Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 easysauce wrote:
daedalus...

factually, it would not lead to more homogenization or incest... or it already would have...


otherwise every single animal species that almost exclusively breeds the alphas and not the betas as a rule would be suffering from this sort of thing as well... and they simply are not.

you are missing that a large percentage of the animal kingdom works like this, where the alphas breed and the betas do not (or rarely do)...

by your reasoning, most insects should be extinct due to incest/lack of mates since generally only the queen even reproduces.

if insects can have a hundred thousand to one ratio or more of breeders to non without it destroying their genetics over millions of years, then humans going from 1-1 to 1-2 or 1-10 isnt a stretch at all, especially considering how much of our history has had such ratios.

There have been observed genetic defects and diseases that European nobility (known for only breeding with each other) have suffered the the common person doesn't, due to the inbreeding. Polygamy doesn't necessarily mean inbreeding automatically, I know, but the reduction in genetic diversity would translate into the increase of potential for harmful birth defects. I refer to inbreeding as a magnified example of the issues that it causes.

Of the animals you refer to, how many of those species you mention also mate for life? I can't think of any off the top of my head that are polygamous AND mate for life, but I've not gone looking.

Insects are not really a fair comparison, as they're vastly different to humans. Consider the last time you heard of a human with one set of organs getting sliced in half and both sides regenerating into a living, functional person. We should stick to mammals, speaking of which....

A more apt comparison would be dogs. The health problems of purebred dogs are actually well known and documented, and the cause is, again, lack of genetic diversity.

We're also ignoring that a 1:2 ratio results in effectively 25% (assuming both genders equal in population, and twice as many mates of one gender are mated to one person) of a populace potentially desiring a mate and unable to find one. That's a large amount of potential disenfranchisement, frustration, and anger on your hands.

 Laemos wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Well, see, GLBT youth have a tougher time than straight kids, even in 2014. Some of the highest suicide risk rates. So, making it to be the CEO of Apple, and saying "hey, I'm gay" sort of gives those kids a role model.

i do not think he did it to be a role model. I believe he is a narcissist and wants the attention.

I believe you are thinking about the former Apple CEO.


Tim Cook has always maintained a pretty thick layer of privacy in his personal life. As a matter of fact, he explains exactly why he decided to write the essay for Businessweek, which is along the lines of what Ouze said. He is also the first openly gay CEO of a company on the Fortune 500 list.

I'm not going to lie, I shared this article because I thought it was interesting: one of the most powerful businessmen in the world is gay. Unsurprisingly, some of the comments in this thread are just asinine.

Job well done everybody, the OT never lets me down!

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don't think being poly- is an 'orientation', it's a lifestyle choice. Like a poly person I'm attracted to lots of people, other than the fact I choose to be monogamous, there is no difference. I can't choose to be gay because I'm not attracted to men.

That depends on the person. Some people are monogamous by nature and absolutely can not be happy in a non-monogamous relationship. Some people are all the way at the other extreme and absolutely can not be happy in a monogamous relationship. And these aren't usually conscious decisions, a common theme among non-monogamous people who view it as an orientation is that they weren't happy early in life in monogamous relationships, even before they realized why or even knew that there were other options. So those people wouldn't think of it as a choice at all, because for them the only "choice" is between following their orientation and being happy, or denying it and trying to force themselves into a relationship they don't want to be in just for the sake of being "normal".

And of course there are people who consider non-monogamy a choice that they made based on reasons they consciously thought about. Those people are the equivalent of bisexuals, people who exist in the middle of the scale and could go either way depending on the circumstances.

 daedalus wrote:
There have been observed genetic defects and diseases that European nobility (known for only breeding with each other) have suffered the the common person doesn't, due to the inbreeding. Polygamy doesn't necessarily mean inbreeding automatically, I know, but the reduction in genetic diversity would translate into the increase of potential for harmful birth defects. I refer to inbreeding as a magnified example of the issues that it causes.

That's not a very relevant comparison because polygamy has nothing to do with only breeding within a limited group. The European nobility problem exists because you have marriages that are limited to a tiny minority of the overall population, and marrying outside of that group (which would bring in more genetic diversity) is/was frowned upon for social reasons.

Polygamy, on the other hand, doesn't have this issue. If A marries and has children with B and C there's no reason to expect those children to only marry within the social group or family of any of the three parents, just like children of two-person relationships don't tend to marry their cousins. The only time you'd have a problem with inbreeding is if you're talking about religious polygamy in fundamentalist cults that keep everyone away from the outside world and encourage marriages within their tiny group. And you'd have the same problems there even with two-person marriages.

We're also ignoring that a 1:2 ratio results in effectively 25% (assuming both genders equal in population, and twice as many mates of one gender are mated to one person) of a populace potentially desiring a mate and unable to find one. That's a large amount of potential disenfranchisement, frustration, and anger on your hands.

We're ignoring it because it's a bad argument. The "can't find a mate" problem only exists with religious polygamy where high-status men get to claim all of the women as trophy wives, but women are never allowed to have multiple husbands (and should settle for a polygamous marriage with one of those high-status men). In a secular version the men marrying multiple women would be offset by the women marrying multiple men, leaving the situation for single people roughly the same as it is now. In fact, things would probably improve in this hypothetical world for single people, assuming they're willing to consider being in a non-monogamous relationship, because a potential partner being in a relationship already would not necessarily take them out of the dating pool.

I'm still struggling to see how this wouldn't still reduce genetic diversity still.

Can you perhaps point me to a culture that has chosen a polygamous social structure that is not founded in some manner of religious dogma? I would be interested in reading more.

 daedalus wrote:
I'm still struggling to see how this wouldn't still reduce genetic diversity still.

Flip it around the other way: how would it reduce genetic diversity? Genetic diversity is about how much the children spread out from their parents, not how many other people their parents are having sex with or what legal recognition that other sex has. You wouldn't claim that a person cheating on their spouse reduces genetic diversity, would you?

Can you perhaps point me to a culture that has chosen a polygamous social structure that is not founded in some manner of religious dogma?

I don't think you can, because secular polyamory, like non-monogamy in general, is still a small minority of the overall population and any areas/groups where it has been common have still existed within the context of the society around them. But history doesn't necessarily reflect the future, and the failures of religious polygamy would not necessarily apply to a secular equivalent that did become more common. Whether to legalize polygamy or not needs to be decided based on the likely effects of that particular decision in our society, not what completely different societies did with their version.

China had a polygamous society for several centuries. Polygamous in the sense that if you could afford to take concubines, it was acceptable. And afaik, it wasn't based on any religious dogma

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that there are entire GLTB Dorms.

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that there are entire GLTB Dorms.

Hall, like 5-10 rooms. On a floor of 100.
Its so they know they are around friends and allies.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that there are entire GLTB Dorms.

Hall, like 5-10 rooms. On a floor of 100.
Its so they know they are around friends and allies.

Are there black hallways and asian hallways and muslim hallways too?

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that there are entire GLTB Dorms.

Hall, like 5-10 rooms. On a floor of 100.
Its so they know they are around friends and allies.

Are there black hallways and asian hallways and muslim hallways too?

You are missing the point here Cincy. Its easy for you to hookup with asians, or other blacks. But not with gays. And they also want to know they are not going to get a room with a gay basher.
And yes, there is an Asian Hall,

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

You are missing the point here Cincy. Its easy for you to hookup with asians, or other blacks. But not with gays. And they also want to know they are not going to get a room with a gay basher.
And yes, there is an Asian Hall,

I'm not missing any point. You didn't really make one.

Why would it be harder for me to hook up with a homosexual than an Asian, were I so inclined?

Should they be more protected than a black person that doesn't want to room with a Klansmen, or a Jew that doesn't want to room with some Hitler youth?

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

You are missing the point here Cincy. Its easy for you to hookup with asians, or other blacks. But not with gays. And they also want to know they are not going to get a room with a gay basher.
And yes, there is an Asian Hall,

I'm not missing any point. You didn't really make one.

Why would it be harder for me to hook up with a homosexual than an Asian, were I so inclined?

Should they be more protected than a black person that doesn't want to room with a Klansmen, or a Jew that doesn't want to room with some Hitler youth?

Those are kinda hard to find in Santa Cruz, but gay bashers are not.
Also, because, a gay man cant be pointed out in a crowd(Gay Dar is not a real thing) but an asian can

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Also, because, a gay man cant be pointed out in a crowd(Gay Dar is not a real thing) but an asian can

You're going to have to elaborate on what point you're trying to make here. It's not readily apparent.

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Also, because, a gay man cant be pointed out in a crowd(Gay Dar is not a real thing) but an asian can

You're going to have to elaborate on what point you're trying to make here. It's not readily apparent.

Im saying you dont know if someone is gay just by looking at them.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Also, because, a gay man cant be pointed out in a crowd(Gay Dar is not a real thing) but an asian can

You're going to have to elaborate on what point you're trying to make here. It's not readily apparent.

Im saying you dont know if someone is gay just by looking at them.

Which matters why?

So the halls are to make it easier for them to hook up? Seems weird

Because you asked this
Why would it be harder for me to hook up with a homosexual than an Asian, were I so inclined?

Also, there seems to be some implied argument that asians only want to hook up with asians but it's easier to do so because it's easy to tell who's asian. This also seems kind of wtf.

Sining wrote:
So the halls are to make it easier for them to hook up? Seems weird

No, Cincy is trying to annoy.
They are made so you can be around people who will not bash you.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Because you asked this
Why would it be harder for me to hook up with a homosexual than an Asian, were I so inclined?

So you're saying they have designated halls so it's easier to hook up? Sounds irresponsible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sining wrote:
Also, there seems to be some implied argument that asians only want to hook up with asians but it's easier to do so because it's easy to tell who's asian. This also seems kind of wtf.

Yeup, pretty much.

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Because you asked this
Why would it be harder for me to hook up with a homosexual than an Asian, were I so inclined?

So you're saying they have designated halls so it's easier to hook up? Sounds irresponsible.

NO!!!!!
They only have the asian center hall. Which is one hall on the entire campus. Its for international transfers.
But they have the LGBT & Allies hall which is so LGBT will not live around gay bashers and those uncomfortable around gays wont have to share a room

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

They only have the asian center hall. Which is one hall on the entire campus. Its for international transfers.
But they have the LGBT & Allies hall which is so LGBT will not live around gay bashers and those uncomfortable around gays wont have to share a room

So again, I ask why isn't there a blacks only hall so that blacks can live apart from racists? Or an all Jews hall so they can live apart from anti-Semites?

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

They only have the asian center hall. Which is one hall on the entire campus. Its for international transfers.
But they have the LGBT & Allies hall which is so LGBT will not live around gay bashers and those uncomfortable around gays wont have to share a room

So again, I ask why isn't there a blacks only hall so that blacks can live apart from racists? Or an all Jews hall so they can live apart from anti-Semites?

Because, those are not as big as an issue on campus as gay bashing.

 daedalus wrote:
I'm still struggling to see how this wouldn't still reduce genetic diversity still.

Can you perhaps point me to a culture that has chosen a polygamous social structure that is not founded in some manner of religious dogma? I would be interested in reading more.

instead of producing offspring with just one person, there would exist the greater potential to have multiple offspring with multiple partners. As was said before, no one actually gets cut out so long as everyone is open to sharing, not to mention that if two people go after the same mate, instead of only having 2 people walk away happy and breeding, 3 could walk away happy.

Lots of prior cultures had it without religion, generally polygamy isnt religion based at all.

Usually it was based on high status people gaining multiple spouses, those who could afford to actually keep multiple spouses and children fed and protected.

There is a good book called the poison wood bible, long story short, there is a tribe in africa who's chief has multiple wives, because "he has a hard job and needs the extra help" in general polygamy was done because it was practical at the time.

 easysauce wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

I've gotten more flack about wanting polyamory then being bisexual or anything else really... Strange that.

Yup, its a real disconnect, our society accepts gays far more then natural hetero sexual males (who generally desire multiple partners) and society puts a huge amount of pressure on men to change/suppress their sexual preference from the natural, un-chosen state, of wanting many partners.

Basically we put all straight males through the equivalent of *stop being gay* camp to get them to conform to how we think their sexually *should* be, despite them being born a different way, and the most hypocritical part is that so many people see this as ok, encourage it, and so on.

Thats just being greedy, its nothing special.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Some animals pare bond, I don't think humans are meant to.

Of course we were. You're just forgetting the time scale. Originally, by the time you got bored, you were already dead.

This only became an issue once we decided the hyena races were fun and all, but the pointy sticks in our hands meant it when we said NO MEANS NO!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I'm still struggling to see how this wouldn't still reduce genetic diversity still.

Flip it around the other way: how would it reduce genetic diversity? Genetic diversity is about how much the children spread out from their parents,

That only works if the children survive. The family structure is ideally suited for that purpose.

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

They only have the asian center hall. Which is one hall on the entire campus. Its for international transfers.
But they have the LGBT & Allies hall which is so LGBT will not live around gay bashers and those uncomfortable around gays wont have to share a room

So again, I ask why isn't there a blacks only hall so that blacks can live apart from racists? Or an all Jews hall so they can live apart from anti-Semites?

Yeah there are far more homophobic people then racists and the like.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:


Yeah there are far more homophobic people then racists and the like.

Yeah, I'll need you to substantiate that.

Because I don't believe you.

Honestly, it makes sense. Or at least more people openly hostile to gay people vs openly hostile to other races.

 Ouze wrote:
It's like when someone dies, and inevitably someone has to break their fingers in their haste to let the people in that thread know they don't care about (whoever). Thanks for going in a thread and letting everyone participating know of your disinterest, I guess?

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the Flames of War section, because those guys need to know I don't play their game and am not really interested in doing so.

Do you remember years ago when LGBT activists campaigned to remove the stigma from being gay? When they wanted to make people more accepting of LGBT relationships? Maybe we could look at some of the "Ok....and?" comments here to show the progress that has been made on the issue, so that someone coming out as gay is no longer a huge issue. I think that is a more constructive way to look at things instead of seeking of societal equality, and then demanding to know why people are as interested in someone proclaiming that they are gay as someone proclaiming that they are straight.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:


Yeah there are far more homophobic people then racists and the like.

Yeah, I'll need you to substantiate that.

Because I don't believe you.

Because feelz.

Also, this is becoming seriously dangerously close to trying to "quantify" who has it the worst.