Thoughts on (expanding) Marriage

Austin_Rura said:Let the parents who are smart enough to be parents have the liberty and freedom to raise there own children and contribute to the collective human race, or let the proven science of natural selection root out the weak. (by weak i mean those who genuinely cannot live good lives when by nature we are all equal) THIS is likely the reason for much overpopulation. Now psychos think genocide is the answer to overpopulation... well no all you were supposed to do was let people make up there mind how to live for themselves. by nature do you really think we'll all just turn into mindless mad max murderers without all the laws? the system works so fuck it now but we as humans really fucked ourselves way back when we built these walls around ourselves so long ago

So in your delusion world we are supposed to let chaos reign and the undereducated and willfully ignorant create more victims (mostly children that will not know any better) of a broken society until they all die?


Not sure if you're seriously undereducated or morally bankrupt.
Also this 'natural selection' term you keep throwing around; Evolutionary biologists don't think that means what you think it means. Please take a science course.

/facepalm

Ghoulie said:[quote-280014-Austin_Rura]Let the parents who are smart enough to be parents have the liberty and freedom to raise there own children and contribute to the collective human race, or let the proven science of natural selection root out the weak. (by weak i mean those who genuinely cannot live good lives when by nature we are all equal) THIS is likely the reason for much overpopulation. Now psychos think genocide is the answer to overpopulation... well no all you were supposed to do was let people make up there mind how to live for themselves. by nature do you really think we'll all just turn into mindless mad max murderers without all the laws? the system works so fuck it now but we as humans really fucked ourselves way back when we built these walls around ourselves so long ago

So in your delusion world we are supposed to let chaos reign and the undereducated and willfully ignorant create more victims (mostly children that will not know any better) of a broken society until they all die?


Not sure if you're seriously undereducated or morally bankrupt.
Also this 'natural selection' term you keep throwing around; Evolutionary biologists don't think that means what you think it means. Please take a science course.

/facepalm[/quote]

Amen miss g, proud to share that letter

Ghoulie said:[quote-280014-Austin_Rura]Let the parents who are smart enough to be parents have the liberty and freedom to raise there own children and contribute to the collective human race, or let the proven science of natural selection root out the weak. (by weak i mean those who genuinely cannot live good lives when by nature we are all equal) THIS is likely the reason for much overpopulation. Now psychos think genocide is the answer to overpopulation... well no all you were supposed to do was let people make up there mind how to live for themselves. by nature do you really think we'll all just turn into mindless mad max murderers without all the laws? the system works so fuck it now but we as humans really fucked ourselves way back when we built these walls around ourselves so long ago

So in your delusion world we are supposed to let chaos reign and the undereducated and willfully ignorant create more victims (mostly children that will not know any better) of a broken society until they all die?


Not sure if you're seriously undereducated or morally bankrupt.
Also this 'natural selection' term you keep throwing around; Evolutionary biologists don't think that means what you think it means. Please take a science course.

/facepalm[/quote]


We arent good people then? In your own personal delusion evil will win out when its good people and evil people living in the same place? im not saying to have no morals im saying IF and only IF you want to find out whos good or bad for society you shouldnt force every citizen to follow one model of a happy leave it to beaver couple from the 50's.

and yes i am quite aware of how natural selection works.
either when looking at one species being threatened by another as you think of it
or just looking at how the one species (humans) changes when faced with reality. we have no natural predator except for the things we manufacture. for example drug addiction and gun violence; when these things are introduced into a society they kill people. SOCIETY indeed "evolves" to learn not to do these things as we see happening every day.

thank you for having a real discussion and not just insulting me by saying im uneducated or evil.

Gg78 said:[quote-280014-Austin_Rura]Let the parents who are smart enough to be parents have the liberty and freedom to raise there own children and contribute to the collective human race, or let the proven science of natural selection root out the week. THIS is likely the reason for much overpopulation. Now psychos think genocide is the answer to overpopulation... well no all you were supposed to do was let people make up there mind how to live for themselves. by nature do you really think we'll all just turn into mindless mad max murderers without all the laws? the system works so fuck it now but we as humans really fucked ourselves way back when we built these walls around ourselves so long ago


Sure because all People can make up there mind without any guidance at all, that's why there is no such things as jails and mental wards. A world without rules is a world for a saint. That's why they made up heaven. So half the world can think they have a chance at a good life without any type of structure or balance. Hey run around free Neely and do you baby.. It's a free world lol [/quote]

Once again i didn't say no morals and I didn't mean no structure but don't you think it's a little stupid to put laws on things such as who you can marry; or how it was previously said that a world with no laws would result in drunken children? I guess that child's parents aren't the law to that child? Also everybody didn't come together and invent heaven or the church because they needed comfort, people in power did to scare evil people into being good so the good could give there money to the church. It's history. Look up what indulgence is. Middle school history. When it wasn't the church it was people like the Romans who made there people all be warriors to fight invading armies because that was there "good vs evil" before the church invented "heaven and hell" IMHO and what i was taught by teachers and textbooks.

btw boy did this thread turn ugly... fast.

That wasn't ugly. In interwebs terms that was actually pretty gentle.
In one post you manged to be mysoginistic, ignorant, ill informed, slightly racist and either incredibly naive or completely heartless. Also the romans didn't " make all there people be warriors" that's probably the Spartans your thinking of. It's history.
And the Romans didn't start conquering because of good vs evil, it was the typical superiority complex and hunger for power. Those are probably the same reasons they abandoned their pantheon of gods after Constantine and jumped on the Christianity bandwagon, it was easier to control the masses. As for your weird view of natural selection, exactly what do you think the main aim of natural selection is? I'm pretty sure it's the propagation and survival of the species, and I think we're doing fine with that. Who the fuck taught you history?

natural selection n. The process in nature by which only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characters in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

The propagation of useful genetic characteristics out of random mutations for the betterment and survival of the species. IE tails, fins, thumbs, lungs etc... but don't forget the depressing failures emphasised by the 'random;' the laundry list of crippling genetic diseases and ailments that are likely death sentences, plagues, viruses, etc... Not that those would phase you since you seem to have a suffering fetish.

we have no natural predator except for the things we manufacture

Yeah, cause we (the world not just first world countries) totally have a handle on shit that's not killing us like (a snip it of a long list list of some live viral and bacterial infections currently plaguing our global society) AIDS, ebola, influenza, the resurgence of pertussis, polio, measles, yellow fever, tuberculosis.

And yes nature is an unforgiving amoral bitch that has no concern whether we live or are all blinked out of existence milliseconds from now, but that doesn't mean we as a species have to emulate it. We 'evolved' ethics, morals, compassion (not even touching the religion topic) for a reason.

Instead of insisting that people you deem 'unfit' should just up and die of their accord, you could step up do something about education, poverty, malnutrition/starvation, declining immunization rates, countless other things to improve your treasured societal norms.  But that'd require you to actually do things like thinking passed your next sentence, hard work, not having a selfish myopic view of the world.

What you're arguing and dancing around is thinly veiled natural selection eugenics; and that's what is utterly contemptible as well as revolting.



Now, I personally apologize to the OP for playing a part in hijacking this thread and veering it off topic.

-G

DystopianMelody said:That wasn't ugly. In interwebs terms that was actually pretty gentle.
In one post you manged to be mysoginistic, ignorant, ill informed, slightly racist and either incredibly naive or completely heartless. Also the romans didn't " make all there people be warriors" that's probably the Spartans your thinking of. It's history.
And the Romans didn't start conquering because of good vs evil, it was the typical superiority complex and hunger for power. Those are probably the same reasons they abandoned their pantheon of gods after Constantine and jumped on the Christianity bandwagon, it was easier to control the masses. As for your weird view of natural selection, exactly what do you think the main aim of natural selection is? I'm pretty sure it's the propagation and survival of the species, and I think we're doing fine with that. Who the fuck taught you history?

HOW was that sexist, racist, heartless or anything? Why would you even say that and not give a reason why? I feel like you just started naming bad words to call someone because you dont agree with some vary general thoughts i said about society without realizing the power behind those words. I'm not fucking happy about stupid people who cant raise their kids and if you think im talking about anybody specific that's coming out of your own head and maybe your the one whos a little racist, sexist, and/or ignorant for reading so much into what i said. frankly i believe every race, gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, etc. has some bad parents/ bad people and im really not sorry for saying that your wrong if you think otherwise.

Also that's exactly what i said natural selection is. If society creates things to kill off its members then other members who see people dying are going to find ways to circumvent the things that killed them.
A giraffe evolves a longer neck over mills of years (whatever) to reach the tree but this is really the same as an example of kids of drug abuse tending to steer away from drugs because they know what will happen except this form doesnt take all those millions of years thank god. Life tends to find a way. Who knows with this example, maybe one day humans will have done drugs so long that we'll evolve better organs to handle said example drugs.

The US government was created out of a need to break away from a government we thought was wrong thus many members of a societal ecosystem broke away to survive and thrive in a different governments ecosystem. If you don't see how a species follows natural selection everyday in little ways leading up to the giant changes that stare us in the face then this whole convo is pointless. especially so if you dont think we as humans do this to ourselves without a natural predator by inventing new things that kill us.

Also you don't think the romans (or whatever ancient culture) thought of themselves as the good ones just like we do today when we fight wars? If your fighting one army against another army both of those armies think there the right ones or the "good" ones. You'll never see a cartoon army of villians stating that there evil for the sake of evil, they believe something that in there eyes makes them right. even if its like ghengis kahn who only sought to conquer, he thought it was his right to conquer.

Ghoulie said:natural selection n. The process in nature by which only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characters in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

The propagation of useful genetic characteristics out of random mutations for the betterment and survival of the species. IE tails, fins, thumbs, lungs etc... but don't forget the depressing failures emphasised by the 'random;' the laundry list of crippling genetic diseases and ailments that are likely death sentences, plagues, viruses, etc... Not that those would phase you since you seem to have a suffering fetish.

And yes nature is an unforgiving amoral bitch that has no concern whether we live or are all blinked out of existence milliseconds from now, but that doesn't mean we as a species have to emulate it. We 'evolved' ethics, morals, compassion (not even touching the religion topic) for a reason.

What you're arguing and dancing around is thinly veiled natural selection eugenics; and that's what is utterly contemptible as well as revolting.



Now, I personally apologize to the OP for playing a part in hijacking this thread and veering it off topic.

-G

I started by answering the question "do you think polygamy should be illegal" and my answer was no, maybe everything should be legal. like how the global drug association says to "legalize all drugs" do i think its a good idea? not in particularly for a society but it may help an overworked law system. do i think it will work? i dont know because i can't see the future but i would suspect we'd see more drug addicts at first but then gradually less as people learn how drugs kill.
If you see what im saying as promoting something as fucked up and EVIL as eugenics then your not only wrong your very crude. I didn't say the world should emulate natural selection (i said it would in fact bring the pop. down if we let (what u would call my crazy version) of natural selection run its course. of course it would. duh. and i didnt say the world was overpopulated but other people did and guess what? they may still be around whether you like to think so or not. People are saying thats what Ebola is. A bioweapon to kill off much of the population. This fucked up thought is why I was stating that if the government thinks the world is in fact overpopulated it would then be the governments fault yet they think that people should die to bring the population down? If the US gov thinks that Americas overpopulated they shouldn't have had it be the one country all about being a melting pot. Do you see what im saying? It's stupidity on the face of it and now they should just let people live there lives and help them without being detrimental to them. I do see the need for some form of government/morals/organization though which once again i have to repeat myself on. I'm not "dancing" around anything i have to keep repeating myself because some people dont pay attention to what they read i guess or just can't except another persons viewpoint. that was all i was saying... some of you inferred something else out of it that baffles and a little bit frightens me.

Final round.

i didnt say the world was overpopulated but other people did...

You either have problems communicating your thoughts coherently or you have selective memory set to backpedal. Did you forget what you wrote earlier? (emphasis added by me).

Let the parents who are smart enough to be parents have the liberty and freedom to raise there own children and contribute to the collective human race, or let the proven science of natural selection root out the weak. (by weak i mean those who genuinely cannot live good lives when by nature we are all equal) THIS is likely the reason for much overpopulation.

Also the way our society 'evolves' (using your chosen term) is actually quite different than 'natural selection' and varies from culture to culture tradition to tradition. In fact natural selection has little to nothing to do with it and it's field of study called sociology. Which is a completely different branch of academia than evolutionary biology where the theory of 'natural selection' originates.

In case I was too obtuse; natural selection only affects your genetic make-up (and evolution via natural selection takes millions if not billions of years). Natural selection doesn't give a shit about society, our quality of life, or the utter immature subjectiveness of blanket terms such as 'good' and 'evil'. The only thing that natural selection cares about is making sure you survive until you're just old enough to provide offspring(s) and then for all it cares you can die in a fire.

by nature do you really think we'll all just turn into mindless mad max murderers without all the laws? the system works so fuck it now but we as humans really fucked ourselves way back when we built these walls around ourselves so long ago

What I can glean from your opinions and assertions in previous posts that you have a disdain for laws or at least think of most if not governing bodies as abject failures to do away. With comments, "legalize everything." and by logical extrapolation lawmakers ie governments.

Let's have a thought experiment continuing this train of thought and maybe see my justifications for being outraged won't be so elusive (feel free to start correcting your communication or backpedaling anytime). We can even use your pet infatuation with natural selection as an example.  

Without government anywhere of any kind, or laws (including taxes), and regulations there would be next to no funding for organizations such as The World Health Organization and The Center for Disease Control. We wouldn't have oversight by the EPA and FDA (an example in America) to protect our population with rigorous structures of regulating the all the 1st world perks that we take for granted, like not poisoning ourselves with contaminated foods strict policies for the regulation of medications and medical technology so we don't under/overdose ourselves or keeping companies from polluting our air and water supplies.  Not to mention all of the grants for research funding for actual scientists in all fields to keep our quality of life and life expectancy consistently going up.

Bare with me, with those sparse examples taken into account. Let's say you get your wish and have your "hypothetical-anarcho-utopian society driven by natural selection." You've abolished all the laws, regulations, and a bulk of the funding for the 'good stuff'.  Congratulations just with disease and famine alone you've sentenced roughly a billion people to an agonizing death that depend on those things to you know, live. This is why your poorly thought out statements disgust me. Just because you don't take the active genocide route by killing with bullets, bombs or gas, your callous disregard for life to let natural selection take it's course with theses humans, people, families by ripping the only aide they had hope for out of their realm of reality makes you a "hypothetical mass murderer."

While I never claimed everyone would turn amoral murderous monsters without laws, I specifically called you out on your naive oversights and your callous lack of consequences for promoting, yes promoting, your coveted 'legalize everything and leaving it up to natural selection.' And hopefully I've explained why.

by weak i mean those who genuinely cannot live good lives when by nature we are all equal.

My main point by calling you out on this is while I agree laws, regulations, and governments aren't by any stretch of the  imagination perfect; please do not let yourself be deluded into knee-jerk-buzz-word-radical thinking/posting without first thinking about all the the possible consequences. As the saying goes, "Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater."

So you don't like this or that. The first step is being able to pinpoint and communicate effectively why you don't like it and then why is it currently is the way it is. Are there multiple confounding factors in play that make it messy and complicated like most things in life?  Do you have a plausible and better solution?  If not then I suggest you not post it on the internet, or expect people to ridicule you and tell you to quit bitching.

Also if you want to be taken seriously using "people say this or that" holds no sway. People also say the USA never landed on the moon, they say that the Holocaust never happened, they say the earth is only 6000 years old, they say the government is really run by shapeshifting lizard people. People say a lot of silly things that may or may not be rooted in reality. Don't be intellectually lazy back and up your assertions with some credible sources.

it sounds to me like what you want is for religion to handle affairs such as marriage, but then for government to accept whatever that marriage entails, without question and take taxes, benefits, etc...into consideration fairly.

I see nothing wrong with that, but
I think the flaw here is that you'd like to keep so much of the current system but apply changes that would make that system more user friendly in non traditional marriages.
The only way to change that system is to use the system for changing the system, which won't easily work, because the very idiots that you see commenting on this thread are representative of the ones voting on your rights.
when I worked on Gay rights, the reason for fighting for marriage equality was in far more than the two people wearing a ring that made their love and circumstance more public or accepted or real.

(even gays have their shallow idiots, not all want to marry for the right reasons regardless of sexual orientation)

There are children to consider in many cases and their custody if one parent dies has been a heartbreaking issue.
Acquiring loans for mortgages and businesses and being able to declare both incomes.
Health insurance with family coverage and health decision making rights are a topic of major concern.
Pension plans and inheritance rights too.
Taxes are different in a "household" versus a couple of "single" people buying or even renting a house together.

and the list goes on...


In the case of Gay rights, the fight was never about religion in reality. It was and is used as an argument against it but their moral ideals have nothing to do with people wanting to be treated fairly by a government that they pay their share to or make choices about who has legal rights to their family and assets.


So, short of giving you another big spew on who you should sleep with or how often and how many..I'll say that what you need to focus on is either living inside society and working to revamp the system using the methods provided by said system
or find a way to live without participating in that system
by either joining an existing religion that has "exempt" status
or forming your own religion to fit the ideals you'd prefer.

There are also such things as "intentional communities", growing in number daily, all with the premise of establishing self governing communities separate from the mainstream.

In summary, decide if you want to stay and fight or break away.
There are risk-reward ratios in both.

At the end of the day, people are all convinced their way is right and few people ever evolve enough mentally to think for themselves, so you need to do what is right for you in your life and make it one you can consider worthy.


I've noticed your reasoning seems to be motivated more by insecurity, past hurts, and abandonment issues. This is only an observation, but my other advice to you would be to do a long journey to the depths of yourself and find what is really motivating such a struggle.

Best of luck to ya

One woman, fucked well, is all the earth.

lepperochan said:why do you need it validated? ...it's disgusting! four people loving each other sounds like you just can't make your mind up, where will it end with you? six people, eight people, ten people. get with the program good sir or my god will smite you

1:  America is not a Theocracy

2:  Marriage is Only Religious to the extent that it was performed in a church and witnessed by god, Marriage is a civil contract and was in the civil section of the laws in deuteronomy.

3:  So you have not read the bible and are not aware that Polygamy is there?

4: The Kerista Commune at one time had 25 people in 3 family groups consisting of three, eight, and fourteen people.

For me personally, the size of the family i want revolves around a particular woman and however many men or women she wants to marry, and which ever woman i've married legally.

why shouldn't actually functioning triads, quads, and pents + be recognised?  the only thing different from Biblical Polygamy is that Biblical Polygyny reserved all the fun for men and kept women as chattel...  

5:  Your god is probably my god too, but i follow no church.

Waterviolet said:And cameron are u a petafile as well as a poligamist???

no i am not a paedophile i find the fully developed female form too enticing  

i am a failed polygamist..

HHMCameron said:[quote-279985-lepperochan]why do you need it validated? ...it's disgusting! four people loving each other sounds like you just can't make your mind up, where will it end with you? six people, eight people, ten people. get with the program good sir or my god will smite you

1:  America is not a Theocracy

2:  Marriage is Only Religious to the extent that it was performed in a church and witnessed by god, Marriage is a civil contract and was in the civil section of the laws in deuteronomy.

3:  So you have not read the bible and are not aware that Polygamy is there?

4: The Kerista Commune at one time had 25 people in 3 family groups consisting of three, eight, and fourteen people.

For me personally, the size of the family i want revolves around a particular woman and however many men or women she wants to marry, and which ever woman i've married legally.

why shouldn't actually functioning triads, quads, and pents + be recognised?  the only thing different from Biblical Polygamy is that Biblical Polygyny reserved all the fun for men and kept women as chattel...  

5:  Your god is probably my good too, but i follow no church.[/quote]

words...endless empty words.

love one woman well. Share a human experience.