I don't know about polyandry (is that something I'd regret googling?) but I don't have a problem with polygamy so long as none of the participants are forced. I think religious polygamy* (where the husband is allowed to have multiple wives but women lack the same right) as wrong, but only because it's blatantly unfair.

* I say religious because that seems to be the way Christian, Muslim and Hindu polygamy works.

polyandry is specifically one woman with multiple husbands

so she has several men who sit around and watch sports, won't give up the remote and refuse to ask for directions? lol

OH MY GOSH...now this is the most UNNATURAL thing I've ever heard of. One husband is enough...I can't imagine having multiples. With three teenage boys and one husband in the house....there's no way I'd want MORE men in the house.

Just whisper the word "bathroom" to any knowing female, and she'd get "it" in a real hurry.

As far as Washington goes, he left behind a huge 100 or so set of volumes behind so it's really easy to know what was on his mind. I recently read this:

Washington on Gays in the Military
We don't have to wonder what Washington thought about homosexuals in the service because he communicated his position by his actions and his words in this General Order for March 14, 1778:

At a General Court Martial wereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be disniss'd [from] the service with infamy. His excellency the Commander in Chief [Washington] approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.
George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, ed. (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1934), Vol. XI, pp.83-84, from General Orders at Valley Forge on March 14, 1778.

Jefferson on Homosexuality
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia in which he directed that the penalty for sodomy should be castration. See Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed. (Washington, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Vol. I, pp.226-27, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments."


WWW Link

I wasn't condoning it. I was simply asking if he was consistent in his standards.

Really? A woman who regularly sleeps with more than one man is the most unnatural thing you've ever heard of? You really need to get out more. Many female 'friends' of professional football teams engage in this behaviour.

i can't stand things like "people who think its a choice, are quite frankly morons on the issue".
to any rational person, its obviously a choice.
i really don't have anything against gays, but it doesn't matter what you think in your head, or who you are attracted to, if you act on it, you've made a choice.
hard choice or the hardest choice. its still a choice.

Prove it. You're playing the rational head here. It doesn't matter if someone points out 100 people who shifted to heterosexuality after being "gay" during their lives, it is just assumed they weren't gay to begin with. You'd think someone as smart as you would see the twisted logic in this stance.

It's like someone saying that being, say, Californian is a predisposition. Sure, a lot of people move away from California after living there, but that doesn't prove its a choice, only that they weren't REALLY Californian. Oddly, when people start talking about discovering whatever physical attribute causes this lack of choice and "curing" it, then choice enters into the picture again...

It's really not difficult to test this and I don't know why it hasn't been tested. You can find out if a man could get off on sex with a man just by subjecting them to the porn test. If they get an erection from watching gay porn, they're gay or bisexual. If not, they're not. If they get an erection from watching straight porn, they're probably into women (this is difficult to prove cos straight porn by definition involves a man...).

For moralists to be right then every participant would need to get an erection in both instances. Why? Because the baseline of their argument is that it is a rational choice. For it to be a rational choice there must be a pay-off from both options. So that would mean that all those who call being gay a preference must themselves find men as equally attractive as women.

Strangely enough I've never heard someone who believes in preferences make that argument. I wonder why?

Come on. Somehow men father families before realizing they are gay. Some people consider themselves bi-sexual. Some people get erections watching animals screw and people go to the bathroom. So we invent types for them, too? What about the people that get erections doing other people harm? No, simply getting turned on doesn't prove anything.

I'm not going to be crass and ask your experience, but I know for a fact just grabbing any porno off the shelf isn't a guaranteed erection for me. A lot of it is just mundane and boring. Watching a closeup of some guy's saggy balls bouncing against some dried up catcher's mitt for 10 minutes isn't my idea of a turn on.

the ignorance continues...who are you to say that it is wrong for them to act on a natural biological need???

i grew up in a very conservative household (and that goes well beyond politics) and was taught that gay people don't want to marry (this is in the 70's when i started asking questions) and that they just hopped from bed to bed. i was taught all homosexuals were permiscuous sex addicts with no relationship interest whatsoever.

as i grew up and started playing music in public in my teenage years, i started hanging out with more "artsy" crowds than i was exposed to from my parents. i got to know many homosexual couples, both male and female. and i learned and observed 1st hand how some of these relationships were more stable and natural than some of the straight couples i knew.

yeah, there were still some "flamers" and some permiscuous folk, but the vast majority of homosexuals wanted exactly what straight people wanted. a stable, loving relationship. and many of em wanted to "make it official."

this wasn't a political statement. the issue wasn't even up for debate then. gay people were just trying not to be the victims of blatant violence against them. the issue of actually being accepted enough to attempt or asking to get married wouldn't come up for another decade in the political landscape.

i understand some people's resentment of gays. i grew up seeing the "mardi-gras on acid" style "gay pride" parades that the evening news would show. of course, they would always show the most outlandish, flamboyant "newsmakers." and like most people, i was not only shocked about what they were showing me, i was a little scared.

but as i grew up, and got to know some actual gay people, i learned and realized that like most other "10%'ers" those "flamers" garnered more attention and appeared to be larger in numbers than they actually deserved or were.

but the most obvious thing was that they weren't making any "choice." they were simply being who they were.

up until 1967, it was illegal in many states for an interracial couple to marry. states like alabama refused to change their state constitution until the year 2000. opponents of interracial marriage damned it as "unnatural." the law pre 67 was such that people thought that it was a "choice" to love a person of another race...and they disapproved of that choice. but in the end, reason won out over hatred and bigotry...eve nwhen it was masked in laws that appeared to prevent people from making those "unnatural choices."

You've got to be kidding? And this is considered a Scientific Test in your opinion? Some test. Too bad the Scientists haven't figured out exactly how simple this is huh?

Well what about a little baby boy who has errection when his diaper is changed? What does that mean?

What about the boys were were aroused by pedophiles? Were they gay as well? I know of one case where 7 boys in one family were abused by one Priest. Does that mean the whole family of boys were gay? Or were they "turned" gay by these same men by messing with their minds? It all starts with the brain. It all starts with the thoughts. That's the key. Not a porn flick.



No that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about the reverse polygamy where a wife has more than one husband. Big difference. Selling one's body for an hour or two for income is NOT the same as taking multiple husbands. Geeeesh

you have completely missed the point here kfc.

according to this logic, pot should be legal as well, cause washington grew it. slavery would still be around, cause washington had them.

the statement i quote from washington in the article has to do with the progression of a society. washington saw that society would evolve, and more and more segments would clammer for their rights and such. washington wanted us to be on the forefront of that progressiveness and keep the door open to others who were looking for the same as they were.

in the 1700's, we were still burnin "witches" at the stake and using leeches as medicine.

I did?



He did?



Washington was also a man of God who believed the laws of God superceded the laws of man. It's hard for me to believe he'd be THAT progressive.

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor… we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations…"
-- George Washington, Oct. 3, 1789

No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States."
--President George Washington, First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789