as I am approaching death, the political equations will be much different than they are now.

I hope the libertarians, or some other similar third party, will seize the oppurtunity.

[kres24GT]

I make a cost-benefit analysis and vote accordingly.

The cost of allowing the republicans to create a plutocratic tyranny masquerading as a theocratic race-state is too great for me to vote my preference.

My estimate, (which might be flawed, however, obviously, I have decided that it is not) is that the dems present far less of a risk of tyranny within the next ten years.

When that risk is abated, I plan on returning to my long-term agenda.

And the coming end of the oil age will change the game so completely that in 30 years, as I am approaching death, the political equations will be much different than they are now.

I hope the libertarians, or some other similar third party, will seize the oppurtunity.


I wish I could be this delusional.

[Bill]

I wish I could be this delusional.

Yeah well, we all have our crosses to bear.

I'm still waiting to hear your plan. I'm sure it will be well thought out when you get it into words.

[kres24GT]

Yeah well, we all have our crosses to bear.

I'm still waiting to hear your plan. I'm sure it will be well thought out when you get it into words.


My plan is to vote for candidates, and convince others to vote for candidates, who will limit the size of the federal government, enforce the 10th amendment, and get government out of business. Dems and Reps won't cut it here.

Last gubernatorial election I voted Libertarian and convinced a handful of others to do so as well.

Voting for the lesser of two evils accomplishes nothing. You are delusional to think it does.

[Southern Man]

So you only support freedom when fits your agenda. Liberals do the same.

Freedom ends when it infringes on the freedom of another. I should not be free to murder you, that violates your freedom to live. I should however to be free to kill you if you agree freely to die at my hand.

Same with marriage. If Bob wants to marry Steve, and they both agree, what the fuck do you care? There classification of their selves as being married means nothing to you.


Loving freedom does not mean you are an anarchist, it means as long as two or more consenting adults engage willfully in any deal or contract without directly affecting others against their will, it should be legal.

Bob and Steve can have any relationship that pleases them. But if they call it marraige, it infringes on people who believe traditional marraige is sacred and the backbone of civilization.

[Southern Man]

....

[1]Oil refineries have to be built somehwere - however, since the courts aren't rigged to favor the rich in a libertarian society, there would be a natural tendency to build refineries in places that attracted the right cost-balance of legal objections. So, no more government sponsored free rides for the corporations or big business.

[2]Selling drugs would have legal risks, as would any other business, but if done between adults there would be no reason to interfere. Except, of course, that the courts would be available to mediate disputes, if, for instance, someone was selling inferior drugs, or cheating customers, or the like.

1. In your scenario the builder would choose the poorest neighborhood to build his refinery, as his neighbors would be the least able to afford the legal challenge. Simple zoning, a mainstay of civilized society, prevents this.

2. Again your scenario favors the rich over the poor with its reliance on the court system.

[kres24GT]

Bob and Steve can have any relationship that pleases them. But if they call it marraige, it infringes on people who believe traditional marraige is sacred and the backbone of civilization.


Who gives a fuck? Anyone this weak should kill themselves.

LMAO @ government defining words and terms because some people will cry over someone else having a different meaning.

[Bill]

1. In your scenario the builder would choose the poorest neighborhood to build his refinery, as his neighbors would be the least able to afford the legal challenge. Simple zoning, a mainstay of civilized society, prevents this.

2. Again your scenario favors the rich over the poor with its reliance on the court system.

1. Libertarian policy doesn't argue that zoning shouldn't exist. It's the way zoning is handled that is different.

The way things work right now, refineries are built exactly as you describe, on the properties of the poor, as close to transport and resources as possible. What a libertarian policy would do is guarantee that the displaced poor would be paid fair value for their land and environment, without the government stepping in to provide a sweetheart deal to big business, and screwing the poor without representation.

I think you're trying to misrepresent something you haven't learned enough about, to force it to fit your idea of anarchy.

2. The libertarian position on courts is that our court system has been built from the outset to favor the rich. That's what it does now. The libertarian position is that, after public defense, governments primary responsibility should be to provide cheap, stringently fair courts to it's people, and constantly monitor the courts to prevent the inevitable tendency to public corruption.

The idea is for courts that are more accessible, law written and practiced in plain language, without much need for hired gun lawyers to distort civil law.

I'm not naive, I understand that some of the costs involved in moving to a libertarian federal policy, like rebuilding the court system so that it is actively fair, and doesn't favor the rich as our current system does, are so high that our society couldn't afford it at this time.

What I want to see is an infusion of libertarian policies into current federal policies.

Most of which involve cutting spending, and reducing the role of government.

[Southern Man]

Who gives a fuck? Anyone this weak should kill themselves.

LMAO @ government defining words and terms because some people will cry over someone else having a different meaning.

What you call weak, 80% of America calls strong.

It is the role of government to set standards, is it not?

[Southern Man]

....

I think you're trying to misrepresent something you haven't learned enough about, to force it to fit your idea of anarchy.

.....

I don't think that you've thought this through or experienced it. There's a little town in Onondaga County, NY that is libertarian. I used to live two towns over from it, back when I was an elected official of the Conservative Party. You should go up there and experience it for yourself.

[kres24GT]

What you call weak, 80% of America calls strong.

It is the role of government to set standards, is it not?


No. Government exist to protect citizens from real threats and to build infrastructure. That's about it. They aren't there to define words.


Seriously if two queers calling them selves married affects your life in anyway, you are better off committing suicide.

80% of America is morons, that is why we don't live in a democracy.

[Southern Man]

No. Government exist to protect citizens from real threats and to build infrastructure. That's about it. They aren't there to define words.

....

80% of America is morons, that is why we don't live in a democracy.

Government defines words all the time, as part of its mandate. A foot is a foot, a pound a pound, etc. Same for marraige.

I have more faith in 80% of the public than you do, obviously.

[kres24GT]

Government defines words all the time, as part of its mandate. A foot is a foot, a pound a pound, etc. Same for marraige.

I have more faith in 80% of the public than you do, obviously.


Government does a lot of things they aren't supposed to do. Yes, you do.

[Southern Man]

Government does a lot of things they aren't supposed to do. ..... And setting standards is one that they are mandated to do.

[kres24GT]

And setting standards is one that they are mandated to do.


Again, you have made it quite clear you only agree with freedom when it fits your agenda. Same thing with honoring the majority. If 80% disagree with you I doubt you'd be saying, "oh well, I disagree, but 80% do."

You like big government, that's cool, most do. But stop claiming to not be a fan of it.

[Southern Man]

Again, you have made it quite clear you only agree with freedom when it fits your agenda. Same thing with honoring the majority. If 80% disagree with you I doubt you'd be saying, "oh well, I disagree, but 80% do."

You like big government, that's cool, most do. But stop claiming to not be a fan of it. Again, queers are able to roam freely and do whatever it is they do, so long as their activities don't harm or denigrate others.

Actually I prefer a federal government that adheres to its constitutional mandate and nothing more. Setting standards is entirely consistent with Article 1, Section 8, to provide for general Welfare of the US and regulate Commerce among the States.

[kres24GT]

Again, queers are able to roam freely and do whatever it is they do, so long as their activities don't harm or denigrate others.

Actually I prefer a federal government that adheres to its constitutional mandate and nothing more. Setting standards is entirely consistent with Article 1, Section 8, to provide for general Welfare of the US and regulate Commerce among the States.


Liberally interpreting the constitution to suit your needs as well. Awesome, you would make a great Hillary voter.

[Southern Man]

Liberally interpreting the constitution to suit your needs as well. Awesome, you would make a great Hillary voter. Why is it liberal? Without standards of marriage the Welfare of the US is weakened, and Commerce between the States cannot be adequately regulated.

Hillary proposes a lessening of the marriage standard. Furthermore, her socialized medicine proposal has no constitutional basis.

[kres24GT]

Why is it liberal? Without standards of marriage the Welfare of the US is weakened, and Commerce between the States cannot be adequately regulated.

Hillary proposes a lessening of the marriage standard. Furthermore, her socialized medicine proposal has no constitutional basis.

Holy fuck dude, you don't want fags to marry, I got it, stop making yourself look foolish.

Under your liberal interpretation of the constitution Hillary can set a standard of "free health care for all". All things are possible when you read the constitution he way you and Hillary do.

[Southern Man]

Holy fuck dude, you don't want fags to marry, I got it, stop making yourself look foolish.

Under your liberal interpretation of the constitution Hillary can set a standard of "free health care for all". All things are possible when you read the constitution he way you and Hillary do. I don't see how you could stretch my interpretation into that. But feel free to attempt an explanation.

[kres24GT]

I don't see how you could stretch my interpretation into that. But feel free to attempt an explanation.


When it comes to liberal interpretations, where do we draw the line? I suppose you personally draw that line.


Seriously though, if butt pirates and muff divers getting hitched bother you, then you should kill yourself before you reproduce, weakling like yourself need to be killed off by social Darwinism.

[Southern Man]

When it comes to liberal interpretations, where do we draw the line? I suppose you personally draw that line.


.... I draw the line where about 80% of the public does.

[kres24GT]

I draw the line where about 80% of the public does.


Unless they disagree with you.

[Southern Man]

Unless they disagree with you. Actually that would be your position.

[docholly]

(Polygamy means the custom or practice of having more than one wife or husband at the same time-applies to both men and women.)

:D

I'm all for having additional husbands.. and the ability to discard the ones whose equipment fails to work or those who can't quite make the 6 or 7 figured salary so I can live like the Queen Diva that I think I am. 20somethings for sex -- 50+ for intelligent conversations and those in between to bring home the bacon.

Life is GOOD. :thumbsup:

[Linkster]

Getting back to the original discussion - the liberal/conservative argument doesnt apply as the "morals" involved here with polygamy etc only exist due to the line of teachings that have been handed down by society over the last hundred years or so - prior to that government really wasnt involved with issues of personal relationships and only certain religions spoke out on it much one way or the other.

The fact that there is a "legal" form of relationship goes way beyond any interpretation of the foundations of the US or pretty much any other country - it is a moral issue that society either agrees to or not - unfortunately when the government gets involved they tend to see things in black and white only and issue laws that suit their own beliefs - whether they were taught to be religious or to believe in aliens is a huge determining factor only because we as a people allow for it - Americans tend to have a high percentage of lineage that comes from believing in fairy tales and trusting in some imaginary creature - why would they ever have to think for themselves on these types of issues?

[Southern Man]

My sense of history goes back about 2000 years further.

[disrupter]

short answer: social bigotry

no claims about effects on spouses or children, just the pure spin of 'morality',
as if that is some magic wild card to quell all rational thought & dialogue.

When religion becomes a substitute for thinking, we become a stupider species.

[Bob C]

The reason why, who cares. Just what I want-2 women or more complaining I work to much so they can stay at home . Aside from that, the removal of the American Male's manhood has been happening for some time-thats why.
Just look at that fruit Mitt Romney CRYING over his grandfather and what it must have been like for those poor women.
Step up and get a pair. Seriously. Myself, I am happy with one woman-but I may be happier with 2. But would I really be happier? OK, I'd have some strange and it would be more adventerous-but imagine the downside.
The end of manhood in this country started with that ridiculous promise keepers tour and ended when we elected a cheerleader.
Wait, am I really talking about this? Ive obviously been bated.
My real opinion-if you want more than 1 wife thats what prostitutes are for. And they are far better "other wives". Just pay and leave, instead of continuously pay and listen to them gripe

[disrupter]

it isn't the so-called 'fags' that are mindlessly, blindly over reproducing & suicidally destroying the planet & sealing their own doom in the process.

Mindless heterosexuals are like leeches,
with a god given right to destroy the planet, supposedly god's own creation.

What a bunch of dorks,

evil, wicked dorks.