Nambla Vs Polygamy

I am wondering what are the opinions on NAMBLA? A lot of talk that homosexual marriage is good; Polygamy is bad but what about NAMBLA? Though its not a marriage it is a relationship at least to puberty.


If I were to compare the North American Man/Boy Love Association to Polygamy I think Polygamy wins.

A guy marries a girl (usually young) he is with her for the rest of their lives. The divorce rate with polygamy is extremely low, not even sure if the statistics are recordable.

NAMBLA, you get a young boy and when he is older, you get a different young boy? But I don’t know of those young boys grow up to want young boys are way older men.

As backwards as some thinking is, I expect a lot of supporters for NAMBLA to speak up; at least I am hoping for it 


NAMBLA has been around a long time. They have an official websites; you can even get your NAMBLA t shirts (who would want one?) They have been defended by the ACLU. No one seems to care much about what they do, but the news is all over polygamy, as though its worse?

Any thoughts??


here is the website.

http://www.nambla.org/

 

NAMBLA are a bunch of sickos who have convinced themselves that there is justification for their actions.

Polygamy in practice is also a bunch of sickos who do what is more akin to human trafficking.

In theory pedophilia will always be wrong but in theory polgamy or polyandry would be acceptable. Solomon and David and others engaged in polygamy
and were not condemned by God for it.

Oddly enough no one complains that the polygamists are being discriminated againsts. So I say if it is acceptable for a government to outlaw a theoetically legitimage marriage then they can also outlaw other forms of marriage.

I personaly think the gov should just stay out of the whole marriage thing. If gay people want to create an institution like a church that will perform their marriage ceromonies then so be it. No one needs special rights or tax breaks or whatever based on their marital status. There might be a case based on whether or not they are raising children. This would just as true if it were a husband and wife, a partner and a partner, or a mother and grandmother raising a child.

 

I agree with you that the government should get out of marriage. I would never again get married with the governments aproval. they have disgraced the true meaning of it.

but what I am fustrated with is people are picking on the polygamists, cheering on the homosexuals who want to get married and turning a blind eye at NAMBLA.

that is so fustrating

 

First If you want 18 wifes, Fine, I think you are a Retard but what ever. Just as long as they are legal age. As For NAMBLA, if they all ended up dead in the back ally, I would not realy care.

 

LOL I am not a homosexual so I do not want 1 wife or 18 of them.


I just want to point out that there are bigger monsters out there like NAMBLA that should be looked at. There are many people who practice polygamy and not all are like those ones in Texas, some are not even a branch of Mormons.

 

There seems to be a mixing of different subjects here. I think that the laws against sex between adults and children make a lot of sense. Children have varying degrees of capability in the area of sexual decision making, but I think that restricting legal sexual contact to consenting adults is a rational way to deal with a complex issue. Children and young people will always have sex with each other, no way to prevent that, and experimentation between peers is less likely to include coercion than sex between adults and children.

As long as diseases are not being spread and unwanted children are not being produced, I think all the laws about sex between consenting adults in private should be removed from the law books.

Marriage should be a legal contract, and like all other legal contracts it should be equally available to any and all consenting adults who wish to sign up for the legal responsibilities attendant thereto. Gay, straight, trios, and group marriages should all be legal as long as they are confined to consenting adults who are willing to be legally bound by the responsibilities of a marriage. In times gone by group marriages have proven to be more financially stable than two person marriages. Many indigenous peoples have very different customs around marriage and the raising of children, customs that might bear consideration by "civilized" people.

 

Most people see marriage as a sacred institution. And like other sacred institutions, baptism, bar mitzvas, last rites, communion, etc. it is not the place where government should be involved.

As far as the contracts to bind marriage then governments need to be involved. For example to make sure that minors are not participating in contracts, which is non-binding for good reason - they are not capable.

So should the contracts that are allowed be based on principles or just majority rule? Both. We use principle to influence the majority of people to vote one way or another except when the will of the people is contrary to the constitution. (except when there are enough people who want something so they ammend the constitution)

What I did not include in this last paragraph is a statement that judges should decide what the will of the people is or base any decision on the will of the people. It should be pretty clear what the constitution says about gay marriage and if it is not then it is not the place of judges to infer a ruling based on stretched interpretations of other parts of the constitution.

If the judges are doing what they should and only that and I don't like the results then the correct course of action for me is to use principles to influence others to vote a certain way. So are gays being discriminated against? I see no right to get married in the constitution - so no. There is no such right for polygamists, ugly people, mean people, pedophiles or anyone else. It matters not in the least if they choose to be what they are or if they are born that way. There is no right to get married and if we force the majority of people who against it (whether they are right or wrong to be against it) then what we are doing is granting special rights to gay people and that discriminates against all the people who's votes are ignored when they elected politicians who defined the marriage contract as between a man and a woman.

Now for the disclaimer I must make or the PC police will take me away: I am not saying that being gay is right or wrong. Just that the use of the process to define it as right is an abuse of the process.

 

It is not the right to marry that is being violated. It is equal protection under the law since the law is applied in an unequal fashion due to religious dogma alone. Some consenting adults are given rights and privileges that are denied to other consenting adults--again, for no reason but religious dogma. Interracial marriage is another example of this unequal protection under the law, but we managed to work through that one and now we are working on this one. It's evolving toward an egalitarian society instead of devolving into a theocracy like Iran.

 

You do have the same exact rights as me.

I have the right to marry a man, you have the right to marry a man.

a homosexual man has the right to marry a woman
a non homosexual man has the right to marry a woman
a homosexual woman has the right to marry a man
a non homosexual woman has the right to marry a man

a non homosexual man may not marry more than one woman
a homosexual man may not marry more than one woman

a homosexual woman may not marry an animal
a non homosexual woman may not marry an animal


equal protection applied to black people in the 60s

a white man can sit on the front of the bus
a black man can not sit on the front of the bus
they should both be able to sit on the front of the bus

a black man may not drink from certian fountians
a white man may drink from certian fountians

they should both be able to drink from the same fountian

homosexual people and non homosexual people have exactly the same rights.

i am not a homosexual and i can not marry another woman, just like a homosexual woman can not marry another woman.

same and equal

 

I know it seems clever, but that's the same argument the KKK and other racists used to deny interracial marriage, it's specious reasoning based on specific definitions chosen by the person making the argument. Just as with interracial marriages and interfaith marriages it will succumb to real reason and rational thought eventually.

 

Male is male no matter what color race religion
all males are equal and deserve equal protection under the law

same for females.


I do not know enough about the kkk or interracial marriages to really comment on it, but when I get some extra time I will look it up.

Now I am not saying you dont have a right to fight for homosexual marriage. I think anyone who wants to get married should be able to, and to anyone they want. I just think the government needs to keep out of it. I am very pro polygamy and I dont see why homosexuals shouldnt be able to do what ever they want to do also, but I really am sick of the government being involved.

but as for equal rights under the law. I am not trying to be clever, I was serious. Homosexuals not only have the same protection and rights as non homosexuals, they have more. as in hate crime laws.

Marriage is a differnt matter, its not a 14th amendment issue


But if having the government validate your relationship is really important to you, keep up the fight. BUT .... I really would respect the fight more if they were fighting for ALL people who want to get married, not just a group (who already has extra protection) Fight for polygamists too

 

Without the government validation couples are not eligible for the more than 1049 legal rights and privileges guaranteed to "legally married" people under US law. That's the Law, like it or not, no church wedding means a damn thing legally without the government license to back it up. Therefore, we want the legal rights and privileges and the only way to get them is to have "marriage" as defined by US Law. New Jersey passed a civil unions bill and discovered that UPS wouldn't pay marriage benefits to civil union folks because the union contract says "married". Either gays get "marriage" or we have to re-write a LOT of laws, wouldn't it just be easier to let gays marry?

As I have written several times, I think marriage should be a contract that has no more restrictions on it than any other legal contract and any couple or group of consenting adult people who wish to band together to form a legal marriage should be able to do so. I think you will find that the gay marriage battle will help loosen up the restrictions on other kinds of marriages--like trios and groups.

 

Anyone who wants to can get married. No discrimination.

Oh you want to marry outside of the proscribed way the law allows? Then I guess lot's of people have a case. Polygamists, pedophiles (with the consent of the minors guardian), or animal lovers.

The only solutions I see is to allow all sorts of marriages with no restrictions, or to allow the restrictions that the states set. I see no way to justify some of these unions while rejecting others except to say that the state gets to decide what is in the best interest of the state.

What is the interest of the state in each of these instances:

Does the state have a reason to regulate marriages in which children will usually be produced but with no guarantee for each specific union?

What if after time no children are likely to come forth?

What if the two child raisers are mother and grandmother?

What if the two child raisers are two men (infertile) but they adopt?

Or a man and a surgically created woman so they are infertile (but don't want to adopt)?

Or a man and his very competent protective German Shepard?

Or 16 people of various genders?

Or two corporations?

 

You are starting from a false premise, and it's one that I did not, do not, will not support so you can stop using it.

This is your second false premise. All the discussion has been about consenting adult couples--you made up all the stuff about the others. None of this adds to your credibility, Who, in fact it makes you look like you don't have any real arguments.

Maybe when you calm down you can write a real post about the issues at hand instead of this Christian horror-story you've concocted for our benefit.

 

This has nothing to do with Christianity. It has everything to do with how the members of society determine the rules they live by (as arbitrary as they may be) for the benefit of the state and the citizens.