Society/Culture Gay marriage 2 years in review

[Work Hardery]

any culture that has polygamy has more social dysfunction.

This is why the far-left are hell-bent on ensuring the breakdown of the nuclear family in the West.

 

[Seeds]

This is why the far-left are hell-bent on ensuring the breakdown of the nuclear family in the West.

Polygamy where one male marries multiple women making many men sexually redundant and leading to violence is not the form of polygamy preached by anyone in the left. Literally no one. There are a few on the right that advocate it. They are a very small minority but if that form of polygamy is to be labelled left or right its definately right.

Nice own goal you kicked there.

 

[Taylor]

Polygamy where one male marries multiple women making many men sexually redundant and leading to violence is not the form of polygamy preached by anyone in the left. Literally no one. There are a few on the right that advocate it. They are a very small minority but if that form of polygamy is to be labelled left or right its definately right.

Nice own goal you kicked there.

I don't think there is an expressed attempt at polygamy. There is a liberation of sexuality in women, a move to bring sex forward in the social landscape though. The result is that lots of people are available for sex.

It's an unstructured polygamy in that women are still drawn primarily to the top group of men, except now it's more likely that he is enjoying multiple women sexually because he can get at it without marriage hurdles.

There's a situation now where women rate most men as below average when looking at dating apps.

Sex no longer has the value it used to, men aren't selling their financial futures for a woman in their bed, more and more women are raising children alone.

The social cost of broken families is huge. I don't know whether infidelity rates are higher now than fifty years ago but I know now I can order uberMan on my mobile phone as soon as hubby walks out for work and have zero trouble filling that need in privacy. So I'm guessing it's higher now due to increased opportunity.

 

[raskolnikov]

Its interesting how they have been so quiet on the issue ever since. If it was such a disaster of a policy then why arent they crowing about it now that we have seen the disaster and trying to change things back?

Oh don't worry. Lyle is.

 

[Seeds]

I don't think there is an expressed attempt at polygamy. There is a liberation of sexuality in women, a move to bring sex forward in the social landscape though. The result is that lots of people are available for sex.

It's an unstructured polygamy in that women are still drawn primarily to the top group of men, except now it's more likely that he is enjoying multiple women sexually because he can get at it without marriage hurdles.

There's a situation now where women rate most men as below average when looking at dating apps.

Sex no longer has the value it used to, men aren't selling their financial futures for a woman in their bed, more and more women are raising children alone.

The social cost of broken families is huge. I don't know whether infidelity rates are higher now than fifty years ago but I know now I can order uberMan on my mobile phone as soon as hubby walks out for work and have zero trouble filling that need in privacy. So I'm guessing it's higher now due to increased opportunity.

It works the other way too though in a liberated society. Men can get more women too. The point is everyone is getting more. Old fashioned Polygamy was bad for society because one man was taking lots of women for himself leaving men left out in the cold. A more sexually liberated society means more not less men and women get sexually satisifed then in a monogomous society. What were monogomous societies virtues against old fashioned polygamy is now a cost against its new forms. Atleast in terms of sexual satisfaction. And reduced domestic violence. There are other costs though.

 

[Taylor]

It works the other way too though in a liberated society. Men can get more women too. The point is everyone is getting more. Old fashioned Polygamy was bad for society because one man was taking lots of women for himself leaving men left out in the cold. A more sexually liberated society means more not less men and women get sexually satisifed then in a monogomous society. What were monogomous societies virtues against old fashioned polygamy is now a cost against its new forms. Atleast in terms of sexual satisfaction. And reduced domestic violence. There are other costs though.

Men can but one of the interesting quirks is that if no commitment is required the elite males take most of the women leaving the rest unsatisfied.

I don't think women owe men vagina but if it's one person per person then the flow on is a more inclusive and contented society.

 

[its free real estate]

Polygamy where one male marries multiple women making many men sexually redundant and leading to violence is not the form of polygamy preached by anyone in the left. Literally no one. There are a few on the right that advocate it. They are a very small minority but if that form of polygamy is to be labelled left or right its definately right.

Nice own goal you kicked there.

Regardless of what is “preached” by anyone, it is the social relations that arise out of fully liberated marriage that matter. High status male polygyny is the default human behaviour when liberated, exhibited in almost every non monogamous society in history (and to the present day).

 

[William Wonka]

Or did you completely forget this was even a thing and its had zero impact on your life whatsoever, making you wonder why the hell did politicians waste so much time and money on it?

I think the fact that this fred has quickly become a shitfight about the historical worth of monogamy vs polygamy in nationbuilding is proof positive that whether Bob and Ben bang each other in holy matrimony or otherwise is of zero importance to anyone but Ben and Bob.

 

[Evolved1]

This was the single biggest issues of 2017 with many desperately against and desperately for.

We are now 2 years on. Now that its here what is your view? Have you changed you mind on the issue?

Has it been a disaster? Has it worked perfectly? Should the libs run a vote to revoke it? And if not does that mean their concerns with it have been proven false?

Should the greens now work on the next step of progressiveness and make bestiality legal (or legalised pot)?

Or did you completely forget this was even a thing and its had zero impact on your life whatsoever, making you wonder why the hell did politicians waste so much time and money on it?

Waste of time and money clearly.

The majority wanted gay marriage legalised, and politicians with religious agendas sought to hold up progress for the sake of appearances. The LNP is a joke.

What does bestiality have to do with the legalisation of gay marriage? Enlighten me please.

 

[its free real estate]

What does bestiality have to do with the legalisation of gay marriage? Enlighten me please.

Seeds is on record being in favour of bestiality.

 

[Evolved1]

Seeds is on record being in favour of bestiality.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Evolved1]

This is why the far-left are hell-bent on ensuring the breakdown of the nuclear family in the West.

The happy ever after nuclear family only existed in a theoretical fantasy-land.

In the real world, how many of those happy husbands were paying prostitutes and/or playing with other men at gay beats?

 

[its free real estate]

In the real world, how many of those happy husbands were paying prostitutes and/or playing with other men at gay beats?

Five tops.

 

[Frank Bunn]

The "logical" step would be to make all marriage a civil contract signed by both (or all) parties with legal advice. Then let people celebrate it and live it in whatever way they like.

The logical step would have been to retain marriage in its traditional form ie one man, one woman - who are not already married and not closely related to each other.

Then provide civil partnerships with the same rights for people who don't fit into that - such as gays, brothers and sisters (or two brothers), two men and three women. Then let people celebrate it and live it in whatever way they like.

 

[Evolved1]

The logical step would have been to retain marriage in its traditional form ie one man, one woman - who are not already married and not closely related to each other.

Then provide civil partnerships with the same rights for people who don't fit into that - such as gays, brothers and sisters (or two brothers), two men and three women. Then let people celebrate it and live it in whatever way they like.

Polygamy and incest have traditional roots as well. I can find examples in the bible if you require them.

I see no logic to your logic.

 

[its free real estate]

Polygamy and incest have traditional roots as well. I can find examples in the bible if you require them.

I see no logic to your logic.

The Catholic Church banning incest is another reason the West is more successful than the rest.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Polygamy and incest have traditional roots as well. I can find examples in the bible if you require them.

Are you arguing for or against polygamy and incest to be included in marriage?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Polygamy where one male marries multiple women making many men sexually redundant and leading to violence is not the form of polygamy preached by anyone in the left. Literally no one. There are a few on the right that advocate it. They are a very small minority but if that form of polygamy is to be labelled left or right its definately right.

Nice own goal you kicked there.

Wouldn't true polygamy simply mean multiple marriage partners having multiple marriage partners without regard to male/female 'marriage leadership'? Polyamorous relationships are like that, everyone going with everyone else...

 

[Evolved1]

The Catholic Church banning incest is another reason the West is more successful than the rest.

The Catholic church has far bigger issues than incest. Heck, I'd advocate building a wall to keep all catholic priests out. <shrugs>

 

[Evolved1]

Are you arguing for or against polygamy and incest to be included in marriage?

I'm against incest, but in two minds in regards to polygamy. The bible and traditional views of marriage aren't relevant to modern Western societal values afaic

 

[its free real estate]

I'm against incest, but in two minds in regards to polygamy. The bible and traditional views of marriage aren't relevant to modern Western societal values afaic

Normative monogamy is an ancient Greek & Roman institution. It is explicitly not religious.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I'm against incest, but in two minds in regards to polygamy. The bible and traditional views of marriage aren't relevant to modern Western societal values afaic

Our roots are from Western civilisation so let's go with the Christian tradition of marriage. Skip the old testament.

 

[Evolved1]

Our roots are from Western civilisation so let's go with the Christian tradition of marriage. Skip the old testament.

Haven't we moved away from Christian traditions towards secular society?

Therein lies the answer afaiac. The bible (inclusive of the NT) is irrelevant to values in modern day Australian society.

We've progressed in every facet of knowledge and ethics, so why look back?

 

[its free real estate]

Haven't we moved away from Christian traditions towards secular society?

Therein lies the answer afaiac. The bible (inclusive of the NT) is irrelevant to values in modern day Australian society.

We've progressed in every facet of knowledge and ethics, so why look back?

Why would the same not be said about the adversarial system of law, or the concept of parliament, both of which are around a thousand of years old?

Democracy itself is 2500 years old - time to ditch it?

 

[Evolved1]

Normative monogamy is an ancient Greek & Roman institution. It is explicitly not religious.

That's hardly surprising. Men create morals, in the same way that men create religions. There's usually an agenda regardless.

I can see benefits to a monogamous society, just as I can see that it's an ideal few 'adherents' will live up to.