Total tangent, but this isn't entirely correct. One of the easiest efficiencies that can be reached with cloning plants and animals is in production. Running broad numbers with thin strains of genetics definitely does risk pandemic. It's happened before with simply selective breeding with plants and southern corn leaf blight and the like. It doesn't help with bees. Cloning is just a much bigger step down the same path.
I wasn't talking about it in broad numbers, since that wasn't the common public rejection at the time. I'm aware of the risk for stuff like bananas getting screwed over by disease that is over-threatening due to limited genetic diversity. The outcry at the time (at least as I recall it, I was young) was mostly moral, not an evaluation of the risk of lack of genetic diversity leading to a farming catastrophe or something. That kind of massed procedure wasn't even feasible to my knowledge and it's hard to imagine it being cheaper even if it were.
It had and has the potential to be very useful tech if used properly. That doesn't mean you clone 20,000 cows, but it has uses that shouldn't be a serious risk of pandemic.
No this is gross and you're missing my point. There are fundamental differences in the situations between incest and being gay. You do a massive disservice to conflate the two - as big a disservice as those that claim gay = pedo in the first place.
On the contrary, I'm pointing out a disservice I observe in your argument. The only proven difference between incest and my example is that kids with the lack of genetic diversity have serious risk factors. What you're saying is similar rationale to "gay people cause HIV" or "X population commits Y% of crime". If you reject that rationale elsewhere, it doesn't make sense to use it now just because a particular concept (group marriage) bothers you.
They are not equivalent things to begin with and the very nature of the relationships have to be taken into account. This makes the comparisons of the arguments against these things bunk, which was my point.
You claim bunk, but you're not demonstrating bunk.
Can this thread please be closed?
Frankly, this is disgusting. Notice how there are no women participating in this "discussion?" I'm assuming not. This thread is just oozing with male privilege.
Quoted isn't a respectable position. Frankly, you don't know who posts on this forum is a man/woman/etc unless the poster discloses it. Asking to blanket censor topics w/o basis because you happen not to like them, however, is more distasteful than any other post made in this thread.
As a survivor of domestic abuse and domestic slavery, this whole thread is deeply disturbing. Not just what's being said, but how it's allowed to even exist. You all have no idea what life is like for women in these types of situations. You seem like you can't imagine the types of pressures this would put on women. We've made so much progress toward equality, this would be a huge step backward.
Domestic abuse is a serious issue and it happens frequently. Unfortunately, this is not a unique property to "group marriages". It happens with all relationship types. Singling out group relationships w/o showing some kind of substantive basis for doing so is prejudice. Presumably, if you were aware of the existence of such information you would have linked/presented it. That's still on the table if you can.
Otherwise, it's strange call some ideas bigoted and then behave identically when a concept one happens not to like comes up.
Unless you dramatically change our society writ large, if you legalize this practice, you will likely see more prominent (and egregious) examples of Mormon-style polygamy pop up. That's because as a society that's where we're kind of at, even if there are pockets of totally liberated people mixed in.
Again, very similar rationale was presented to outlaw homosexual relationships, right down to how it would impact society + how society would react.
Other than it being in line with your fantasies, is there any reason the rest of us should "face this" as if it were a given fact?
Mathematics dictate that it won't be a fact, unless there's some kind of major war or similar to lower male population. Though one might reasonably anticipate a larger fraction of men who women won't date at all (favoring poly relationships) and predict for some consequences of that. The extent this would happen isn't obvious though, and there would also be 1 woman + multiple men situations.
