Polygamists fight to decriminalize bigamy - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-21-2006, 09:09 AM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 29,682
Local Time: 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Well - this goes back to many of my posts in the gay marriage threads. I think once you stray from the definition of marriage between one man and one woman - eventually the term will become meaningless and then we'll start over from scratch. And then we will be back to where we started - marriage is between one man and one woman.

Why not fast forward all the way through this and simply stay with the genuine definition of marriage?


ah, the "genuine" definition of marriage. i really wonder how Memphis and i would degrade that so horribly that men will marry dogs and women will marry snakes and one child will have dozens of mothers.

the slippery slope works in the other direction -- once you've enshired opposing genders as a requirement for marriage into law, what's next? same race? same religion? same income?

this cuts both ways.

the polygamists are free to fight their own battles. that's fine. i don't agree with them, and that's based not on a sense that polygamy is some sort of moral wrong but that the historical models for polygamist relationships are inherently exploitative and sexist, that it's one many with many younger women. if someone were to make a compelling argument that there's a real need for the social recognition of poly relationships, then i'm happy to listen and re-evaluate, but don't for a second conflate the polygamist desire for marriage rights with those of us fighting for marriage equality.

the point you miss is this: a heterosexual polygamist has the right to get married. to one other heterosexual. he/she is not in denied marriage rights by the state. he might prefer to marry many women -- (and the argument of religious discrimination, which i'm sure is very appealing to many in here because freedom of religion seems to be the most important civil right to many and how dare we let someone else's rights trample on how we are able to express our religious views and in fact we are discriminated against if the government fails to perfectly reflect our own religious views!) -- but simply because i might prefer to marry Daniel Craig doesn't mean that i am discriminated against because i am unable to do so. for the polygamist, on the basis of his/her sexual orientation, marriage is an option. a homosexual still HAS NO OPTIONS.

so stop comparing the two. there is no comparison to be made.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 09:14 AM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 3,696
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


Well, come on, you've said before that marriage is all about the children. The children. Won't somebody please think of the children?

Polygamous marriages have more per capita children than monogamous marriages. Reading that article, one family had 21 children. Osama bin Laden has over 50 brothers and sisters (and, just to state the obvious, even only children in a nuclear family can turn out to be psychotic; I'm just using family size as an example).

If marriage is about the children, children, children, wouldn't you want a family structure with lots of...you know...children? The nuclear family "ideal" is a relatively modern construction, ultimately dating since the Industrial Revolution. Joint/extended families were far more common, and, as I've demonstrated, complex families date back to the book of Genesis.

Maybe it's time to admit that the nuclear family is a failed sociological experiment? Won't somebody please think of the children?
While I do think children are important - I think you are confusing me with someone else when you say that I think it is all about the children.

There are obviously limits to religious tolerance. I am not saying this is one of the cases - but to make the argument solely on religious tolerance won't succeed. If Satanists want to come chop up your baby for a sacrifice based on their religious beliefs - I am certain most of us would say "no." (I certainly hope so).

There is more at play here than simple religious tolerance.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 09:24 AM   #18
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
While I do think children are important - I think you are confusing me with someone else when you say that I think it is all about the children.

There are obviously limits to religious tolerance. I am not saying this is one of the cases - but to make the argument solely on religious tolerance won't succeed. If Satanists want to come chop up your baby for a sacrifice based on their religious beliefs - I am certain most of us would say "no." (I certainly hope so).
Who needs Satan when you have God? After all, didn't God command Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac? He would have done it too, had God not changed his mind.

I'm not the one who bases all my arguments on religious beliefs. I already have an argument against polygamy, which I'm sure I shall share later.

I'm challenging you to come up with one on something more than "Eww....that's gross," and "The Bible says...." If people like Dennis Prager are your biggest cheerleaders for the status quo, you're screwed, because his arguments were full of sexist stereotypes.

"A woman makes a man a better person; and a man does the same for a woman."

So wouldn't five women make a man five times as better of a person?

If you were sent to Saudi Arabia and had to tell a Muslim why polygamy was wrong, what would you say? "The Bible says..." would get shouted down with "The Koran says..." So there goes your religious arguments. Care to try again?
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 09:33 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 3,696
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus

Care to try again?
Not really. I vote my convictions just as you do - and as do the Mormons, as do the Muslims, as do the secular humanists...etc.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 09:42 AM   #20
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Not really. I vote my convictions just as you do - and as do the Mormons, as do the Muslims, as do the secular humanists...etc.
If that's the best you can come up with, then we might as well legalize polygamy.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 09:50 AM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


While I do think children are important - I think you are confusing me with someone else when you say that I think it is all about the children.

There are obviously limits to religious tolerance. I am not saying this is one of the cases - but to make the argument solely on religious tolerance won't succeed. If Satanists want to come chop up your baby for a sacrifice based on their religious beliefs - I am certain most of us would say "no." (I certainly hope so).

There is more at play here than simple religious tolerance.
Sorry? Firstly Satanists are a mirror on Christians - they do not sacrifice babies - their beliefs seem more rooted in the idea of antitheism, being against God. Secondly this isn't an issue of the state sanctioning anything religious, it is about the right of people to elect to enter into relationships with legal recognition; many of the arguments in favour of gay marriage should cross over into this arena provided that the marriage involves consenting parties.

I am in favour of legalising polygamy, polygyny and polyandry and everything in between, I don't see why they should be opposed off the bat.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 10:04 AM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 29,682
Local Time: 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
many of the arguments in favour of gay marriage should cross over into this arena provided that the marriage involves consenting parties.


which arguments?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 10:08 AM   #23
Refugee
 
AussieU2fanman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,638
Local Time: 12:51 PM
I agree with Irvine in that whilst the issues of gay marriage and polgamy do share similar arguments (as long as its consentual yadda yadda), it's quite well known that these types of systems of polygamy are very exploitative and I don't think it should be legalised.
__________________
AussieU2fanman is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 10:17 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 07:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


." If people like Dennis Prager are your biggest cheerleaders
I am a cheerleader of Dennis Prager's of the first order, although we differ on smokers' rights.
dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 10:32 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 3,696
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Sorry? Firstly Satanists are a mirror on Christians - they do not sacrifice babies -
I apologize - I suppose I had too many movie images in my mind.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 10:35 AM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 3,696
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


If that's the best you can come up with, then we might as well legalize polygamy.
Melon - you know where I stand on this issue because everything in the other threads about gay marriage holds true here. Please feel free to go back and cut and paste all of my other posts - I simply don't want to.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 11:07 AM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 29,682
Local Time: 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AussieU2fanman
I agree with Irvine in that whilst the issues of gay marriage and polgamy do share similar arguments (as long as its consentual yadda yadda), it's quite well known that these types of systems of polygamy are very exploitative and I don't think it should be legalised.


actually, i don't agree that the same arguments apply to polygamists.

i don't see where the civil rights of a polygamist are violated -- unless we are to understand the illegality of polygamy as a form of religious discrimination.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 11:25 AM   #28
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 38,315
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus
Well, this is the slippery slope when we start defining marriage based on religious beliefs. There are Mormons who clearly believe that their religion encourages polygamous marriages. So why do your religious beliefs automatically trump theirs? After all, this is "religious freedom."
This is what it comes down to and exactly why AEON and Diamond don't have a leg to stand on in this thread.

I have my issues with polygamy, none of which are religious, that I've argued ad naseum in other threads.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 11-21-2006, 12:38 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


This is what it comes down to and exactly why AEON and Diamond don't have a leg to stand on in this thread.



Im against both for different reasons.

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 12:44 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,359
Local Time: 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Thanks for the hillbilly visual.


Well - this goes back to many of my posts in the gay marriage threads. I think once you stray from the definition of marriage between one man and one woman - eventually the term will become meaningless and then we'll start over from scratch. And then we will be back to where we started - marriage is between one man and one woman.

Why not fast forward all the way through this and simply stay with the genuine definition of marriage?
Damn you let those bloody homosexuals start coupling and see what happens?

__________________

__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com