Polygamy

[Danmark]

Issue for debate:
"There is nothing inherently immoral or unbiblical about polygamy."

[OpenYourEyes]

My prediction is that this will start to happen state-by-state. Where it says polygamy in the article insert incest, animal lovers, pedophiles, etc.

you are using the 'slippery slope' argument, which is a FALLACY. It's also obnoxious. There is no comparison between same sex marriage and polygamy, though evangelicals have been using this trope for years, in the 'what next, POLYGAMY?" You can understand that given my own religious tradition, this would be annoying, as well as logically fallacious.

Just for clarity, i did not claim that polygamy and same-sex marriage were comparable in every aspect. The two involve marriage so thats a simple comparison and gay marriage can involve 3 men marrying each other. And yes in my view some, not all, of the reasoning that led to same-sex marriage can be justify polygamy, ie consenting adults, marital equality, the right to privacy (used by polygamist Kody Brown to decriminalize cohabitation with multiple wives) , etc. Chief Justice Roberts shared similar sentiments after the recent Supreme Court ruling for same-sex marriage.

I'll go a bit further, not only will some polygamists use some of the same arguments but some will use some of the same tactics that same-sex marriage supporters used to legalize their marriages. Going state to state to test the law is not far fetched. The article i posted clearly explains the rationale of polygamist Nathan Collier. Then we have the social media and tv shows to help normalize the lifestyle.

Also, ive heard arguments on both sides regarding polygamy in the Bible and i look at this in terms of likelihood, with monogamy being more likely to be the way God intended. I can not explain David, Solomon, and some of the others people brought up here so ill get back to you on that. My main point is polygamy and the process in legitimizing it can be likened to same sex marriage and some ways.

[dianaiad]

From Post 37:

Joey, you are talking to someone who knows, from rather personal family history, what happens when the government redefines marriage and then insists that religion go along with that redefinition.

Again I say, Gladys Knight & The Supremes have not "redefined" anything.

You are aware that Gladys Knight is a Mormon, right?

Did I miss the joke?

They merely said that in the land of we's all equal, how goofy'd it be if we said some others of us ain't.

You seem to insist that the only definition of marriage is one you allow.

Not exactly. What I SAID is that YOU believe that the definition of marriage that you approve of is the only one YOU allow, and that it is perfectly OK to force everybody to go along with it.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 37 by dianaiad]

Fine. Go. Be happy. But do not force those who disagree with the religious aspects of marriage to participate in your wedding, or to recognize it within their belief systems, or allow you to demand their services and property in order to celebrate it.

I know I sound like a broken record. But there is this thing called a social club or association, or a private group/club/association. That can restrict to whom they distribute services to.

You can legally discriminate all you want. Ignorance of the law does not mean you are allowed to break the law. If you want to discriminate on sexaulity form a private baking/photography/wedding club. When you sign your business license to operate within the state of operation, you agree to the terms and laws of that state. Hence if you get a business licesnse for public accomodation you unfortunately have to abide by that agreement. It is sort of like if, I get a license to operate a day care I dont get to choose which races to serve. Or if I own a resteraunt I have to abide by the health and fire codes.

Now if I form a private association day care that is not open to public accomodation I can discriminate all I want.

This idea that all of the sudden christians are going to be persecuted by the state is hogwash and you know it.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 40 by OpenYourEyes]

Let's be clear. These 'slippery slope' arguments are offensive and fallacious. More importantly they are a smokescreen for what Christian right wants in this country, which is a theocracy comparable to what some Muslims have or want in theirs. This faction of 'Christianity' proposes two things:
1. That they, and they alone will define what Christianity is.
2. That based on their definition of Christianity, the government should support their 'Christian' definition of marriage.

I suggest that their 'slippery slope' arguments are actually a reverse projection of what they really want. To use a related legal phrase, they want to get the camel's nose into the tent as the first step into getting the entire camel in.

These are the same arguments we have heard over and over to support laws against interracial marriage and even to define which types of sex acts are allowed by law to occur in the marital bed. This faction would also ask the law to prohibit any sexual contact out side of their definition of marriage. They would forbid divorce and remarriage. They would outlaw 'impure' thoughts if they could. Masturbation would be a felony if these people had their way.

They believe in what they claim is "God's Law." They do not believe in the U.S. Constitution. What they believe in is their 'Christian' version of Sharia Law.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 43 by Danmark]
My prurient interests are aroused, D,
And sure as I am that you're right about SOME Christians (who for all I know about them yet may be some that would be OUTSIDE even my rather liberal definition as to who is a Christian).
So start a thread, please, danmark, something like
?Are these extremist Sharia-law type Christians even really "Christians"?
Where's the Popcorn symbol?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to post 38 by JoeyKnothead]
No surprise here, I guess.
It's WAY past 1984. Too bad George Orwell did not prophesy what lay in store for us later.
In Animal Farm it was "All pigs are equal. But some pigs are more equal than others."
In our Human Farm I guess it's "All sexes are equal, 'cepting if as how you done got double rights if'n you's more 'n' one sex!"

Is it not a "double rights" deal when Christians attempt to use their rights to deny others theirs?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 41:

You are aware that Gladys Knight is a Mormon, right?

Did I miss the joke?

'Parently I didn't tell one

They merely said that in the land of we's all equal, how goofy'd it be if we said some others of us ain't.

You seem to insist that the only definition of marriage is one you allow.

Not exactly. What I SAID is that YOU believe that the definition of marriage that you approve of is the only one YOU allow, and that it is perfectly OK to force everybody to go along with it.

For the record, I'm not a Supreme Court Justice, nor do I play one on TV.

I presented a sound, rational argument as to how their ruling doesn't "redefine" anything. Only you can't seem to understand that a ruling that you ain't happy with still doesn't mean anything's been "redefined".

These rights were not "legislated from the bench", nor do they require "redefining" of anything. They're the result of the Constitutional demand that we treat one another equally. I'd add they also indicate how we must maintain a constant vigil, lest Christian Law becomes in America what Sharia Law has become elsewhere.


Instead of your usual attempt to tell others what they think or write, perhaps you'd prefer I actually present my definition, as opposed to your dowsin' one up for me...

"Misery engaged, and nothin' I ain't ever gettin' me into again, y'all can bet on that". I somehow missed where the Supremes supported my definition. Nor have I anywhere stated that my particular definition should be the law of the land. That you wish to portray such as me trying to do the "redefining" or the "defining" for everyone is indicative of the faulty thinking of so many theists.

[WinePusher]

To you it is silly but my point is where do you draw the line. Provide me with a logical reason that explains why this doing away of traditional marriage will stop with polygamy...

My prediction is that this will start to happen state-by-state. Where it says polygamy in the article insert incest, animal lovers, pedophiles, etc.

Polygamy, along with same sex marriage, involves two or more consenting adults. The key words being consenting adults. Incest, bestiality and pedophilia involve parties that either aren't consenting or aren't adults, which is why comparisons between gay marriage and pedophilia are invalid. And in this case I can understand why good, well meaning people like Haven would take great offense to these comparisons.

[OpenYourEyes]

To you it is silly but my point is where do you draw the line. Provide me with a logical reason that explains why this doing away of traditional marriage will stop with polygamy...

My prediction is that this will start to happen state-by-state. Where it says polygamy in the article insert incest, animal lovers, pedophiles, etc.

Polygamy, along with same sex marriage, involves two or more consenting adults. The key words being consenting adults. Incest, bestiality and pedophilia involve parties that either aren't consenting or aren't adults, which is why comparisons between gay marriage and pedophilia are invalid. And in this case I can understand why good, well meaning people like Haven would take great offense to these comparisons.

If the standard is consenting adults then you are correct except for when it comes to incest. If the standard is Jesus or Bible, then my comparisons are valid in that all of the sexual behaviors you mentioned are all sins.

[WinePusher]

If the standard is consenting adults then you are correct except for when it comes to incest. If the standard is Jesus or Bible, then my comparisons are valid in that all of the sexual behaviors you mentioned are all sins.

My standard is Jesus and the Bible as well. I've spent 5+ years here defending conservative christian positions, however I've come to realize that there is nothing sinful about gay marriage or gay people themselves just as there is nothing sinful about working on the Sabbath. I understand the concerns you have and I understand that marriage is a sacred institution that God himself established, but this belief isn't shared by everybody else. And as a result of living in a pluralistic society comprised of many different viewpoints and belief systems, it is not legitimate to force other people to subscribe to my belief. Sadly, this is exactly what anti gay marriage Christians were doing. They were forcing others to conform to their own conception of marriage.

This is why in a free, democratic society the only standard that actually works is to allow consenting adults to do whatever they wish. Using the government to try to regulate homosexual behavior and bar homosexuals from having access to an institution heterosexuals have access to is the textbook definition of Orwellian totalitarianism.