Polygamy poll.

[LordMagnusKain]

Does having the "right of a 12 year old boy to marry a 30 year old" harm society? In most people's view, yes.

The question I was posing was ?do we have a right to discriminate?, I was making the point with that last sentence. It does properly give us a point that people do disagree on, but that most of us agree we can make a moral judgment on.

If the only question is a socially destructive nature I can give you link after link showing the negative effects, physically, mentally, and socially of encouraging homosexual relations.

Utility is apparently not the question though, as the pro-gay-marriage people constantly argue, it?s a ?right?. The idea that it?s a right only comes from the pre-standing idea that homosexual sex is moral: otherwise it?s no more a right as polygamy, incest, or pedophilia level relationships being recognized in the same way.

two consenting adults

are you saying that tree consenting adults don?t have a right to have sex? What if they are brother and sister? Brother and brother?

And what makes the freedom of someone to act an a particular way a requirement that the state approve of said freedom?

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Does having the "right of a 12 year old boy to marry a 30 year old" harm society? In most people's view, yes.

The question I was posing was ?do we have a right to discriminate?, I was making the point with that last sentence. It does properly give us a point that people do disagree on, but that most of us agree we can make a moral judgment on.

If the only question is a socially destructive nature I can give you link after link showing the negative effects, physically, mentally, and socially of encouraging homosexual relations.

Utility is apparently not the question though, as the pro-gay-marriage people constantly argue, it?s a ?right?. The idea that it?s a right only comes from the pre-standing idea that homosexual sex is moral: otherwise it?s no more a right as polygamy, incest, or pedophilia level relationships being recognized in the same way.

That point you gave most people do NOT disagree on.

"The idea that it?s a right only comes from the pre-standing idea that homosexual sex is moral" This is circular. The morality of the act is inherent in the idea of "a right". Should we have rights that are not moral? Sure pro-gaymarriage people say it's a right, and anti gaymarriage people say it's immoral - they are arguing over the same issue, just injecting feeling into the debate; by calling on rights gays call on the weight of the constitution, by calling on morals antigays call on religion and God. But they are arguing over the same exact issue.

Utility is a very small part of the question - you left out the whole harm principle! In the most general cases, something should be a right if it does not harm individuals or society, and it is not dis-utile. Also in the most general cases, something is moral if it is not dis-utile. So morality is included in the idea of a right.

"If the only question is a socially destructive nature I can give you link after link showing the negative effects, physically, mentally, and socially of encouraging homosexual relations."

Good. But by showing me this you consider these destructive natures separately from polygamy, incest, pedophilia, which helps prove that they need to be considered as separate issues.

With regard to rights and morals - I think what it boils down it is simply religion, specifically Christianity. Antigays must call on the word of God to make their morals for them, while gayactivists believe that morality can exist separately from religion. Who's right? If there is a God, only he/she/it/whatever knows. Or no one knows.

 

[piasabird]

The fight against polygamy has been fought out in the courts in the early 1900's. Dont expect to be able to repeal polygamy laws. Plenty of Mormons went to jail over this.

What do stupid College students know about anything?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Does having the "right of a 12 year old boy to marry a 30 year old" harm society? In most people's view, yes.

The question I was posing was ?do we have a right to discriminate?, I was making the point with that last sentence. It does properly give us a point that people do disagree on, but that most of us agree we can make a moral judgment on.

If the only question is a socially destructive nature I can give you link after link showing the negative effects, physically, mentally, and socially of encouraging homosexual relations.

Utility is apparently not the question though, as the pro-gay-marriage people constantly argue, it?s a ?right?. The idea that it?s a right only comes from the pre-standing idea that homosexual sex is moral: otherwise it?s no more a right as polygamy, incest, or pedophilia level relationships being recognized in the same way.

two consenting adults

are you saying that tree consenting adults don?t have a right to have sex? What if they are brother and sister? Brother and brother?

And what makes the freedom of someone to act an a particular way a requirement that the state approve of said freedom?

I didn't think i had to point out what is obvious, incestous relationships carry a whole new perspective, only an idiot would even go there.

I'll rephrase it for those who are into the thumping, slipperly slope, moralists. Two consenting adults who are not related, it is pretty obvious.

I have had threesomes, foursomes, etc. so fvcking what, there is a difference between casual sex and marrying all of them.

The thing is, being pro something is to WANT something to happen, being pro-choice is not to deny anyone the choice, i am pro choice homo marriages, you are anti-choice, all the way, thumping your scripture as hard as you can, claiming that YOU know what is morally right and what is not.

You don't, morals are different from person to person, we generally agree that actions that hurts someone emotionally are immoral, that actions that hurt someone physically are illegal, beyond that is only opinion.

You can't base laws on opinions, there has to be a good reason, not a religious one (unless you want theocratic rules to be implemented in your society), not an idealistic one, a functional reason based on how it affects society and the people who live in it.

You need to take a step back and stop, stop rationalizing your moral ideas you get from the bible by claiming they are rational in some way by providing a slippery slope or "justice for all" argument, you are talking to the choir on one side and to others who will just dismiss you on the other, come up with something new and perhaps a bit more intelligent and i and those like me will perhaps listen instead of shaking our heads at you.

 

[Kadarin]

My feeling is that we should not legislate what consenting adults choose to do with their sexuality and their lives. How can we even claim that we live in a "free" country?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
My feeling is that we should not legislate what consenting adults choose to do with their sexuality and their lives. How can we even claim that we live in a "free" country?

The problem is that there are ALREADY laws that make a difference in peoples lifes when they are married.

It would be easy to abuse the system if there is no law against how many you can marry.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
My feeling is that we should not legislate what consenting adults choose to do with their sexuality and their lives. How can we even claim that we live in a "free" country?

Legislating against incest and legislating for incestuous marriage are two different things.

Same with gays, and multiple partners at the same time.

The only thing we have to ask with marrage is: do we have right?
Which we, of course, do.
And Should we?
Which should be answered on a state-by-state basis.

 

[1EZduzit]

Someone else may have already said this, but what about a gay, polygamus marriage? Is that OK also?


I think a Gay civil union betwen 2 adults is fine. I haven't been able to convince myself that a church wedding for gay people is proper at this point, but a legal civil union that gives the same rights as a church wedding is fine with me.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Someone else may have already said this, but what about a gay, polygamus marriage? Is that OK also?


I think a Gay civil union betwen 2 adults is fine. I haven't been able to convince myself that a church wedding for gay people is proper at this point, but a legal civil union that gives the same rights as a church wedding is fine with me.

Well, that would be up the the church, not the government or you.

 

[Stunt]

Why is pologamy even being compared to homosexuality.
Just because your piece fits in the front doesnt make your relationship more likely to work out.
There is already a 50% divorce rate with married couples.

If there was no longing for pologamy without gay marriage, there won't be with it.
To make a statement that gays are more sexual or more likely to cheat is totally off base.

pologamy is wrong as it is not a union of two people with love for each other. A third person would discredit the relationship.
This should render the marriage void.

Again, by allowing gay marriage, all hell will not break loose, all the gays i know are in long term life relationships with enormous love for each other.
To restrict their rights because of bias assumptions is just wrong imo.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Why is pologamy even being compared to homosexuality.

It is not being compared. What is being compared is the 'logic' of changing our marriage laws to remove the "arbitrary' condition that the parties involved must be of the opposite sex, yet ignoring the other 'arbitrary' condition that only 2 parties be involved.

Just because your piece fits in the front doesnt make your relationship more likely to work out. There is already a 50% divorce rate with married couples.

What's your point? I don't think that anyone is making the argument that 'straight' marriages 'work out' more often. I can believe that gay marriages would initially be more likely last longer, if only for the fact that many gay couples have been through many trying situations, testing their love for each other, thereby making them better partners.

If there was no longing for pologamy without gay marriage, there won't be with it.

Who said there isn't? I'm sure many people would like polygamy to be legalized.

To make a statement that gays are more sexual or more likely to cheat is totally off base.

Agreed.

pologamy is wrong as it is not a union of two people with love for each other. A third person would discredit the relationship. This should render the marriage void.

Wow? Aren't we just full of judgement? I think that 3 people loving each other is just as likely and 'natural' as 2 people of the same sex doing the same. Who are you to declare otherwise? You feel it's 'wrong' and therefore should not be allowed, but people who feel that homosexual marriage is 'wrong' are just discriminating? Hmm..

Again, by allowing gay marriage, all hell will not break loose, all the gays i know are in long term life relationships with enormous love for each other. To restrict their rights because of bias assumptions is just wrong imo.

So you believe that restricting the rights of gays 'because of bias' is wrong, but restricting the rights of polygamists 'because of bias' is OK? Does that not sound the least bit hypocritical to you?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

pologamy is wrong as it is not a union of two people with love for each other.

what a bigot!
what is it to you if people truly love each other and want to dedicate their lives to each other? you want to stand in the way of love? you judgmental bigot, how DARE you try to take their rights away!

... get it?

 

[Stunt]

I think that 3 people loving each other is just as likely and 'natural' as 2 people of the same sex doing the same. Who are you to declare otherwise? You feel it's 'wrong' and therefore should not be allowed, but people who feel that homosexual marriage is 'wrong' are just discriminating? Hmm..

If it is so natural and likely, how many 3 person relationships exist at the moment?
How many gays exist?...there are many more gays in the world and if you are saying that marriage between three people is natural, tell that to the church. At least there are churches/countries recognizing the Exclusive relationships that some/most gays have.

So you believe that restricting the rights of gays 'because of bias' is wrong, but restricting the rights of polygamists 'because of bias' is OK? Does that not sound the least bit hypocritical to you?

No not at all, if you look at rights, when rights are taken away from everyone...ie. patriot act, no group of people really complained as it was not singling out a certain type of person. But when it comes to marriage, defining it as a union of a man and a woman, this becomes an equality issue. One specific group given preference over another's lifestyle. This inequality makes it a rights issue.

Kain: the point of marriage is to recognize a bond between two people. I think it would be pointless to allow more than this. In the end the relationships is more likely to fall apart due to too many personality conflicts. If you can show me facts regarding a large number of long term pologamous relationships, i would be more open to this.

What is it about straight people that makes them so special that they are the only ones to experience a ceremony to show their immense love? Should this not be allowed for gays as well?

Pologamy doesn't become a rights issue because no matter which person you look at in the relationship, they DO have the ability to get married. Just not in the way they would ideally want.

To make a long story short. Gays have the right to wed. People in pologamy would have the same rights. Just not in their ideal state.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Ack! You've fallen into a common trap here. I can't believe you are not seeing your own hypocrisy in your posts.

Originally posted by: Stunt
If it is so natural and likely, how many 3 person relationships exist at the moment?
How many gays exist?...there are many more gays in the world and if you are saying that marriage between three people is natural, tell that to the church. At least there are churches/countries recognizing the Exclusive relationships that some/most gays have.

Are you saying that if a group has very small numbers, they don't deserve equal rights? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And why are you bringing the church into this? The church is the same argument that many people use against gay marriage, and now you are turning it around and using it against polygamy? Guess what? There are many churches that that also recognize polygamy as well. Why are your "gay-recognizing" churches better than the polygamy-recognizing ones? You are using a very weak argument here. In fact, there are probably more biblical references to the "rightness" of polygamy than to that of homosexuality. You've put yourself in a very bad position here by trying to drag religion into this argument. Best to just leave that alone.

No not at all, if you look at rights, when rights are taken away from everyone...ie. patriot act, no group of people really complained as it was not singling out a certain type of person. But when it comes to marriage, defining it as a union of a man and a woman, this becomes an equality issue. One specific group given preference over another's lifestyle. This inequality makes it a rights issue.

I fail to see how you can be so blind here. If the "definition" of marriage is 'unfair' because it limits the 'lifestyle' of a certain group, why doesn't that apply to polygamists as well? What's the difference? Inequality is inequality. The comparison of heterosexual to homosexual is just as valid as the one of monogymist to polygamist. Why do you get to declare that the first two are equal, but not the second two?

Kain: the point of marriage is to recognize a bond between two people. I think it would be pointless to allow more than this. In the end the relationships is more likely to fall apart due to too many personality conflicts. If you can show me facts regarding a large number of long term pologamous relationships, i would be more open to this.

Where did you get this definition of "the point of marriage is to recognize a bond between two people"? I could make the same argument that the 'point' of a marriage is the bond between a 'man and woman,' could I not? You think it would be pointless to allow more than this? So what? Why are you the all-knowing authority of what consenting adults should be able to do? And earlier you argued that it was not right to accuse homosexuals of being more sexually active or likely to cheat, yet you have no problem condemning polygamy based on your belief that "relationships is more likely to fall apart due to too many personality conflicts"? Again, congratulations that you have some opinions, even if they are misguided and biased.

What is it about straight people that makes them so special that they are the only ones to experience a ceremony to show their immense love? Should this not be allowed for gays as well?

To use your exact same logic against you: What is it about monogomists that makes them so special that they are the only ones to experience a ceremony to show immense love? This should not be allowed for polygamists as well? Are you getting this picture yet?

Pologamy doesn't become a rights issue because no matter which person you look at in the relationship, they DO have the ability to get married. Just not in the way they would ideally want.

?? Then the same can be said for homosexuals now, right? No one is preventing any homosexual person in the relationship to get married. Just not in the way they would ideally want (to another same sex partner.)

[/quote]To make a long story short. Gays have the right to wed. People in pologamy would have the same rights. Just not in their ideal state.[/quote]
Sorry, but you haven't done anything but proven the opposite. Saying you are right and others are wrong does not make it true. You've shown a severe bias in your opinions and that has led to an immense lack of logical reasoning. You've already made up your mind about what is 'right' and are using that as your only argument. That's not a recoqnized platform for debate by itself, unless you are 8 years old and are arguing on the playground. Think about why you believe what you do and try to think of some logical reasons why you are right. Then come back here and present them. Right now you are just rambling somewhat incoherently.