Let's try and keep religion out of it. Yes, I understand there are religious elements involved in these areas that are valid. But there is a whole playground on the Religion board to debate that.

My question is only the political one. Why is it that same-sex, gay marriage is claimed as a fundamental, basic human right and must always be legal in every state, locale, county, etc in the US but polygamy is not fought for the same way?

Why do I not see a championing of rights of the polygamists in this Country like we do for gays, trans, etc regarding this fundamental human right?

Don't care. Consenting adults. Have fun.

Because it's essentially a contract between two people, which wife gets to decide to pull the plug if you have two?

One's enough for most people. More power to you if you want the added nagging….

Manhattan said:

---

Because it's essentially a contract between two people, which wife gets to decide to pull the plug if you have two?

---

Write it in the contract up front or a judge can decide. Same way we treat any other contract dispute in this country.

Either way not my fault not my problem.

In a morally relativist society, where only consent matters; there should be no problems with Fathers marrying their adults sons, or with parents having babies with their adult children.

This, especially when coupled with the idea of parents being able to consent for their children, leads us down an extremely ugly road which shows us why letting consenting adults do whatever they want is stupid.

Tend to agree. Point is progs, libs, Dims, Biden voters, Biden ballot counters, etc seem to have a strange moral compass.

Trump banging pornstar whilst wife preggers is bad in lib minds. Not recording hush money to the correct account is even worse. Then its really bad if you quash allegations via monetary means before an election.

But... showering with daughter is okay, son banging granddaughter is just ol Joe being ol Joe, ok. Having DOJ intimidate social media to cover up the previous all okay.

Trying to keep up on their value system.

I've had the same discussion about this. If you feel consenting adults of the same sex should be able to marry, then why not polygamy if all parties are consenting adults. I'm not for or against either, just that it could be the same argument.

Very well said and put.

fka ftc said:

---

Tend to agree. Point is progs, libs, Dims, Biden voters, Biden ballot counters, etc seem to have a strange moral compass.

Trump banging pornstar whilst wife preggers is bad in lib minds. Not recording hush money to the correct account is even worse. Then its really bad if you quash allegations via monetary means before an election.

But... showering with daughter is okay, son banging granddaughter is just ol Joe being ol Joe, ok. Having DOJ intimidate social media to cover up the previous all okay.

Trying to keep up on their value system.

---

Trump might have made a moral 180 since the time he banged Stormy Daniels; but make no mistake, if he hasn't; he's an awful person.

Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of voting for good people due to the two party system.

My moral compass recognizes no difference between either group.

Because you can't leave religion out of it - the left doesn't care about Mormons

Old May Banker said:

---

My moral compass recognizes no difference between either group.

---

ol George Orwell said it best:

Quote:

---

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which"

---

Manhattan said:

---

Because it's essentially a contract between two people, which wife gets to decide to pull the plug if you have two?

---

How are business contracts dissolved involving 3 or more parties?

The combination and separation of two individuals, and their shared ownership of stuff and responsibilities to society, is a relatively simple task. Marriage- who does the laundry, who pays the mortgage? Divorce- who gets the kids, who gets the house? Adding a third partner creates a much harder problem to solve from a social and legal framework.

I think of it like the three-body problem in physics/math. It's an unsolvable problem in its general form and only solvable under specific, closed constraints.

Humans cannot solve the three-person (polygamy) problem enough times to make it a lasting solution for society. Two works pretty constantly over time and across cultures, three not so much.

Teslag said:

---

Manhattan said:

---

Because it's essentially a contract between two people, which wife gets to decide to pull the plug if you have two?

---

How are business contracts dissolved involving 3 or more parties?

---

You two take you argument on unplugging stuff to the "Tesla is Finished" thread.

tysker said:

---

The combination and separation of two individuals, and their shared ownership of stuff and responsibilities to society, is a relatively simple task. Marriage- who does the laundry, who pays the mortgage? Divorce- who gets the kids, who gets the house? Adding a third partner creates a much harder problem to solve from a social and legal framework.

I think of it like the three-body problem in physics/math. It's an unsolvable problem in its general form and only solvable under specific, closed constraints.

Humans cannot solve the three-person (polygamy) problem enough times to make it a lasting solution for society. Two works pretty constantly over time and across cultures, three not so much.

---

Just clarifying that most polygamist rarely stop at 3. Now why someone would subject themselves, particularly legally, to more than one spouse is a separate debate.

I am more curious as to why progressives selectively discriminate against certain groups based solely on whether they can count their ballot or not.

It sort of a warning to those who support leftist **** that the Dems will turn on you in a split second if they feel they cannot count your vote.

fka ftc said:

---

tysker said:

---

The combination and separation of two individuals, and their shared ownership of stuff and responsibilities to society, is a relatively simple task. Marriage- who does the laundry, who pays the mortgage? Divorce- who gets the kids, who gets the house? Adding a third partner creates a much harder problem to solve from a social and legal framework.

I think of it like the three-body problem in physics/math. It's an unsolvable problem in its general form and only solvable under specific, closed constraints.

Humans cannot solve the three-person (polygamy) problem enough times to make it a lasting solution for society. Two works pretty constantly over time and across cultures, three not so much.

---

Just clarifying that most polygamist rarely stop at 3. Now why someone would subject themselves, particularly legally, to more than one spouse is a separate debate.

I am more curious as to why progressives selectively discriminate against certain groups based solely on whether they can count their ballot or not.

It sort of a warning to those who support leftist **** that the Dems will turn on you in a split second if they feel they cannot count your vote.

---

This seems like an entirely different discussion from your OP polygamy topic.

But if that's your real question, then the answer is because most people suck and just want power and control, especially progressives.

Because having more than one mother-in-law is an unthinkable situation to everyone.

fka ftc said:

---

tysker said:

---

The combination and separation of two individuals, and their shared ownership of stuff and responsibilities to society, is a relatively simple task. Marriage- who does the laundry, who pays the mortgage? Divorce- who gets the kids, who gets the house? Adding a third partner creates a much harder problem to solve from a social and legal framework.

I think of it like the three-body problem in physics/math. It's an unsolvable problem in its general form and only solvable under specific, closed constraints.

Humans cannot solve the three-person (polygamy) problem enough times to make it a lasting solution for society. Two works pretty constantly over time and across cultures, three not so much.

---

Just clarifying that most polygamist rarely stop at 3. Now why someone would subject themselves, particularly legally, to more than one spouse is a separate debate.

I am more curious as to why progressives selectively discriminate against certain groups based solely on whether they can count their ballot or not.

It sort of a warning to those who support leftist **** that the Dems will turn on you in a split second if they feel they cannot count your vote.

---

The fallacy in your logic here is that it's progressives stopping polygamous marriages. A more telling question might be whether the alphabet community and its unwavering supporters approves of polygamous marriages.

fka ftc said:

---

tysker said:

---

The combination and separation of two individuals, and their shared ownership of stuff and responsibilities to society, is a relatively simple task. Marriage- who does the laundry, who pays the mortgage? Divorce- who gets the kids, who gets the house? Adding a third partner creates a much harder problem to solve from a social and legal framework.

I think of it like the three-body problem in physics/math. It's an unsolvable problem in its general form and only solvable under specific, closed constraints.

Humans cannot solve the three-person (polygamy) problem enough times to make it a lasting solution for society. Two works pretty constantly over time and across cultures, three not so much.

---

Just clarifying that most polygamist rarely stop at 3. Now why someone would subject themselves, particularly legally, to more than one spouse is a separate debate.

I am more curious as to why progressives selectively discriminate against certain groups based solely on whether they can count their ballot or not.

It sort of a warning to those who support leftist **** that the Dems will turn on you in a split second if they feel they cannot count your vote.

---

I bet they would if there was a belief that polygamist-style families can work within our legal and social framework. I'm not sure there is any evidence that such a family structure even works across time and cultures.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

I am more curious as to why progressives selectively discriminate against certain groups based solely on whether they can count their ballot or not.

It sort of a warning to those who support leftist **** that the Dems will turn on you in a split second if they feel they cannot count your vote.

---

This seems like an entirely different discussion from your OP polygamy topic.

But if that's your real question, then the answer is because liberals most people suck and just want power and control, especially progressives.

---

FIFY.

But its at the root of the question. Why are progressives so selective on what they fight for and what they ignore?

fka ftc said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

I am more curious as to why progressives selectively discriminate against certain groups based solely on whether they can count their ballot or not.

It sort of a warning to those who support leftist **** that the Dems will turn on you in a split second if they feel they cannot count your vote.

---

This seems like an entirely different discussion from your OP polygamy topic.

But if that's your real question, then the answer is because liberals most people suck and just want power and control, especially progressives.

---

FIFY.

But it's at the root of the question. Why are progressives so selective on what they fight for and what they ignore?

---

Ummm. You've already answered your own question earlier when you mentioned that supporting an issue was limited to whether or not they could expect a ballot being cast in their favor.

And your FIFY is wrong. "Conservatives"want just as much power as the left. This board has threads everyday where posters extoll the virtues of using the power of government to control and restrict others from doing things they don't like.

Like this thread: https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3368850

Yea, you not making any sense to me.

You link this thread as conservatives wanting to extoll government powers but I am not seeing that.

Quote:

---

FIFY.

But its at the root of the question. Why are progressives so selective on what they fight for and what they ignore?

---

And why are conservatives so selective on what they fight for and what they ignore?
Probably because both groups are ignorant, self-servicing, non-principled, hypocrites.

Meh, speak for yourself. I find that on average libs are extremely more hypocritical than conservatives. More elitist, more prone to blatant racism and discrimination.

But you could at least make the minimal effort to provide an example of your astute observation.

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

FIFY.

But its at the root of the question. Why are progressives so selective on what they fight for and what they ignore?

---

And why are conservatives so selective on what they fight for and what they ignore?
Probably because both groups are ignorant, self-servicing, non-principled, hypocrites.

---

Honestly, I feel that's because we have far left and left in this country; and haven't had an authentic conservative movement since before the new deal.

Most people I've seen, while well intentioned, who label themselves "conservative" are really just liberals in slow-mo. They don't really stand for anything except what the actual left stood for less than a generation ago. They don't have any actual principles, they just marginally slow the leftward advance of society.

fka ftc said:

---

Meh, speak for yourself. I find that on average libs are extremely more hypocritical than conservatives. More elitist, more prone to blatant racism and discrimination.

But you could at least make the minimal effort to provide an example of your astute observation.

---

If there is one thing the Trump presidency should have taught anyone is that modern 'conservatives' are just as full of **** as progressives. They are willing to hurt their country and shove their cultural values under the rug, as long as their guy wins.

It no longer left vs right. IMO, its more akin to collectivism vs. individualism. Authoritarian populism has been on the rise since at least the Bush-era and really took hold during the Obama and Trump years. Conservatives, especially these Trumpian neo-republicans are basically collectivists (fka blue-dag democrats). Guys like Reagan (and Bush) are loser CMs nowadays.

I recall we are all sinners and fall short.

I judge Trump for his actions as President of the United States. HIs personal life, particularly as it regards to legal behavior, is irrelevant to me.

I also believe Trump is a Christian. Not devout, but I do believe he is.

tysker said:

---

It no longer left vs right. IMO, its more akin to collectivism vs. individualism. Authoritarian populism has been on the rise since at least the Bush-era and really took hold during the Obama and Trump years. Conservatives, especially these Trumpian neo-republicans are basically collectivists (fka blue-dag democrats). Guys like Reagan (and Bush) are loser CMs nowadays.

---

Dawson's Creek called and wants their word of the day calendar back please.

This is why the Mormons came out in support of LGBT nonsense. They see the path back to polygamy being paved. Ironic since the progressives have a pathological disdain for religion.

Also, the answer is that there is no ideological reason to support gay marriage and oppose polygamy. If marriage is just a contract between adults who "love each other" and has nothing to do with sexual difference or reproduction, then there's no logical reason to place restrictions on the number of people that can enter the contract.

This is the most clear example of how stupid all the libertarians are in their philosophy that people have the right to do whatever the hell they want as long as they consent.

tysker said:

---

It no longer left vs right. IMO, its more akin to collectivism vs. individualism. Authoritarian populism has been on the rise since at least the Bush-era and really took hold during the Obama and Trump years. Conservatives, especially these Trumpian neo-republicans are basically collectivists (fka blue-dag democrats). Guys like Reagan (and Bush) are loser CMs nowadays.

---

I don't even see it as authoritarianism and individualism; some of the most conservative guys I know are authoritarians; some of the most liberal people I know are individualists; I think it matters more what you're trying to get to.

If you're trying to allow women to abort their children; or to allow gay marriage, or drug use, or any of the other leftist causes du jour; you can make a far better case from autonomy than you can from collectivism.

Similarly if you're trying to make a case for not banning gender modification for children, drug use, gay marriage, and cutting down immigration; you can make a far better case with collectivism.

fka ftc said:

---

Let's try and keep religion out of it. Yes, I understand there are religious elements involved in these areas that are valid. But there is a whole playground on the Religion board to debate that.

My question is only the political one. Why is it that same-sex, gay marriage is claimed as a fundamental, basic human right and must always be legal in every state, locale, county, etc in the US but polygamy is not fought for the same way?

Why do I not see a championing of rights of the polygamists in this Country like we do for gays, trans, etc regarding this fundamental human right?

---

Ban both.

Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman.

Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. All others are just civil unions, which should be allowed (in my opinion) and should apply to a brother and sister who may individually be unwed or be a widow / widower who choose to live their remaining years together. If two or more gays choose to do the same, fine.

Supposedly that is all the gays wanted (and received). Yet certain posters here still claim second class citizenry nonsense.

Morals vs laws is a tricky walk, but in many instances there can be agreement on what may be moral to some and immoral to others may be legal or illegal irregardless of morality.