two husbands
THE:
E ARE My THE’ If,
we MY
Ardith flv DIFFERENT dwt.
eaa! erll) g ALL is"? WWW.
E ARE My THE’ If,
we MY
Ardith flv DIFFERENT dwt.
eaa! erll) g ALL is"? WWW.
...
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
158 comments displayed.
#171 to #146
-
uleaveinpieces (01/08/2016) [-] 
"i think polygamy is legal in utah. not sure though, don't quote me on this."
-Anon, 2016
-Anon, 2016
#154 to #54
-
angelusprimus (01/08/2016) [-] At first it was cultural. Today the problem is that groups that want to practice polygamy are kinda creepy.
Orthodox Mormons who marry girls as young as 13 to their "prophets" in their dosens and abandon male children to create more female to male ratio.
And Muslims and their still prevailing custom of arranged marriage.
Orthodox Mormons who marry girls as young as 13 to their "prophets" in their dosens and abandon male children to create more female to male ratio.
And Muslims and their still prevailing custom of arranged marriage.
#198 to #154
-
anon (01/08/2016) [-]
Islam does not have arranged marriage. In fact, If either of the party do not agree to marriage with their own, uncoerced, volition, the marriage is VOID and they are practicing adultery.
Now, Arabs/middle easterns/ [insert ethnic/cultural non-religious group] having arranged marriage customs is considerably true. Again, Islam hugely prohibits it, but that doesn't stop some Arab Muslims from doing it.
To clear up one point, Arabs have a wide-spread custom of arrange hookups. It goes like so: guy wants to get married. He doesn't particularity care who he wants to marry. He has some conditions/preferences on what the woman should look like/ act like, etc... He informs his mother about them, and then she goes around scouting for such woman for her son.
She finds one, and talks to her mother asking if she's available/ looking for a husband. If she is, the man and woman, and their respective mothers [or elders if unavailable] go on a date. Elders usually just sit in the background and make sure things don't go too steamy.
If both get along and they would like to continue, then they go for a second, third, etc... Usually it becomes less supervised to an extent. Things go smooth, and they decide to get engaged and then married. If either isn't comfortable with the situation, they breakup and move on.
In other cases, the man wouldn't care less about the specific of the woman, and vice versa, where they literally just want to get married and don't care about the details. Now, a lot of foul play could go around, but they both fully accept the marriage without coercion, we can't say there's anything wrong with that.
Now, Arabs/middle easterns/ [insert ethnic/cultural non-religious group] having arranged marriage customs is considerably true. Again, Islam hugely prohibits it, but that doesn't stop some Arab Muslims from doing it.
To clear up one point, Arabs have a wide-spread custom of arrange hookups. It goes like so: guy wants to get married. He doesn't particularity care who he wants to marry. He has some conditions/preferences on what the woman should look like/ act like, etc... He informs his mother about them, and then she goes around scouting for such woman for her son.
She finds one, and talks to her mother asking if she's available/ looking for a husband. If she is, the man and woman, and their respective mothers [or elders if unavailable] go on a date. Elders usually just sit in the background and make sure things don't go too steamy.
If both get along and they would like to continue, then they go for a second, third, etc... Usually it becomes less supervised to an extent. Things go smooth, and they decide to get engaged and then married. If either isn't comfortable with the situation, they breakup and move on.
In other cases, the man wouldn't care less about the specific of the woman, and vice versa, where they literally just want to get married and don't care about the details. Now, a lot of foul play could go around, but they both fully accept the marriage without coercion, we can't say there's anything wrong with that.
#199 to #198
-
angelusprimus (01/08/2016) [-] yeah.
And here we have an ideal situation.
But we also have situations like this:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9821946/Syrian-girls-sold-into-forced-marriages.html
or this
www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22473573
or this
www.spiegel.de/international/germany/new-abuse-figures-forced-marriages-in-germany-more-prevalent-than-thought-a-796760.html
or...
I think I made my point.
This are not isolated cases. As last article says in 2008, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 3,443 people sought help at counseling and social services centers across the country because they were being, or already had been, forced into marriage.
So yeah IDEALLY situation is like you describe. In reality girls are being sold by their families and forced into marriages they do not want, but do not dare to refuse.
And here we have an ideal situation.
But we also have situations like this:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9821946/Syrian-girls-sold-into-forced-marriages.html
or this
www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22473573
or this
www.spiegel.de/international/germany/new-abuse-figures-forced-marriages-in-germany-more-prevalent-than-thought-a-796760.html
or...
I think I made my point.
This are not isolated cases. As last article says in 2008, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 3,443 people sought help at counseling and social services centers across the country because they were being, or already had been, forced into marriage.
So yeah IDEALLY situation is like you describe. In reality girls are being sold by their families and forced into marriages they do not want, but do not dare to refuse.
#78 to #54
-
anon (01/08/2016) [-]
It's religion. The bible says something to the effect of "marriage is between one man and one woman". Thus, for the longest time, no gay marriage and still no polygamy.
In the US, polygamy is the only thing that I can think of that is (currently) illegal for the sole reason of religion.
In the US, polygamy is the only thing that I can think of that is (currently) illegal for the sole reason of religion.
#105 to #78
-
angelusprimus (01/08/2016) [-] Actually bible says:
Exodus 21:10 “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.”
Mark 12:19 "Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife, but leaves no child, the man[a] must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother."
IF you keep reading you'll see that Jesus doesn't forbid the practice, or says "well only if you are not already married"
Actually bible is perfectly fine with one man having multiple wives. Even early Christians (1-2 century) sometimes practiced polygamy.
The monogamy thing actually came from close association of early Church and Roman Empire.
Exodus 21:10 “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.”
Mark 12:19 "Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife, but leaves no child, the man[a] must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother."
IF you keep reading you'll see that Jesus doesn't forbid the practice, or says "well only if you are not already married"
Actually bible is perfectly fine with one man having multiple wives. Even early Christians (1-2 century) sometimes practiced polygamy.
The monogamy thing actually came from close association of early Church and Roman Empire.
#117 to #109
-
iXffacepalmXyou (01/08/2016) [-]
Actually polygamy is practiced by an off branch of the Mormons called the FLDS church. Their marriages aren't actually legalized as far as the state is concerned though as far as I know.
#104 to #5
-
angelusprimus (01/08/2016) [-] I found them on a public square in Germany.
Took them, shipped them to ************* three years ago, they are still discussing if arresting me for rape and kidnapping would be racist or not.
Took them, shipped them to ************* three years ago, they are still discussing if arresting me for rape and kidnapping would be racist or not.
#41 to #1
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] From a purely biological standpoint there's little purpose to that, as a woman can only have one child at at time; hence that's extremely rare in humans.
#82 to #74
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] Well no, since a male is beneficial during child-rearing it's better to have a single partner; which is a lot of why monogamy is the standard. That and the fact that humans do not like to share.
#13 to #1
-
klick (01/08/2016) [-] In countries where you are allowed to take several wives, it's only the men that are allowed to take on more wives. Women are not allowed to have multiple husbands because that would mean the woman is in charge of the household and that can't happen in their mind. Women are incompetent and not real people. It'd be like putting the family pet in charge of all the choices. And if a man turns up with Multiple Husbands, well I don't even want to think about the carnage.
#4
-
stankebottoms (01/08/2016) [-] Why would anyone want more than one wife sucking your life away?
#10 to #4
-
sirrawrsalot ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] keeps them on their toes, and not self centered and complacent.
#48 to #4
-
anon (01/08/2016) [-] This is very true.
As I Saudi Arabian I can tell you truthfully that only rich people have more than one wife.
And sometimes, there's so much conflict between wives that the husband has to build for each wife a house of her own.
The husband also has an obligation to visit and spend time with each wife on a basis or he gets in serious trouble with the court over neglecting any of his wives.
It's always hilarious to go to visit a member of my family who lives in a rich neighborhood and see that big walled up area with 3 houses away from each other inside it.
I do not know why would anyone bring such a menace upon themselves.
As I Saudi Arabian I can tell you truthfully that only rich people have more than one wife.
And sometimes, there's so much conflict between wives that the husband has to build for each wife a house of her own.
The husband also has an obligation to visit and spend time with each wife on a basis or he gets in serious trouble with the court over neglecting any of his wives.
It's always hilarious to go to visit a member of my family who lives in a rich neighborhood and see that big walled up area with 3 houses away from each other inside it.
I do not know why would anyone bring such a menace upon themselves.
#6
-
douthit (01/08/2016) [-] Both should be legal. Just because I wouldn't do it, that doesn't mean I should stop others from doing it.
#39 to #6
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] So should incest... but that's much less popular.
#94 to #52
-
severepwner (01/08/2016) [-] Why ban incest when you just want to ban its procreation? That's slippery slope logic.
Like that is literally the main point every person uses against incest. It's like apparently every relationship that has ever existed immediately created a baby, you know, besides all of the relationships that weren't marriages and even marriages that didn't ever have kids.
But **** it, just ban incest as a whole, they're guaranteed to have kids. Not like we could just make incestuously bred children illegal or anything.
Like that is literally the main point every person uses against incest. It's like apparently every relationship that has ever existed immediately created a baby, you know, besides all of the relationships that weren't marriages and even marriages that didn't ever have kids.
But **** it, just ban incest as a whole, they're guaranteed to have kids. Not like we could just make incestuously bred children illegal or anything.
#196 to #176
-
severepwner (01/08/2016) [-] Yes I did compare homosexuality to incest. They are both a sexual issue, and are more similar than you think. They were or still are illegal to some extent, society has strong taboos against them, the taboos against them both are completely irrational, and it's a taste that's only going to be understood by people that belong to that category. Quite similar actually.
This is why I replaced the word "incest" with "homosexuality" in your comment. To put it better into context how ignorant you're being.
For one, you finding incest gross, is completely subjective and irrelevant. Just like how someone finding homosexuality gross would also be subjective and irrelevant. No one is asking you to take part in incest, just like how nobody is asking anyone to take part in homosexuality. But why does just because you find it gross, it should be banned?
>homosexuality isn't that big of a deal
I agree. And I also think that incest isn't that big of a deal
>and you think you can put incest at the same level?
Yes I can, why can't I? They're quite similar. Read my first paragraph on a few examples on how.
This is why I replaced the word "incest" with "homosexuality" in your comment. To put it better into context how ignorant you're being.
For one, you finding incest gross, is completely subjective and irrelevant. Just like how someone finding homosexuality gross would also be subjective and irrelevant. No one is asking you to take part in incest, just like how nobody is asking anyone to take part in homosexuality. But why does just because you find it gross, it should be banned?
>homosexuality isn't that big of a deal
I agree. And I also think that incest isn't that big of a deal
>and you think you can put incest at the same level?
Yes I can, why can't I? They're quite similar. Read my first paragraph on a few examples on how.
#53 to #52
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] Not necessarily, and even then it's a weak reason.
#70 to #53
-
anon (01/08/2016) [-]
I had two cousins who were the offspring to a marriage of 3rd cousins, and they passed away from a genetic disease that essentially deteriorated their muscles until their hearts gave out...pretty sure incestuous children should be illegal to attempt. I'm not sure about marriage since you can't truly force someone to not have children, and then if they do punish them harshly. That could hurt the kids depending on the punishment. I think it's best to make incest illegal.
People with genetic diseases should probably be tested or something as well. I don't know, it's a rough subject. It's not your life that it affects, it's the kid that you could have. Why purposefully produce offspring with at risk of a clear disadvantage ? Seems unfair. Just adopt. There are plenty of healthy children that need love
People with genetic diseases should probably be tested or something as well. I don't know, it's a rough subject. It's not your life that it affects, it's the kid that you could have. Why purposefully produce offspring with at risk of a clear disadvantage ? Seems unfair. Just adopt. There are plenty of healthy children that need love
#95 to #70
-
severepwner (01/08/2016) [-] "..since you can't truly force someone to not have children"
And why the **** not? We've been forcing people to not break the law for centuries. For a while we forced people to never abort, we're forcing people right now to not be allowed to incestuously marry, we force people to not do all kinds of **** .
Saying A must be illegal because B can't be prevented is slippery slope logic.
And why the **** not? We've been forcing people to not break the law for centuries. For a while we forced people to never abort, we're forcing people right now to not be allowed to incestuously marry, we force people to not do all kinds of **** .
Saying A must be illegal because B can't be prevented is slippery slope logic.
#114 to #95
-
nephtus (01/08/2016) [-] Well, the matter here is what do you do once you catch someone doing it:
-If you catch people being incestuous, you can arrest them, punish them, etc.
-If you catch people having children what are you gonna do, kill the children...?
Since having an incestuous relationship/intercourse is required to have incestuous offspring, banning the first is the only way to ban the second.
-If you catch people being incestuous, you can arrest them, punish them, etc.
-If you catch people having children what are you gonna do, kill the children...?
Since having an incestuous relationship/intercourse is required to have incestuous offspring, banning the first is the only way to ban the second.
#118 to #114
-
severepwner (01/08/2016) [-] "If you catch people having children what are you gonna do, kill the children?"
So, literally just abortion? Which is the most morally trivialized issue in America? Yeah just make them abort, and make incestuous procreation illegal. When things are illegal it discourages people from doing things, because they'll get a sentence if they do it. If the child was already born, then oh ******* well. It's not like all incestuously born children even have defects, they just have a higher chance to have them. A chance, I might add, which is rivaled by mothers in their 40s? We aren't banning older women from breeding are we? And even if the child did have a defect of some kind, our society is more than happy to accommodate them. Seriously even the most severe of mentally handicapped are ridiculously privileged. Also might I add that retards are still allowed to breed? No one is calling out eugenics there, so why are they calling it here? Why do you make incest just about the children? It's about the relationship.
Saying banning A is the only way to ban B is completely fallacious logic, and morally wrong. If that was how we made laws, we would hardly be allowed to do anything because Z will happen because A happened. Next thing you're going to say is that we should ban paint, because paint is required to vandalize buildings that way, so we may as well ban it.
So, literally just abortion? Which is the most morally trivialized issue in America? Yeah just make them abort, and make incestuous procreation illegal. When things are illegal it discourages people from doing things, because they'll get a sentence if they do it. If the child was already born, then oh ******* well. It's not like all incestuously born children even have defects, they just have a higher chance to have them. A chance, I might add, which is rivaled by mothers in their 40s? We aren't banning older women from breeding are we? And even if the child did have a defect of some kind, our society is more than happy to accommodate them. Seriously even the most severe of mentally handicapped are ridiculously privileged. Also might I add that retards are still allowed to breed? No one is calling out eugenics there, so why are they calling it here? Why do you make incest just about the children? It's about the relationship.
Saying banning A is the only way to ban B is completely fallacious logic, and morally wrong. If that was how we made laws, we would hardly be allowed to do anything because Z will happen because A happened. Next thing you're going to say is that we should ban paint, because paint is required to vandalize buildings that way, so we may as well ban it.
#120 to #118
-
nephtus (01/08/2016) [-] Abortion is it's own debate. I was referring to the fact that once you find out you can't kil a 1-year old because of his origin. Plus, abortion is a decision that comes from its progenitors, not the state telling you to abort, so no point comparing those.
"If that was how we made laws, we would hardly be allowed to do anything because Z will happen because A happened" What you are using here is plain demagogy, that's like using the counter-argument that you need to be born in order to commit crimes, so stopping births stops crimes.
When A is borderline bannable, and B which is the only possible following event to A, then A is banned. It's not fallacious logic, its ******* logic. Why do you think selling drugs is a crime, when the crime should be taking them? Why do you think having guns is banned in most countries, when the crime should be killing people?
This IS in fact how we make laws, it's just your skewed view of this matter that makes you desire otherwise (as is human nature when we are taken away something we enjoy/want).
"If that was how we made laws, we would hardly be allowed to do anything because Z will happen because A happened" What you are using here is plain demagogy, that's like using the counter-argument that you need to be born in order to commit crimes, so stopping births stops crimes.
When A is borderline bannable, and B which is the only possible following event to A, then A is banned. It's not fallacious logic, its ******* logic. Why do you think selling drugs is a crime, when the crime should be taking them? Why do you think having guns is banned in most countries, when the crime should be killing people?
This IS in fact how we make laws, it's just your skewed view of this matter that makes you desire otherwise (as is human nature when we are taken away something we enjoy/want).
#129 to #120
-
severepwner (01/08/2016) [-] You'd be losing your choice in the matter because incestuous procreation would be illegal, and criminal punishment is defined as losing rights, usually being choice. If you were going to break the law by having an incestuous baby, you're not going to have the upper hand against the law as far as choice goes.
How is A borderline bannable? Do you really mean to say it's just a societal taboo? Because that's all it is. And no B is not the only possible thing following A. For some reason you are convinced there has never been a relationship in this world that has not ended with a child being created. I had a girlfriend when I was a 16, I remember very clearly how I never created a baby with her. The same can be said for millions of other couples. Also millions of marriages never conceive children. This is all evidence, that no "B is not the only possible following event to A" Not to mention that when incestuous procreation would be illegal, that would heavily discourage B from ever happening anyway.
I swear when arguing with people that have the same viewpoint you do, condoms, abortion, contraceptives, and the concept of "not wanting kids" just stop existing.
Now selling drugs is guaranteed that the sole purpose is for someone to take them. People don't sell or buy drugs just to have them sit on the shelf, it's a substance they intend to use. In this case, A is a means to get to B. That doesn't apply to this argument, because A in itself is what these people would want. To be married to their incest based partner. There aren't people that want incest legalized so they can create children that way, they want incest legalized so they can legally marry their partners period. I'm not going to deny there would be couples that would want such, but since B would be illegal, that is the compromise for legalizing this. And gun control, like you said, is it's own debate. It's a little too complicated to be used as a comparison in this regard.
A should be illegal when it's purpose is to cause B. But that doesn't ******* apply here. Because it's not the purpose of a marriage to create children, it's the purpose of a marriage to married to your spouse, procreation is something else entirely. Essentially A should be legal, because A doesn't always cause B, especially if B was illegal on it's own. And if you think A will always cause B, you're wrong.
Also I'll just assume, that you didn't have a counterpoint for most of my first paragraph on my previous comment?
How is A borderline bannable? Do you really mean to say it's just a societal taboo? Because that's all it is. And no B is not the only possible thing following A. For some reason you are convinced there has never been a relationship in this world that has not ended with a child being created. I had a girlfriend when I was a 16, I remember very clearly how I never created a baby with her. The same can be said for millions of other couples. Also millions of marriages never conceive children. This is all evidence, that no "B is not the only possible following event to A" Not to mention that when incestuous procreation would be illegal, that would heavily discourage B from ever happening anyway.
I swear when arguing with people that have the same viewpoint you do, condoms, abortion, contraceptives, and the concept of "not wanting kids" just stop existing.
Now selling drugs is guaranteed that the sole purpose is for someone to take them. People don't sell or buy drugs just to have them sit on the shelf, it's a substance they intend to use. In this case, A is a means to get to B. That doesn't apply to this argument, because A in itself is what these people would want. To be married to their incest based partner. There aren't people that want incest legalized so they can create children that way, they want incest legalized so they can legally marry their partners period. I'm not going to deny there would be couples that would want such, but since B would be illegal, that is the compromise for legalizing this. And gun control, like you said, is it's own debate. It's a little too complicated to be used as a comparison in this regard.
A should be illegal when it's purpose is to cause B. But that doesn't ******* apply here. Because it's not the purpose of a marriage to create children, it's the purpose of a marriage to married to your spouse, procreation is something else entirely. Essentially A should be legal, because A doesn't always cause B, especially if B was illegal on it's own. And if you think A will always cause B, you're wrong.
Also I'll just assume, that you didn't have a counterpoint for most of my first paragraph on my previous comment?
#73 to #70
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] Yep. In fact we should require people to be tested for all manners of genetic defects to weed out undesirables. That's not orwellian at all.
#101 to #73
-
quantumranger (01/08/2016) [-] We should. But it's not 'moral'. Honestly I don't think it would be possible unless a massive shift in public opinion were to occur.
#200 to #101
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] Yeah good luck pushing eugenics into the public sector.
#204 to #143
-
itskennyandjosh ONLINE (01/09/2016) [-] I'm not even mad i thought cocktard was funny
#96 to #75
-
severepwner (01/08/2016) [-] At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if the people that were vexing to legalize gay marriage weren't part of that slippery slope logic, which isn't technically inaccurate.
No worries, our society's morality is based on what's currently popular and tradition based taboos rather than reason or logic.
No worries, our society's morality is based on what's currently popular and tradition based taboos rather than reason or logic.
#132 to #96
-
severepwner (01/08/2016) [-] It's not about the gays having what they want. It's about these kind of people having something to fight about. Because these people ALWAYS want something to fight about. Without gay marriage, they have nothing to fight about anymore, so they need something else.
As it happens that next thing will probably be polygamy, and doubtfully pedophilia. But our taboo for that is so insanely strong I can't imagine anything happening besides MAYBE a loosening up of the age of consent laws, and maybe our societal taboo on the matter.
If you think it just ends here, you're horribly naive. Because degeneracy IS a slippery slope. The only thing stopping another thing, is the time it takes to do one thing, in this case it was gay marriage. Now of course bestiality isn't going to be the next thing, because we wouldn't be ready for that. That would get instantly shut down. But what about in 25 years? A lot can change in 25 years, especially popular opinion. The ideas of sentience, consent, and love will likely degenerate there too.
So no, bestiality will never the next big thing today. But, it might be the next big thing in the decades to come. But only after we have degenerated in some other way first. Making society ok with Gay marriage is like a prerequisite to getting society ready for what's next.
As it happens that next thing will probably be polygamy, and doubtfully pedophilia. But our taboo for that is so insanely strong I can't imagine anything happening besides MAYBE a loosening up of the age of consent laws, and maybe our societal taboo on the matter.
If you think it just ends here, you're horribly naive. Because degeneracy IS a slippery slope. The only thing stopping another thing, is the time it takes to do one thing, in this case it was gay marriage. Now of course bestiality isn't going to be the next thing, because we wouldn't be ready for that. That would get instantly shut down. But what about in 25 years? A lot can change in 25 years, especially popular opinion. The ideas of sentience, consent, and love will likely degenerate there too.
So no, bestiality will never the next big thing today. But, it might be the next big thing in the decades to come. But only after we have degenerated in some other way first. Making society ok with Gay marriage is like a prerequisite to getting society ready for what's next.
#135 to #132
-
YllekNayr (01/08/2016) [-] "Because these people ALWAYS want something to fight about. Without gay marriage, they have nothing to fight about anymore, so they need something else."
Fear mongering.
There is literally nothing to support that.
This is just slipper slope fallacy.
"As it happens that next thing will probably be polygamy, and doubtfully pedophilia."
Oh look, the textbook cliche predictions of what happens as society's moral fabric decays as a result of legalizing gay marriage.
"degeneracy IS a slippery slope"
"Making society ok with Gay marriage is like a prerequisite to getting society ready for what's next. "
K, you're just ******* stupid. Nothing more to talk about.
Fear mongering.
There is literally nothing to support that.
This is just slipper slope fallacy.
"As it happens that next thing will probably be polygamy, and doubtfully pedophilia."
Oh look, the textbook cliche predictions of what happens as society's moral fabric decays as a result of legalizing gay marriage.
"degeneracy IS a slippery slope"
"Making society ok with Gay marriage is like a prerequisite to getting society ready for what's next. "
K, you're just ******* stupid. Nothing more to talk about.
#145 to #135
-
severepwner (01/08/2016) [-] Acting like you're above me, doesn't automatically make you right, it just makes you an asshole. Ironic considering you seem to care about logical fallacies.
It's not fear mongering, it's logic and observation. And if people want to be "afraid" of that, that's their own business. I don't understand why accepting that everything we do having consequences is considered "fear mongering" now.
Nothing to support the slippery slope? Really? How about gun control? As in it gets more and more strict as time goes on. How about civil rights? Where blacks were freed from slavery, years later were made full citizens, then eventually the barriers between white and black were broken down in society making them equals. That's a clear slippery slope right there. A similar process happened with civil rights for women. Allowing women to vote led to one thing, which led to another.
The slippery slope is only a fallacy when it's used in place of an actual argument. Because it distracts from the issue at hand and is more like speculation than an argument. If we used slippery slope as an actual deterrent from doing things, we would never get anything done, because there's always going to be consequences that lead from our actions no matter what we do, that's a fact of life. But saying the slippery slope doesn't exist is absolutely ridiculous. That'd be like saying that cultures and laws never evolve, and time has stopped. Don't let the fact the "slippery slope" being known as an argument fallacy, must mean that the passage of time no longer moves forward. That'd be kind of like committing the fallacy fallacy.
Textbook cliche predictions? Ok. As far as the realm of sexual relationships go, what else do you think there is? Those are the closest to our preparation as a society, and taboos that are illegal. If those are "cliche" would you like to suggest an issue in sexual relationships that isn't? Also those aren't what I would describe as "society's moral fabric decay", they're just in the realm of sexual relationships that are not allowed but could be debated upon today. In fact here we are, debating upon it. Well technically we're debating on the slippery slope existing. But if you see these as "cliche", something tells me you have bias goggles on.
>K, you're just ******* stupid. Nothing more to talk about.
Go **** yourself.
It's not fear mongering, it's logic and observation. And if people want to be "afraid" of that, that's their own business. I don't understand why accepting that everything we do having consequences is considered "fear mongering" now.
Nothing to support the slippery slope? Really? How about gun control? As in it gets more and more strict as time goes on. How about civil rights? Where blacks were freed from slavery, years later were made full citizens, then eventually the barriers between white and black were broken down in society making them equals. That's a clear slippery slope right there. A similar process happened with civil rights for women. Allowing women to vote led to one thing, which led to another.
The slippery slope is only a fallacy when it's used in place of an actual argument. Because it distracts from the issue at hand and is more like speculation than an argument. If we used slippery slope as an actual deterrent from doing things, we would never get anything done, because there's always going to be consequences that lead from our actions no matter what we do, that's a fact of life. But saying the slippery slope doesn't exist is absolutely ridiculous. That'd be like saying that cultures and laws never evolve, and time has stopped. Don't let the fact the "slippery slope" being known as an argument fallacy, must mean that the passage of time no longer moves forward. That'd be kind of like committing the fallacy fallacy.
Textbook cliche predictions? Ok. As far as the realm of sexual relationships go, what else do you think there is? Those are the closest to our preparation as a society, and taboos that are illegal. If those are "cliche" would you like to suggest an issue in sexual relationships that isn't? Also those aren't what I would describe as "society's moral fabric decay", they're just in the realm of sexual relationships that are not allowed but could be debated upon today. In fact here we are, debating upon it. Well technically we're debating on the slippery slope existing. But if you see these as "cliche", something tells me you have bias goggles on.
>K, you're just ******* stupid. Nothing more to talk about.
Go **** yourself.
#150 to #147
-
severepwner (01/08/2016) [-] Yeah I'm pretty convinced you didn't even read my comment. You are literally too unreasonable to argue with.
#165 to #150
-
YllekNayr (01/08/2016) [-] Your "point" is the slippery slope fallacy, which you have continually misused in all your supporting arguments.
Slippery Slope is when you suggest one thing will cause another, but you don't actually have any real reason why it would. That's what you're doing when you say that gay marriage will lead to things like "consent" just evaporating into the air.
Your insistence about "them needing something to fight about" is laughably ridiculous. You straight out say that you think allowing gays to marry is "degeneracy", which means you've already played out your hand. Your a conservative fear-monger, bigoted and trying to create boogeymen where none exist. Your "examples" about blacks becoming equal (oh no) and women being able to vote (gasp) only serve to highlight this.
You never had a point to begin with.
You're the worst kind of scum.
You're a bigoted, ignorant **** .
This is even more a waste of my time, but I just wanted to make this abundantly clear to you.
Slippery Slope is when you suggest one thing will cause another, but you don't actually have any real reason why it would. That's what you're doing when you say that gay marriage will lead to things like "consent" just evaporating into the air.
Your insistence about "them needing something to fight about" is laughably ridiculous. You straight out say that you think allowing gays to marry is "degeneracy", which means you've already played out your hand. Your a conservative fear-monger, bigoted and trying to create boogeymen where none exist. Your "examples" about blacks becoming equal (oh no) and women being able to vote (gasp) only serve to highlight this.
You never had a point to begin with.
You're the worst kind of scum.
You're a bigoted, ignorant **** .
This is even more a waste of my time, but I just wanted to make this abundantly clear to you.
#192 to #165
-
severepwner (01/08/2016) [-] Whew boy, that was a **** ton of misinterpretation.
When did I say gay marriage makes the concept of consent not exist? For one that's irrelevant, and second I never even said that. So strawman bro.
Now for your first misinterpretation, I don't use the word "degeneracy" in this context as meaning good or bad. I mean the word quite literally, like as in "to degenerate". As in morals that we have held close of the sexual nature as a culture, are now on the decline. This is by definition "degeneracy", and that's necessarily a bad thing depending on what it is. So apologies that you took that out of context.
And don't tell me I've "played my hand" as a "conservative fear-monger". I've already said it once, I'm not a "fear monger", I just point out obvious logic which apparently people are in "fear" of according to you. I am not a bigot, I don't even know where you got that from, I don't hate anyone for their skin color, gender, or sexuality. Well maybe not this sexuality anyway. I'm not terribly fond of zoophiles. For some reason you have perceived by observations of the obvious to be some kind of propaganda, can't imagine why.
Now for your second misinterpretation. Your vendetta against the slippery slope, has clouded your perception of the examples I listed. The slippery slope (like the word degeneracy earlier) is not an exclusively good or bad thing, as I thought would have been made clear by my examples. No I am not a racist, I am happy that Blacks are our equals now, but that process was a perfect example of slippery slope. No I am not a sexist, I am happy that women are also our equals now, but that process was also a perfect example of slippery slope. So not "oh no" or "gasp".
I do not entirely blame you for the first misinterpretation, but I blame you a little bit on the second. I hope by clearing up these misunderstandings my points are now abundantly clear to you.
When did I say gay marriage makes the concept of consent not exist? For one that's irrelevant, and second I never even said that. So strawman bro.
Now for your first misinterpretation, I don't use the word "degeneracy" in this context as meaning good or bad. I mean the word quite literally, like as in "to degenerate". As in morals that we have held close of the sexual nature as a culture, are now on the decline. This is by definition "degeneracy", and that's necessarily a bad thing depending on what it is. So apologies that you took that out of context.
And don't tell me I've "played my hand" as a "conservative fear-monger". I've already said it once, I'm not a "fear monger", I just point out obvious logic which apparently people are in "fear" of according to you. I am not a bigot, I don't even know where you got that from, I don't hate anyone for their skin color, gender, or sexuality. Well maybe not this sexuality anyway. I'm not terribly fond of zoophiles. For some reason you have perceived by observations of the obvious to be some kind of propaganda, can't imagine why.
Now for your second misinterpretation. Your vendetta against the slippery slope, has clouded your perception of the examples I listed. The slippery slope (like the word degeneracy earlier) is not an exclusively good or bad thing, as I thought would have been made clear by my examples. No I am not a racist, I am happy that Blacks are our equals now, but that process was a perfect example of slippery slope. No I am not a sexist, I am happy that women are also our equals now, but that process was also a perfect example of slippery slope. So not "oh no" or "gasp".
I do not entirely blame you for the first misinterpretation, but I blame you a little bit on the second. I hope by clearing up these misunderstandings my points are now abundantly clear to you.
#206 to #192
-
YllekNayr (01/09/2016) [-] "second I never even said that. So strawman bro."
"The ideas of sentience, consent, and love will likely degenerate there too."
Get ****** .
"I am not a bigot"
Said literally every bigot ever.
"but that process was a perfect example of slippery slope."
You have successfully demonstrated AGAIN that you have no ******* idea what you are talking about.
"The ideas of sentience, consent, and love will likely degenerate there too."
Get ****** .
"I am not a bigot"
Said literally every bigot ever.
"but that process was a perfect example of slippery slope."
You have successfully demonstrated AGAIN that you have no ******* idea what you are talking about.
#207 to #206
-
severepwner (01/09/2016) [-] Saying our idea or perception of consent might change over time =/= Saying consent will just stop existing for no reason
So yeah, wonderful strawman dude.
>Said literally every bigot ever
Yeah ooooook. Despite my literal lack of prejudice toward any particular group, I guess I'm a bigot and I just didn't know it. Geez doctor I really wish I knew earlier, I was completely clueless!
I'm pretty sure I do know what I'm talking about, maybe you don't understand it, but that doesn't make me wrong.
Now do you actually have anything to add or refute? Or is your entire comment just going to be "Get a load of this guy."?
So yeah, wonderful strawman dude.
>Said literally every bigot ever
Yeah ooooook. Despite my literal lack of prejudice toward any particular group, I guess I'm a bigot and I just didn't know it. Geez doctor I really wish I knew earlier, I was completely clueless!
I'm pretty sure I do know what I'm talking about, maybe you don't understand it, but that doesn't make me wrong.
Now do you actually have anything to add or refute? Or is your entire comment just going to be "Get a load of this guy."?
#122 to #96
-
YllekNayr (01/08/2016) [-] You mean the fear-monger's logic is based on slippery slope logic.
The people that wanted gay marriage have what they wanted. They don't need to push for anything else.
But people have continuously warned that making gay marriage legal will lead to bestiality being legal, and it's an absolutely ******* sutpid thing to say because an animal can never consent.
Totally different kind of scenario.
Comparing them is a sign that you have literally no good point to present and are just trying to prey on fear because it could NEVER actually happen.
The people that wanted gay marriage have what they wanted. They don't need to push for anything else.
But people have continuously warned that making gay marriage legal will lead to bestiality being legal, and it's an absolutely ******* sutpid thing to say because an animal can never consent.
Totally different kind of scenario.
Comparing them is a sign that you have literally no good point to present and are just trying to prey on fear because it could NEVER actually happen.
#14 to #6
-
ballisticmistype (01/08/2016) [-] Be careful when using that argument. You probably wouldn't steal a car; but if I want to steal yours, should it be legal?
#16 to #15
-
ballisticmistype (01/08/2016) [-] I was just bringing to your attention the fact that this particular argument can be fallacious at times, not claiming your use of it was or was not
But if you want my opinion, I believe polygamy is wrong. Harmful? No. Wrong?Yes.
But if you want my opinion, I believe polygamy is wrong. Harmful? No. Wrong?Yes.
#85 to #84
-
Kingsly (01/08/2016) [-]
Goats aren't human, so their is a dividing line. Personally I'd place it at non-sentient.
Thai prostitutes are people, no problem here.
Waifus are fictitious, you can already have as many fake wives as you want.
My actual political stance is that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage.
Thai prostitutes are people, no problem here.
Waifus are fictitious, you can already have as many fake wives as you want.
My actual political stance is that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage.
#97 to #50
-
severepwner (01/08/2016) [-] Well for one, >>#79
Second, there are men in this world then women. If every man in this world had a wife, there would be a massive population of women who would never find their mate, what is your solution for this?
Second, there are men in this world then women. If every man in this world had a wife, there would be a massive population of women who would never find their mate, what is your solution for this?
#76 to #50
-
anon (01/08/2016) [-]
That's the way we were biologically designed. The stronger male would wind up with the most women to spread his superior genes, while weaker males tended to either die alone or only have one woman, thus having a smaller impact with their lesser genes on the genepool.
I mean, if you want to get scientific, it's supposed to be that way. Multiple women to one man.
I mean, if you want to get scientific, it's supposed to be that way. Multiple women to one man.
#23 to #6
-
masdercheef (01/08/2016) [-] This is the exact reason I support polygamy. Of course, the way legal marriage works would need some changes so people wouldn't be able to reap massive benefits from marrying several times. A polygamous relationship should not be an issue as long as all parties are consenting. **** , it means there's one more source of income for a household and if they decide to have children, it'll probably be a hella stable environment, since they'd be much more able to split up their workloads so somebody is always available to be with the child.
#25 to #23
-
anon (01/08/2016) [-]
Trouble is polygamy never works. It's like 'open relationships'.
They never, ever work out.
Wives get jealous of other wives, maybe they think they're not getting as much time with the guy as they should or maybe they end up wanting to be in a monogamous relationship.
People like to tout that whole 'humans aren't monogamous' **** but we are. We're might not all be lifetime monogamous, but we're serially monogamous.
Polygamy is basically the woman being a doormat and saying it's okay for them to be cheated on. Eventually they'll get fed up feeling like that and leave.
They never, ever work out.
Wives get jealous of other wives, maybe they think they're not getting as much time with the guy as they should or maybe they end up wanting to be in a monogamous relationship.
People like to tout that whole 'humans aren't monogamous' **** but we are. We're might not all be lifetime monogamous, but we're serially monogamous.
Polygamy is basically the woman being a doormat and saying it's okay for them to be cheated on. Eventually they'll get fed up feeling like that and leave.
#42 to #25
-
jdizzleoffthehizzl (01/08/2016) [-]
No one said Polygamy was restricted solely to multiple women and one man
#108 to #42
-
quantumranger (01/08/2016) [-] That's the argument I read online when I was researching why polygamy is illegal. The only arguments basically boil down to 'it's not christian' or 'it's harmful to women/children, and to a lesser extent men'. The christian one is just silly to use as a legal precedent nowadays, and the argument that it is harmful basically assumes that if polygamy were to become legal suddenly a bunch of people will want to have multiple spouses, bot those spouse will for some reason be unhappy that they have to share. It's basically a weird fear that monogamous people will be forced into polygamous relationships. As for men they say that 'lower class men' won't be able to find spouses because they will hogged up by the "more desirable" men.
#40 to #25
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] Actually there are many polyamorous people who get along just fine, the problem is that polygamy is not "it's not cheating baby, i'm poly", it's "all of us want this relationship"
#77 to #25
-
anon (01/08/2016) [-]
Coming from two polygamous relationships and an open relationship in the past - they can work just fine if everyone is sane and everyone is extremely honest with one another about their comfort levels.
Also don't bring up that crap about oh no poor woman getting cheated on. It's usually the other way around and your example isn't even applicable to a healthy poly-relationship.
Also don't bring up that crap about oh no poor woman getting cheated on. It's usually the other way around and your example isn't even applicable to a healthy poly-relationship.
#131 to #23
-
woolfy (01/08/2016) [-]
I read an article a while back about five people who were going to raise a child together. Two gay couples, one of which had an extra person who can't legally enter the marriage. So it could be positive in that regard, since unless parents are able to cut back their working hours one usually has to give up their career for a while.
www.vice.com/read/a-child-in-the-netherlands-is-going-to-have-five-parents-876
I grew up in a far from normal family structure with essentially three different households. And I consider myself very lucky for being able to do so. Plenty of parental figures, spoilt rotten on birthdays and Christmas, it was great and it never occurred to me that it was abnormal.
www.vice.com/read/a-child-in-the-netherlands-is-going-to-have-five-parents-876
I grew up in a far from normal family structure with essentially three different households. And I consider myself very lucky for being able to do so. Plenty of parental figures, spoilt rotten on birthdays and Christmas, it was great and it never occurred to me that it was abnormal.
#29 to #6
-
ygdosst (01/08/2016) [-] Woah now, man.
This is literally the slippery slope that /pol/ and other hyper-conservatives are mocked for by even suggesting it's a possibility. [Picture Related]
And yet I see more and more people supporting it.
It's as retarded a concept then, as it is now.
It has to stop at some point. But **** sets precedents for other precedents, and humans -as a unit- are largely illogical in what we consider as a proper precedent to something else, nor do we usually objectively question that something in socio-economic or objectively moral grounds.
Slippery Slope may be a fallacy, loosely, but humanity's behavior is largely fallacious and this MUST be accounted for.
Ask yourself, how does Polygamy affect Western Society?
How would essentially purchasing spouses (i.e. Gold-Diggers) affect socio-economics?
The rich can already afford to have as many kids as they please, but are generally limited to a biological restiction of a single legitimate child per Nine Months, twins withstanding. Combined with a social stigma against infidelity, this means that all classes and populations have nearly equal chance at reproduction, albeit not necessarily capability to support them.
The re-introduction of Polygamy is not just a matter of "Love", it's a matter of social standing on reproductive rights in what was essentially an age-old form of Class Warfare through Eugenics.
To re-summarize my point: Making laws out of Gut Feeling because of "Love" is ******* stupid and fallacious.
Especially when there is no "Love" involved in the matter of a system meant so that the rich get to have kids while the poor get elimated by unnatural selection, a system that's been abused since we crawled out of caves and into the fertile crescent.
Click to show spoiler
This is literally the slippery slope that /pol/ and other hyper-conservatives are mocked for by even suggesting it's a possibility. [Picture Related]
And yet I see more and more people supporting it.
It's as retarded a concept then, as it is now.
It has to stop at some point. But **** sets precedents for other precedents, and humans -as a unit- are largely illogical in what we consider as a proper precedent to something else, nor do we usually objectively question that something in socio-economic or objectively moral grounds.
Slippery Slope may be a fallacy, loosely, but humanity's behavior is largely fallacious and this MUST be accounted for.
Ask yourself, how does Polygamy affect Western Society?
How would essentially purchasing spouses (i.e. Gold-Diggers) affect socio-economics?
The rich can already afford to have as many kids as they please, but are generally limited to a biological restiction of a single legitimate child per Nine Months, twins withstanding. Combined with a social stigma against infidelity, this means that all classes and populations have nearly equal chance at reproduction, albeit not necessarily capability to support them.
The re-introduction of Polygamy is not just a matter of "Love", it's a matter of social standing on reproductive rights in what was essentially an age-old form of Class Warfare through Eugenics.
To re-summarize my point: Making laws out of Gut Feeling because of "Love" is ******* stupid and fallacious.
Especially when there is no "Love" involved in the matter of a system meant so that the rich get to have kids while the poor get elimated by unnatural selection, a system that's been abused since we crawled out of caves and into the fertile crescent.
#144 to #29
-
therealtjthemedic (01/08/2016) [-] Any consenting adult should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult.
If a bunch of consenting adults all wanna get married, fair ******* game, I guess.
If a bunch of consenting adults all wanna get married, fair ******* game, I guess.
#21 to #6
-
Bacabed ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-]
The only problem with polygamy (at least here in the U.S., not sure where you're from but I'll assume it's similar) is that we have divorce here, and it's pretty common.
How would one complete a divorce? Split everything 3 ways? What if two wish to remain married? Or if one wants a divorce from only one, but stay with the other? And then there's children to worry about. Say the husband has children with both women, raises them together as siblings and one woman wants to leave? Normally the courts side with the mother in custody battles but what if it means taking them away from their father, another mother figure and all their siblings? And then how do you explain to their siblings why mommy's leaving with their brother but not taking them? It's just a huge mess for the courts to deal with.
The reason it works in Islamic nations is that women are not given the agency to divorce a man, they're essentially owned by the man.
Don't get me wrong, I'm fairly certain polygamy was initially outlawed (although I have no citation for this, I'm just judging by how much people here let religion weigh in on their decisions) due to religious reasons. But since then there have arisen many practical reasons as to why it can't be legalized. If there were a workaround that'd be great, all love should be legal as long as nobody is being harmed but there's just too many problems facing this particular kind of love. That's no reason to not live together as a family, it just makes the legal definitions hard.
How would one complete a divorce? Split everything 3 ways? What if two wish to remain married? Or if one wants a divorce from only one, but stay with the other? And then there's children to worry about. Say the husband has children with both women, raises them together as siblings and one woman wants to leave? Normally the courts side with the mother in custody battles but what if it means taking them away from their father, another mother figure and all their siblings? And then how do you explain to their siblings why mommy's leaving with their brother but not taking them? It's just a huge mess for the courts to deal with.
The reason it works in Islamic nations is that women are not given the agency to divorce a man, they're essentially owned by the man.
Don't get me wrong, I'm fairly certain polygamy was initially outlawed (although I have no citation for this, I'm just judging by how much people here let religion weigh in on their decisions) due to religious reasons. But since then there have arisen many practical reasons as to why it can't be legalized. If there were a workaround that'd be great, all love should be legal as long as nobody is being harmed but there's just too many problems facing this particular kind of love. That's no reason to not live together as a family, it just makes the legal definitions hard.
#98 to #21
-
severepwner (01/08/2016) [-] Have no fear, humanity is the master of understanding absurdly complicated things. Look at engineering, economy, banking, insurance, I can hardly dream about understanding how all that crazy **** fits together.
So if we can figure that out, I'm sure we can figure out how a divorce would work in this new circumstance.
So if we can figure that out, I'm sure we can figure out how a divorce would work in this new circumstance.
#183 to #167
-
galanorth ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] Okay? So? Do you really think they would go on a obscure, autistic website like FJ? Or do you really think that no one actually supports Jews, and that every single person who does is a part of some secret organization? If so, you are even more retarded than I thought. I am surprised that you can even see my comment, you don't seem smart enough to poke eye-holes in your tin-foil full helm.
Regardless of that, I posted a picture a Medieval Catholic Crusader, which at no point mentioned Jews, and was aimed at Islam. Go be retarded some place else.
Regardless of that, I posted a picture a Medieval Catholic Crusader, which at no point mentioned Jews, and was aimed at Islam. Go be retarded some place else.
#26
-
Tyranitar (01/08/2016) [-] Honestly, as long as it's between consenting adults and no one is getting hurt (beyond any masochism **** people might be into), I don't think we have any right to say what is right or wrong. Somebody wants to marry and bang 4 chicks and 3 dudes? Alright, that's their choice.
Shucks, I'd even support the right to incestuous relationships, although I'd say that inbreeding still shouldn't happen. Most likely wouldn't want to enter one myself, but who does it hurt? Ain't my business if two cousins or siblings decide to bone.
Only sexual relationship that fits into the above that I'd say I'd be against is bestiality. Just don't believe that completely oblivious animals should be used like that. (I don't even know if they can willingly have sex with humans. Most just kinda get raped and start going along with it because of reproductive instinct)
Shucks, I'd even support the right to incestuous relationships, although I'd say that inbreeding still shouldn't happen. Most likely wouldn't want to enter one myself, but who does it hurt? Ain't my business if two cousins or siblings decide to bone.
Only sexual relationship that fits into the above that I'd say I'd be against is bestiality. Just don't believe that completely oblivious animals should be used like that. (I don't even know if they can willingly have sex with humans. Most just kinda get raped and start going along with it because of reproductive instinct)
#35 to #26
-
ygdosst (01/08/2016) [-]
Define "Hurt" because it could very well have repercussions on society at large, given how polygamy functioned for humanity in the past and in cultures it's present in now.
Hell, even the MORMONS threw out polygamy for a reason, and it's revival was one of the first things they or a splinter sect of them tried to enstate.
You don't need to worry about reproduction when it comes to Gay Marriage, that's perfectly fine. It's sad you're removing yourself from the gene pool, you know? But its got kind of a sense of devotion behind a commitment to one another that severe. Sure you can adopt, but that's that pretty much.
Polygamy has a **** load of legal issues when it comes to reproductive rights, and we in America STILL can't get that **** under control.
Hell, even the MORMONS threw out polygamy for a reason, and it's revival was one of the first things they or a splinter sect of them tried to enstate.
You don't need to worry about reproduction when it comes to Gay Marriage, that's perfectly fine. It's sad you're removing yourself from the gene pool, you know? But its got kind of a sense of devotion behind a commitment to one another that severe. Sure you can adopt, but that's that pretty much.
Polygamy has a **** load of legal issues when it comes to reproductive rights, and we in America STILL can't get that **** under control.
#59 to #35
-
watermelonkittie ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] Aren't polygami and monogami just moral views? I mean, when you enter these kind of relationships you'd think you know what you're getting yourself into. I don't see how society would be affected that much by people having multiple partners.
(For the record, I don't really support polygami, I can't understand the mindset of accepting multiple partners/being one of multiple partners. I am just curious about your statement)
(For the record, I don't really support polygami, I can't understand the mindset of accepting multiple partners/being one of multiple partners. I am just curious about your statement)
#43 to #35
-
jdizzleoffthehizzl (01/08/2016) [-]
Us mormons threw it out mainly because it was one of the conditions in order for Utah to join the Union
#37 to #26
-
herecomesjohnny (01/08/2016) [-] polyamorous relationships have been a thing in the West for a long time, they're just quite rare and in the newer generations
#92 to #68
-
profanitizer (01/08/2016) [-] Why do they start calling him "rice"?Who shortens Reece to Rice?
Wait what? "By the time the rice was already very weak"
????
Wait what? "By the time the rice was already very weak"
????
#134
-
ronyx (01/08/2016) [-] One of the reasons polygamy is not legal is for tax purposes. It would be a living nightmare and the system can't deal with it.
#173
-
myjunk (01/08/2016) [-] Croped for use as reaction images.
Hope it will be useful.
hfw copyright infringement
Hope it will be useful.
hfw copyright infringement
#130
-
thetoxicketchup (01/08/2016) [-] I'm not really against polygamy/polyandry, as long as all parties are actually willing. While it's not my cup of tea, open relationships/polygamous relationships work for a lot of people and it eliminates the problem of cheating. The only issue is that most cases of polygamy that you see are either driven by cult brainwashing, generations of inbreeding, or pseudo-slavery islamic state marriages where the wives are basically just trophy props.
#93
-
WATCHAGUNADOBOUTIT (01/08/2016) [-] Except in one scenario it's just against public norm, and in the other scenario you would be stoned to death.
