Leicester Piggott Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 What about polygamy ? Should it be illegal ? Should we have the right to take many wives (or husbands) if we want to? Would you dare to? Do you not get enough grief from one?
Mike Oxlong Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 What about polygamy ? Should it be illegal ? Yes. Can you imagine the fvckin earache?
Zingari Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 OK, Apart from the earache , the multi mother in laws , all the knickers on the radiators , shoes cluttering up the hallway , the constant sound of TV soaps , the cost , and all the other drawbacks too numerous to list , if 5 women all love and want to marry 1 man ( or vice versa) , Shouldn't they be allowed to . Why would this be any less moral than gays marrying and why should the state be allowed stick its nose in ?
Leicester Piggott Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 OK, Apart from the earache , the multi mother in laws , all the knickers on the radiators , shoes cluttering up the hallway , the constant sound of TV soaps , the cost , and all the other drawbacks too numerous to list , if 5 women all love and want to marry 1 man ( or vice versa) , Shouldn't they be allowed to . Why would this be any less moral than gays marrying and why should the state be allowed stick its nose in ? To save you from yourself Zingari
indierich06 Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 What about polygamy ? Should it be illegal ? Should we have the right to take many wives (or husbands) if we want to? I don't see any problem with polygamy in principle, if some nutter wants 5 wives giving him earache instead of 1, he's welcome to that as far as I'm concerned - I'm sure it already goes on behind closed doors anyway, it definitely does in America. Again, I don't think it's any right of the state to poke their nose into any kind of relationships involving consenting adults or to tell people that it's the 'wrong kind' of relationship.
Zingari Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 To save you from yourself Zingari i'm well past redemption i'd put up with all the problems if i could hitch up with the Saturdays
Leicester Piggott Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 i'm well past redemption i'd put up with all the problems if i could hitch up with the Saturdays You say that now, but I do wonder how much moaning one man can take. I expect those women are extremely high maintenance and very frustrating in a great number of ways too. Might be okay if you had each one in a separate house and had your own house to yourself too.
Zingari Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 You say that now, but I do wonder how much moaning one man can take. I expect those women are extremely high maintenance and very frustrating in a great number of ways too. Might be okay if you had each one in a separate house and had your own house to yourself too. you can be my life style guru
21st Century Fox Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 What about polygamy ? Should it be illegal ? Should we have the right to take many wives (or husbands) if we want to? Don't women's menstruation cycles sync up when they live together ... **** that!
Zingari Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 Any five women that would have anything to do with me would be well past menstruation . More likely to be the problem of synchronised incontinence
Rincewind Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 Maybe this should be more of a concern for the government. http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/care/rough-sleeping-rises-31-in-two-years/6525641.article#.UROF0mnQtW4.twitter
Captain... Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 I don't see any problem with polygamy in principle, if some nutter wants 5 wives giving him earache instead of 1, he's welcome to that as far as I'm concerned - I'm sure it already goes on behind closed doors anyway, it definitely does in America. Again, I don't think it's any right of the state to poke their nose into any kind of relationships involving consenting adults or to tell people that it's the 'wrong kind' of relationship. What about a bisexual, can he have a husband and a wife? In fact is that now legal? If the definition of bigamy is a man having 2 wives, can he now have a wife and a husband?
flowwolf Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 The government is capable of focusing on more than one issue at a time you know? That's what we pay them for. All they've done is debated it for a bit and put it to a vote. It's hardly dominated all of their time, has it? Well it's dominated the press beyond all reason and has done the grass root conservative support a lot of damage. An awful lot of people feel very anti homosexual marriage although they are a minority they are a sizable minority as Cameron will find to his cost at the next general election.
flowwolf Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 It's been stirred up by the media precisely because it's quite an interesting debate, so it's bound to be newsworthy. I'm not even convinced there was much 'campaigning' so to speak - as far as I can tell, they decided to vote on it, set the date and this has been the outcome. It'll be debated in the Lords for a lot longer, but that's all they're good for anyway. At the end of the day, there should be no debate or campaigning because in terms of politics, it's a no brainer. It's a case of freedoms and equality - in this country you're free to marry anyone of any race, you're free to practice whatever religion you like... If it were a law saying people of different races or religions couldn't marry there would be uproar, I don't see why it should be any different for people of the same sex. I really fail to see how it's going to make any difference to the lives of those who don't agree with it - it's none of their business what two consenting adults get up to. I have to say as well, even homophobes should be backing this change in the law because we are privileged to live in a free country - if the government voted definitively that gay people aren't allowed to marry they would be setting a dangerous precedent because they would be denying people a basic freedom - the freedom to marry whoever you want. If that's where it starts, where does it end? For christ sake will you stop using that tired old cliche " Homophobe " I have never met anyone who has a phobia ( fear ) of homosexuals , I think it's more of a homoloath than being scared of them.
Captain... Posted 7 February 2013 Posted 7 February 2013 For christ sake will you stop using that tired old cliche " Homophobe " I have never met anyone who has a phobia ( fear ) of homosexuals , I think it's more of a homoloath than being scared of them. It is not a "cliche" it is in the dictionary and it is, by your own admission, what you are, if anyone doesn't want to be called a homophobe then they should probably stop being homophobic. homophobe   ho-mo-phobe Noun a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality. homo(sexual) + -phobe
indierich06 Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 For christ sake will you stop using that tired old cliche " Homophobe " I have never met anyone who has a phobia ( fear ) of homosexuals , I think it's more of a homoloath than being scared of them. Oh right, so you're not scared of gay people, you just hate them. Cheers for clearing that up. It's a sure sign someone's lost a debate when they sart talking about the etymology of words rather than addressing any of your points.
indierich06 Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Well it's dominated the press beyond all reason and has done the grass root conservative support a lot of damage. An awful lot of people feel very anti homosexual marriage although they are a minority they are a sizable minority as Cameron will find to his cost at the next general election. Cameron and his Con-men will not get a second chance for myriad reasons, not just gay marriage. In fact, that's about the only decent thing he's done in his whole time in power. When it comes to election time, expect him to tap the gay vote and expect a lot of Olympic flag-waving in a desperate attempt to get them re-elected. As a staunch anti-conservative, I've got to say - he's doing a great job; he's split his supporters right down the middle, half of them will sod off and vote for UKIP and the rest will stay conservative. Floating voters who voted Lib Dem will still be feeling Clegg's betrayal after the last election... Labour want shooting if they don't win this next election hands down. Anyway - you've not even remotely answered my question, I don't care whether the press has everyone whipped up into a frenzy or not, or what the minority of society thinks about gay marriage - what I said was 'has gay marriage dominated the goverment's agenda?' The sensible answer is of course no; it was debated, a vote was organised and that's the end of it. Regardless, when people say that the government has 'better things to do' rather than support the basic freedoms and rights of its' citizens, I worry for them.
Captain... Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Cameron and his Con-men will not get a second chance for myriad reasons, not just gay marriage. In fact, that's about the only decent thing he's done in his whole time in power. When it comes to election time, expect him to tap the gay vote and expect a lot of Olympic flag-waving in a desperate attempt to get them re-elected. As a staunch anti-conservative, I've got to say - he's doing a great job; he's split his supporters right down the middle, half of them will sod off and vote for UKIP and the rest will stay conservative. Floating voters who voted Lib Dem will still be feeling Clegg's betrayal after the last election... Labour want shooting if they don't win this next election hands down. Anyway - you've not even remotely answered my question, I don't care whether the press has everyone whipped up into a frenzy or not, or what the minority of society thinks about gay marriage - what I said was 'has gay marriage dominated the goverment's agenda?' The sensible answer is of course no; it was debated, a vote was organised and that's the end of it. Regardless, when people say that the government has 'better things to do' rather than support the basic freedoms and rights of its' citizens, I worry for them. I would say it has publicly dominated their agenda, and I don't see anything else they are doing apart from making U-turns on Education, and setting up the Labour party for a fall by planning an EU referendum for when they are in power. It is like the Fox Hunting debate, it really isn't that big a deal, and should be a bit of a no brainer in both cases, but the fox hunting debate directly led to the changing of the formation of British law by taking away powers from the House of Lords because for once they actually used them. The debate on this has directly caused to a massive split down the middle of the Conservative party, it is has caused rifts with the state and the church, and exposed how weak the Conservative party is and how bigoted middle England really is, and bringing out ridiculous attempts to claim that they didn't have a mandate to make this law as it wasn't in the manifesto, which could have lead to a dangerous precedent where the ruling Government couldn't address any issues they didn't expressly predict in their manifesto... ...and it is all their own fault, they tried make this a big populist, look at us progressive Conservatives, we support gays and stuff, when they could have passed this bill with minimum fanfare, just changing definition of civil partnerships to allow religious ceremonies rather than prohibit it, and such ceremonies would be called a marriage.
FurtiveFox Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 The big debate should be the age gay sexual consent. Teenage years can be very confusing and getting into something trendy without being a fully devolved person can have far reaching consequences. I'd go as far as to say the age of consent should be 25. Give our youngsters time to breath away from sexual predators before plunging into an alternative lifestyle.
indierich06 Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 The big debate should be the age gay sexual consent. Teenage years can be very confusing and getting into something trendy without being a fully devolved person can have far reaching consequences. I'd go as far as to say the age of consent should be 25. Give our youngsters time to breath away from sexual predators before plunging into an alternative lifestyle. So all gay people are sexual predators are they? And how is experimenting wuth your sexuality 'trendy'? 25 for age of consent?! I knew by the time I was 10 years old that I fancied girls, I imagine it's the same with homosexuals; you're either gay, straight, or bisexual. A gay person can't choose to be straight any more than I could choose to be gay! Jesus, I've never read such a load of shit in my life. You've got to be on a wind up. I'd say the consequences of having it off with a bird when you're 16 and ending up bringing another life into the world are far more severe than experimenting with your sexuality.
Guest MattP Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 The big debate should be the age gay sexual consent. Teenage years can be very confusing and getting into something trendy without being a fully devolved person can have far reaching consequences. I'd go as far as to say the age of consent should be 25. Give our youngsters time to breath away from sexual predators before plunging into an alternative lifestyle. Fcuk me can you imagine what we'll be allowing people to shag at in 200 years time? A gay guy I employed told me over a beer how he got into the 'scene' - 15 years old, found a website, local bloke came and took him out to show him 'the scene', guy was 45 or something. Ended up shagging him of course. Must be like Christmas for those sort of blokes.
FurtiveFox Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Tar and feather. Time we brought the family back into the centre of society. Liberalism has gone too far.
Windsorfox Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Come on Matt, don't knock it until you have tried it, eh?
FurtiveFox Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Love is love eh Windsor? Nothing like a teenager being buggered to within an inch of his life.
FurtiveFox Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 I also agree with some previous posters about gays bringing up kids. What chance do the kids have to develop their own opinions. If people want to be gay fine but they should be allowed to develop normally first without being brought up and brainwashed into thinking something unnatural is in fact normal.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.