AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I can't say I am in favor of this - but it seems there is little to stop it.
Polygamists fight to decriminalize bigamy
Polygamists fight to decriminalize bigamy
Ormus said: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."
diamond said:this is sick and twisted showing a warped sense of right and wrong.
AEON said:So then, as I understand it - you have no problem with this?
Ormus said: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."
diamond said:There are fundamentalists that believe this, not Mormons.
Ormus said:
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?
AEON said:Thanks for the hillbilly visual.
Why not fast forward all the way through this and simply stay with the genuine definition of marriage?
Ormus said:
Again, what makes your religious beliefs any better than theirs? You still haven't answered this question.
AEON said:
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 said: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 said: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?
Ormus said:
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?
AEON said: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).
Ormus said:
Care to try again?
AEON said: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.
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.AEON said:
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.
A_Wanderer said:many of the arguments in favour of gay marriage should cross over into this arena provided that the marriage involves consenting parties.
Ormus said:
." If people like Dennis Prager are your biggest cheerleaders
A_Wanderer said:Sorry? Firstly Satanists are a mirror on Christians - they do not sacrifice babies -
Ormus said:
If that's the best you can come up with, then we might as well legalize polygamy.
AussieU2fanman said: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.
Ormus said: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."
BonoVoxSupastar said:
This is what it comes down to and exactly why AEON and Diamond don't have a leg to stand on in this thread.
Damn you let those bloody homosexuals start coupling and see what happens?AEON said:
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?