Reply With Quote
Actually, now that I think about it, I'm not really sure. Maybe ugly, short guys would never get laid?
Well, personally I am not entirely sold on why polygamy should be illegal.
This IS NOT me trying to argue this, I sincerely wish for you to enlighten me.
I have asked my fiancee, and she said because polygamy can lead to the exploitation about young girls. However, those are two conflated issues. If there are age laws, polygamy should be considered a different issue.
So, what are the societal problems with occasional cases of polygamy?
Actually, now that I think about it, I'm not really sure. Maybe ugly, short guys would never get laid?
lol, I guess you are right.
Does anyone really think that heterosexuals are quietly sitting back and waiting for gay marriage to be legalized so that they can become gay? That would be a complete misunderstanding of what being gay is. The attraction and love is the same for gay and straight. Too many people want to pass judgement on other peoples lifestyles.
Chump is just trying make you understand that ventilation systems do not work. Not the idea of ventilation systems. I smoke. My vice that I would never expose on anyone else, ever. I live in a city where smoking has been banned from the entire city, including outdoors. It's one of my favorite laws ever passed.
Polygamy traditionally has involved the subjugation of women. Look at FLDS practices. Allowing polygamy would permit the resurgence of those subcultures.
You may be alluding to free-thinking polyamorous groups. I'm not aware of any real push for polyamorous group households to receive state recognition. Such people would be much more likely to eschew the concept of marriage in the first place.
So while hte theoretical concept of allowing polygamy might make sense in the cloistered world of an academic free-thinker, practically, it would be a deleteriously regressive move for society.
And why is a Christian rationale any worse than a non-Christian rationale?
Earlier, you said that laws should be based upon what is "right" for society, that is, what benefits individuals the most. In other words, you defined what "right" is. In other words, you established a moral basis by which laws should be promulgated.
Logic and reason alone are not sufficient to define a system of law without first establishing a moral basis, whatever that might be. I could quite reasonably argue the utility of killing off the old and sick without the means to be cared for. It would save the rest of society a lot of money that could better be used for more productive people. However, one of the moral bases of our society is the value of individual lives, so such an argument would be beyond the pale.
And a religiously-informed moral basis is not a bad thing. Say somebody wants to help the poor because Jesus taught people to show compassion. Is their view invalid unless they can logically demonstrate the socioeconomic benefits of helping the poor?
However, I don't really think you meant that as it came across. I believe you meant something along the lines that those coming from a Christian-infomed moral view need something beyond religious dogma in order to justify political positions that would curtail personal freedom.
I disagree. (as politically incorrect as that might be)
(playing devil's advocate here, ES)
But hasn't polygamy been illegal since long before it was considered a bad thing to subjugate women?
Are you arguing that a law which one might have been religiously based could now be something more than that?
It's funny that Extra Stout approves of orphan's being raised by gay couples but would prefer that those families be put at a decided disadvantage regarding spousal benefits that marriage or civil unions would provide. It's an odd kind of discrimination and one that doesn't hold up under logic just because one finds their consentual sexual practices distasteful. It's saying these folks are good enough to be your parents, but altogether you are legally prohibited from being a family.
Societies have tended to decide long ago that polygamy was a bad idea. The dynamic that develops is of wealthy older men dominating several young women. There are many attendant social problems, such as prevalence of uneducated young widows, inheritance problems, and lots of violent crime as a surplus of young men compete for scarce young women.
And it is not clear that "religious" proscription of polygamy has always held. Following the Reformation, Protestants were relatively soft on polygamy. Luther allowed it. The city of Nuremburg is famous for allowing polygygny of up to ten wives following the Thirty Years' War (since there were so few men left to procreate).
But before long, Protestants too decided that polygamy was a bad idea.
You fail reading comprehension.
Ah, I read everything too quickly. So, is this an approval of civili unions?
I'm with AH. Why are your friends stupid just because they disagree with you? Ever consider it's you that's stupid?
1) Why should gays not be allowed to adopt?
The natural order of things is that heterosexual people have intercourse, the female of the species becomes pregnant, and the couple raises the resulting offspring using the template of their values, morals, and worldview. That's the natural order of things.
And, until we have definitively settled the question of nature vs. nurture, I'm only in favor of children being raised by families that fit that template and share those values, morals, and worldview. This could include heterosexual couples unable to bear children and single heterosexual persons who, due to premature death of a spouse or divorce, are not married to a person of the opposite sex.
It does not include sexual men or women. Now, if it is ever determined - to my satisfaction - that sexuality is entirely genetic and not engendered, in any way, by environmental cir stances, I would change this opinion. But, I remain unconvinced.
2) Why should gays not be allowed to marry?
I really don't think that is the issue -- except maybe with some religious zealots that are caught up on semantics.
I'm not opposed to sexuals entering into life-long relationships that are contractually sealed in a ceremony that is called marriage. The two things I oppose are:
* Any attempt to force churches -- opposed to such unions -- to perform them, and;
* All government en lements and benefits that are contingent upon marriage; thus making the insitution of marriage desirable for political reasons and not because two people just want to be togther for eternity. Marriage has historically been a religious ins ution and it was only when there were bureaucratic advantages to being married did anyone else decide they wanted to become so.
Just as I think government should get out of the charity business, I also believe they should be out of the marriage business.
Most of the complaints about gays not being allowed to marry come from the premise that they do not enjoy the same government "perks" as do married couples. I agree. Therefore, let's do away with the "perks."
If you want to insure your dependents, you pay for it. It doesn't matter if you're insuring your wife, husband, life partner, child, or the homeless guy under the bridge on IH-35.
Same with the tax benefits and whatever else is allowed simply because two people have a marriage contract. I think such bargains have only sullied the ins ution of marriage.
Now, I wouldn't prohibit private companies from including dependents on insurance coverage based on whatever criteria they chose but, I wouldn't force them include coverage for anyone beyond the employee.
Ideally, I think employers should not be involved in providing health insurance to employees anyway. They should pay employees a salary commensurate with the job and without deducting anything from their pay. It only confuses people like cherylsteele.
Employees should provide for their own retirement account, their own insurance, and devise their own method for making sure they've saved enough to pay their taxes every April 15.
I think such a system would make people truly appreciate just how much of their money is sucked up by the government to be spent on foolish government en lements.
[/rant off]
There have got to be some studies of children raised by gay parents. If those parents gave them with gay, you'd think that would be a talking point for the opponents of adoption by gays.1) Why should gays not be allowed to adopt?
The natural order of things is that heterosexual people have intercourse, the female of the species becomes pregnant, and the couple raises the resulting offspring using the template of their values, morals, and worldview. That's the natural order of things.
And, until we have definitively settled the question of nature vs. nurture, I'm only in favor of children being raised by families that fit that template and share those values, morals, and worldview. This could include heterosexual couples unable to bear children and single heterosexual persons who, due to premature death of a spouse or divorce, are not married to a person of the opposite sex.
It does not include sexual men or women. Now, if it is ever determined - to my satisfaction - that sexuality is entirely genetic and not engendered, in any way, by environmental cir stances, I would change this opinion. But, I remain unconvinced.
never ceases to amaze me how someone can quote "freedom of thought" and end to censorship all the while arguing for denying the freedoms of others.
...never ceases to amaze how someone can enter a 6 page thread, pull a single sentence out of context and think they can make a point with it...
was that not what you were doing? claiming you should be afforded the freedom to think and say what you want, all the while advocating for denying gays the freedom to marry?
The two issues don't equate.
For one, there is a specific right, enumerated in the cons ution, that people are free to express themselves so long as such expression doesn't deny another their cons utional rights. And, I'm not even sure "freedom of thought" can be influenced one way or the other.
There is no cons utional right to marriage, not even gay marriage.
You think your friends are stupid and you come up with this analogy?
So for you, the color of the skin (or religion, or gender, or which ever dumb analogy you come up with next) is the same as somebody blowing smoke in my face, something that in the long run might actually kill me?
Unless you prove me right, I gave you more credit than what you deserve.
Another poor analogy (but better than the last one). Cero for two.
It depends on the actions of that certain someone. That’s why there are laws to stop people from doing things that harm other people. It’s pretty straight forward
I ever said I was.
by that line of thought it would be alright to deny blacks or hispanics the right to marry, since the right to marry isn't enumerated in the cons ution?
EDIT: I can see that this whole argument boils down to wether or not you believe sexuality is genetic or simply a choice.
Last edited by MaNuMaNiA; 09-25-2006 at 02:18 PM.
Sure you can. What about noise ordinances? HOA regulations?Because you can not demand that someone change their actions because it bothers you.
Yep. You're right.
On the subject of cigarettes (if that is still a valid digression of this thread) ... I'm surprised no one ever mentioned the quality of life aspect.
Furthermore, I have a tougher question. What about parents who subjugate their children to second-hand smoke and show complete disregard for their health? Should the consent of children who don't know any better be neglected? Should it matter that this is going on in the personal 'sanc y' of that smoker's home?
Last edited by Phenomanul; 09-25-2006 at 02:33 PM.
I used to think it was genetic because why would anyone choose to have so much stress, pressure, controversy, etc in their life. Then I met Boutons, he clearly has made a choice on this one.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
