Nambla Vs Polygamy

[Mare Tranquillity]

Did we not have this debate when I first started coming here? I don’t remember what thread it was on; I have a horrible habit of bring up abortion in about any topic. If I am wrong and it was not you and I that had this debate then I am very sorry. I was sure you and I did argue abortion. But I have been wrong more than once. I don’t know how to find a chat you and I had. There are so many to go through, I would rather apologies if I was wrong.

So you are against abortion?

I think abortion is not a good thing.

 

[Pandora]

I think abortion is not a good thing.

I am glad to hear that, I wish more people thought the same. It must have been another female I debated aborton with. I really was sure it was you who was defending it. I am really sorry that I mistook you for someone else. I will be more careful next time. Please accept my apology.


So the other part of my question about insest. if it is brothers or if it is sisters are you oposed to that ?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It is not a cheap shot. It is clarification. I explained that you would have a chance to clarify but you chose to attack me instead of taking your chance. Honestly I can't remember all of what you support or don't.

You previously said you support any marriage of consenting adults. But if you don't approve of incest then you don't approve af any marriage of consenting adults. So now you have expressed that you do not approve of consenting adults getting married for at least one reason: if there is a tendency for the children to be harmed as a result. I don't think it is unreasonable for you to stop saying that any consenting adults should be allowed to marry if you believe in exceptions. This seems to be an important issue for you so define your position concisely and clearly.

As has been said before: the customs of marriage have evolved over thousands of years to accept one man and one women. To make a drastic change in what is the norm based on the desires of a tiny minority with the justification that there is no evidence that they do not raise healthy children is reckless. A lack of evidence is not evidence. We do not know enough to know if having many people raising children in marriages that are not one-man one-women is healthy or not. We need to use caution!!

I am not arguing that gay marriage is bad (though it might be). I am arguing that we can understand people who fear it and that we need to use caution when altering the mores that have been established for generations.

When you first asked the question I replied politely in Post #35, but you ignored that and posted the same idiotic attack once again. It's a cheap shot to ignore what people write in response to your questions and keep on accusing them of things that are not true.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I am glad to hear that, I wish more people thought the same. It must have been another female I debated aborton with. I really was sure it was you who was defending it. I am really sorry that I mistook you for someone else. I will be more careful next time. Please accept my apology.


So the other part of my question about insest. if it is brothers or if it is sisters are you oposed to that ?

It's against the law, I think that the law is reasonable because setting a precedent for some legal incestuous relationships would make it all that much more difficult to explain to children the real dangers involved in producing offspring with such close sanguinity.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I understand bans on polygamy only from the economic perspective. Presently, marriage affords certain rights in regards to taxes to married couples, yes? I don't know the details personally, I think Mare does. In any case, if we allow people to marry as many people as they want, suddenly those benefits start getting stretching out to extreme proportions, with the result of havoc in the financial world. I remember discussing this sort of thing with a friend of mine from high school - a man I'm 100% certain entertains no religious affiliation or homophobic bigotry - and he said that one of the qualms he had about homosexual marriage stemmed from the fact that allowing universal homosexual marriage would suddenly and drastically increase the number of married couples, which would cause all kinds of problems in terms of tax codes. That's just for homosexual marriage, which, if the current group of protesters had their way, would still restrict people to monogamous relationships. Imagine the chaos, then, if groups of people were marrying ten, fifteen people.

The fallacy in your friend's argument is that there are so few gay people--they represent only about 3% of the population and only a portion of them would marry--that their marriages would not even cause a blip in the overall number of married couples.

Another point to consider is that the number of hetero couples marrying is in decline as well--that's why half of all the children being raised in the US are in single parent families--so a few more marriages are not going to break the bank. Look at New Hampshire, they're in good shape and they have had gay marriage for several years now.

 

[vyo476]

A tax break if you have a child seems fair enough but even that I would be ok if they stopped it.

Careful. Tax breaks work as social incentives and we don't necessarily need to be encouraging people to have kids right now. I'm not totally sure, but I think the TFR in America is far enough above renewal that encouraging people not to have kids would be a better option.

 

[Dr.Who]

I often miss several sections of a thread and then need to go back and find what I have missed. But not this time. So let's be clear:

Post 18: MT

No one has more right to marriage than anyone else, every consenting adult should have the right to marry the consenting adult(s) of their choice.

Post 21: Dr.

So you're in favor of incestual unions?

Post 28: Dr. to Coyote

Perhaps MT will come back and modify her statement so that she no longer approves of incest. In the mean time she has either been reckless or she has approved of something that is harmful. Caution is called for when we make changes to the primal institutions that have been the basis of our society for thousands of years.

Post 35: MT

Nope.

Post 37: MT to Coyote

Dr. Who is just using the incest thing as an arguing point, I have stated over and over again that I don't approve of incest. One time I post something and don't put in the whole list of caveats and Who jumps on it to accuse me of supporting incest--it's a cheap shot, nothing more.

Post 39: Dr.

It is not a cheap shot. It is clarification. I explained that you would have a chance to clarify but you chose to attack me instead of taking your chance. Honestly I can't remember all of what you support or don't.

You previously said you support any marriage of consenting adults. But if you don't approve of incest then you don't approve af any marriage of consenting adults. So now you have expressed that you do not approve of consenting adults getting married for at least one reason: if there is a tendency for the children to be harmed as a result. I don't think it is unreasonable for you to stop saying that any consenting adults should be allowed to marry if you believe in exceptions. This seems to be an important issue for you so define your position concisely and clearly.

Post 43: Dr. to Coyote(?)

When MT made a statement that applied equally to all three she lumped them together. Her statement approved of all three including incest. I did say that she was either reckless OR approved of incest. And yet she ignored that little word "OR". Instead of clarifying her statement as she was invited to do she assumes I am taking the cheap shot and fails to clarify. Probably because the clarification demands that there are exceptions to the "consenting adults" principle. And once there are exceptions then why not more?

Post 48: MT

When you first asked the question I replied politely in Post #35, but you ignored that and posted the same idiotic attack once again. It's a cheap shot to ignore what people write in response to your questions and keep on accusing them of things that are not true.

It is clear for all to see that since post 35 I have acknowledged that you do not support incest but that your statement still must support incest or be reckless. (I am suggesting reckless) I have not posted the same question again. I have drawn the conclusion for you that you should not be using the broad argument that consenting adults can marry whomever they want if you are against them getting married incestually.

And for the record you have still not clarified how you can believe that consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they want to but that there are a whole list of caveats. Just what are these caveats? Who else should not be allowed to get married. What about people who get married with the sole intention of skirting immigration or other laws? What about people who have a record of abusing children?

And if you think that when you come on to a political forum to debate every time you get challenged it proves that Christians and only Christians are out to get you or attack you that would explain a lot.

 

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

I am wondering what are the opinions on NAMBLA? A lot of talk that homosexual marriage is good; Polygamy is bad but what about NAMBLA? Though its not a marriage it is a relationship at least to puberty.


If I were to compare the North American Man/Boy Love Association to Polygamy I think Polygamy wins.

A guy marries a girl (usually young) he is with her for the rest of their lives. The divorce rate with polygamy is extremely low, not even sure if the statistics are recordable.

NAMBLA, you get a young boy and when he is older, you get a different young boy? But I don’t know of those young boys grow up to want young boys are way older men.

As backwards as some thinking is, I expect a lot of supporters for NAMBLA to speak up; at least I am hoping for it 


NAMBLA has been around a long time. They have an official websites; you can even get your NAMBLA t shirts (who would want one?) They have been defended by the ACLU. No one seems to care much about what they do, but the news is all over polygamy, as though its worse?

Any thoughts??


here is the website.

http://www.nambla.org/

do you spend much time thinking about these groups of people, and if so why? I have a few ideas about people who spend an inordinate amount of time on subjects like this, but I would love to hear from your own mouth exactly where you fit in on this

 

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

I agree with you that the government should get out of marriage. I would never again get married with the governments aproval. they have disgraced the true meaning of it.

but what I am fustrated with is people are picking on the polygamists, cheering on the homosexuals who want to get married and turning a blind eye at NAMBLA.

that is so fustrating

why do you lump homosexuals in with polygamists and pederasts?

 

[Dr.Who]

why do you lump homosexuals in with polygamists and pederasts?

Is there any other group asking for validation of their lifestyle through legalized marriage? Are there man/animal associations that want the right to get married? Then by all means lump them in too.

 

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

Is there any other group asking for validation of their lifestyle through legalized marriage? Are there man/animal associations that want the right to get married? Then by all means lump them in too.

I didn't know the gay lifestyle was an issue, I thought the defense of the definition of the word "marriage" was the issue. Gay lifestyles need no validation from me. Heck, they are not even considered sinful as far as I know. I thought the sin was all about the sexual acts themselves. oy vey!

The right to get married? The basis of legal decisions so far has been the principle---that marriage recognized by the state is a civil union between two people.

Like I told somebody else, if you want to marry your dog, cat or horse within your church or temple---go ahead.

 

[Pandora]

do you spend much time thinking about these groups of people, and if so why? I have a few ideas about people who spend an inordinate amount of time on subjects like this, but I would love to hear from your own mouth exactly where you fit in on this

How ever much time you have seen my posts is how much time I spend on these things.

Why? hmm I said it in my posts. I am pro Polygamy and I am mad that they have to hide from the world in shame, while some yell and scream oh we must make homosexual marriage legal. First fix polygamy then worry for the second.

I posted the NAMBLA part because I was sick of hearing how this one group married off 13 and 14 year olds but no one cares that these freaked out homosexuals use ten year old boys then toss them out for the next ten year old boy they can trick into relationships.

Any kid sex is bad but one is by far the worse and no one seems to care about them. NAMBLA is open and public in what it wants to do to little boys, for god sakes the stupid ACLU have defended them. 2 of them were accused of murdering then raping a 10 year old boy they tricked into getting in their car.

Anyways, hope that answers your question.

 

[Pandora]

why do you lump homosexuals in with polygamists and pederasts?

I wanted to compare the child sex problems in both.


Polygamy, this group married off young girls to spend their lives with ugh old men.


NAMBLA targets ten year old boys, uses them dumps them, targets another ten year old boy.


Both are disgusting, should be fixed but I see the second as far worse.

There was another thread talking about homosexual marriage, and I brought up polygamy there, and compared who had more rights to it. And it was the polygamists, on the first amendment.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

How ever much time you have seen my posts is how much time I spend on these things.

Why? hmm I said it in my posts. I am pro Polygamy and I am mad that they have to hide from the world in shame, while some yell and scream oh we must make homosexual marriage legal. First fix polygamy then worry for the second.

I posted the NAMBLA part because I was sick of hearing how this one group married off 13 and 14 year olds but no one cares that these freaked out homosexuals use ten year old boys then toss them out for the next ten year old boy they can trick into relationships.

Any kid sex is bad but one is by far the worse and no one seems to care about them. NAMBLA is open and public in what it wants to do to little boys, for god sakes the stupid ACLU have defended them. 2 of them were accused of murdering then raping a 10 year old boy they tricked into getting in their car.

Anyways, hope that answers your question.

I think you will find that the ACLU defended their right to the same free speech that Christians, Nazis, KKK, and polygamists already have. The whole issue with the polygamists in the news is that they were molesting children and NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT IT. Any of the NAMBLA folks who get caught actually molesting kids get the same treatment as the child molesting polygamists are getting.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Polygamy, this group married off young girls to spend their lives with ugh old men.


NAMBLA targets ten year old boys, uses them dumps them, targets another ten year old boy.


Both are disgusting, should be fixed but I see the second as far worse.

Just curious: why is raping a little girl is better than raping a little boy? And you really have your terms wrong, people who molest children of either gender are pedophiles, neither hetero nor homo applies.