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, 05:14 AM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:12 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, 06:22 AM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:12 PM
this is sick and twisted showing a warped sense of right and wrong.


dbs
__________________

diamond is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 06:51 AM   #3
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 04:12 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, 07:05 AM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:12 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, 07:06 AM   #5
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 04:12 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, 07:07 AM   #6
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 04:12 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, 07:07 AM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:12 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, 07:11 AM   #8
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 04:12 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, 07:25 AM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:12 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, 07:25 AM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 03:12 PM
maycocksean is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 07:32 AM   #11
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 04:12 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, 07:41 AM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:12 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, 07:49 AM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,643
Local Time: 10:12 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, 07:52 AM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,643
Local Time: 10:12 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, 08:00 AM   #15
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 04:12 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  
Old 11-21-2006, 08:09 AM   #16
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,206
Local Time: 04:12 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, 08:14 AM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:12 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, 08:24 AM   #18
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 04:12 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, 08:33 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:12 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, 08:42 AM   #20
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 04:12 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  
 

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 03:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×