Polygamists fight to decriminalize bigamy - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-21-2006, 06:14 AM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:38 PM
Polygamists fight to decriminalize bigamy

I can't say I am in favor of this - but it seems there is little to stop it.



Polygamists fight to decriminalize bigamy
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 07:22 AM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:38 PM
this is sick and twisted showing a warped sense of right and wrong.


dbs
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 07:51 AM   #3
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 04:38 PM
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."
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 08:05 AM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:38 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."
So then, as I understand it - you have no problem with this?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 08:06 AM   #5
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
this is sick and twisted showing a warped sense of right and wrong.
So what makes it sick and twisted? Their religious beliefs say that it's an ideal, just as your religious beliefs say otherwise. Some people could say that your comment here is an assault against religious freedom.

I'm giving you and AEON a bit of a hard time, because I want to hear arguments beyond "Ewwww....It's gross!" and "The Bible tells me....". The first is irrelevant, because the thought of two hillbillies marrying makes me want to vomit, and we're not about to start limiting marriages to attractive people, and the second is irrelevant in light of these people's religious beliefs.

So there goes your two knee-jerk arguments. Next?
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 08:07 AM   #6
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
So then, as I understand it - you have no problem with this?
Read my reply to diamond.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 08:07 AM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:38 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."
Wrong.

There are fundamentalists that believe this, not Mormons.

Get it right.

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 08:11 AM   #8
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
There are fundamentalists that believe this, not Mormons.
I never said "all Mormons." I think that some of our comrades here would take offense if I started referring to certain Christians as "fundamentalists" in such a derogatory tone like this. Where's your religious tolerance? They're allowed to dissent from orthodox Mormonism just as you're allowed to dissent from Roman Catholicism. Our country has a tradition of allowing heresy to flourish.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 08:25 AM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


So what makes it sick and twisted? Their religious beliefs say that it's an ideal, just as your religious beliefs say otherwise. Some people could say that your comment here is an assault against religious freedom.

I'm giving you and AEON a bit of a hard time, because I want to hear arguments beyond "Ewwww....It's gross!" and "The Bible tells me....". The first is irrelevant, because the thought of two hillbillies marrying makes me want to vomit, and we're not about to start limiting marriages to attractive people, and the second is irrelevant in light of these people's religious beliefs.

So there goes your two knee-jerk arguments. Next?
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?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 08:25 AM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:38 PM
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 08:32 AM   #11
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Thanks for the hillbilly visual.
I considered visuals of old people sex, but I had to prioritize my sense of revulsion.

Quote:
Why not fast forward all the way through this and simply stay with the genuine definition of marriage?
Why not rewind and go back to how marriage was defined in the Pentateuch? I mean, I'm sure that many people would love to take multiple wives, and, if they were infertile, have a large body of concubines. As I noted, Jewish law defined "adultery" as a married woman cheating on her husband, not the other way around. As such, it was fully lawful to take more than one wife. And the concubines made sure that marriage stayed strictly to the purpose that you advocate: childbearing.

Again, what makes your religious beliefs any better than theirs? You still haven't answered this question.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 08:41 AM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus



Again, what makes your religious beliefs any better than theirs? You still haven't answered this question.
Well - that is a loaded question. I am sure we all in some way feel our religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are in some way "better" than others - or else we wouldn't have them.

If you are asking why I think the conservative Christian definition is the "better" option and should be the legal definiton is because I quit simply, in the end, think it makes the most sense - biologically, sociologically, and theologically.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 08:49 AM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 09:38 PM
I would say since religion and state has to be divided a hundred per cent, and the thinking of monogamy is a clear christian ideal, it's really hard to accept that polygamy is a crime, even more, it's a felony. If everybody is over 18, and wants to live in a polygamistic way it should be as legal as being gay and married.

I myself wouldn't want to live in a polygamic way, and I'm by far not a fan of the Mormon church, but I think people shouldn't say they are tolerant on the one hand, and on the other hand criminalise everything that isn't supported by their belief.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 08:52 AM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 09:38 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?
Why not just define what marriage means to you, and letting others define what marriage means to them?

I mean, do you feel less married because there are also two men or two women married?

Or in this case one man with more than one woman?
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 09:00 AM   #15
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
If you are asking why I think the conservative Christian definition is the "better" option and should be the legal definiton is because I quit simply, in the end, think it makes the most sense - biologically, sociologically, and theologically.
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?
__________________

__________________
Ormus 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 03:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com