- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Quite frankly, because society sees those people as freaks. They don't have the support. Jerry Springer isn't enough support.
Maury Povich is on board too. Is that enough?
Only if Connie Chung is on board too.
I don't have an issue with Polygamy. Polygamists can marry as many people as they want. And if the Incest is consentual betwen adults, they can do it without being married. It's a non-sequitor argument. If someone doesn't think the government should be involved in marriage, it's a universal belief.
I don't care if 27 cousins marry each other. Why should I care?
See, I think we do care about a lot of this stuff, and when we say we don't we aren't being completely truthful.
You don't think these things could be harmful for society in the longrun? Polygamy affects children and it has a creepiness about it. Don't say we shouldn't be concerned about creepiness, cause sometimes there's mental illness involved when things get too creepy. Plus polygamists gotta cost the government a lot with additional welfare, but some things although seemingly fair, would be unfair to others who don't partake. Polygamists usually have too many kids, so they would get way too many tax breaks that monogamists wouldn't get. I'm still leaving the kid factor in there, so monogamists who have no kids, well, that would be their tough luck, I guess.
The government could still rein in some unions if they were civil relationships as long as they get tax breaks. Now if there are no tax breaks then I guess the government would have to address it from a moralistic viewpoint, and government does dole out morals cause we have laws on the books against murder, stealing, so why not decency? I'm not sure government can really get out of marriage because of the kid factor. Seems like there needs to be some stability for them.
See when you allow say polygamy, it won't just be consenting adults. There will be those letches who like the young girls. If incest is allowed, it won't be just consenting adults cause most of the letch's involved in this activity start the kids out young, so it would be impossible to enforce and you'd end up with a whole lot of unstable people running around because of their childhood environmets. I'd say there would be abuse everywhere you turned.
I assure you, I'm being completely truthful. I really and truly don't think teh governemtn should involve itself in marriages. End of story.
Are you really using the "It's creepy so it should be banned" argument? That is something I'll leave that to its own merits because it refutes itself far better than I could refute it.
Murder and stealing are forms of anti-social behavior and there is a clear victim that is not invented out of thin air by unaffected people.
Slipper slope argumetns fail because Polygamy =/= pedophilia. Pedophiia is illegal for many reasons. Making Polygamy legal does not change those reasons. It doesn't justify pedophilia. It doesn't condone pedophilia. It has absolutely positively NOTHING to do with pedophilia.
Oh, really? Who "said" that?
I think what they said was that interracial marriage would lead to blacks getting uppity and above their station, and would lead to more biracial children and to the degradation of the white race.
And look, it's all happened. And it's good. :mrgreen:
I'll bet even the most pessimistic of them never imagined that in 40 scant years, a biracial man would be the President of the United States.
I hope they're flailing in helpless horror in their wheelchairs right now, or else spinning in their graves.
I'd like to see some kind of source that says that this was one of the arguments used against interracial marriage.
I learned that this argument was used when I reviewed some liturature by Cass Sunstein and Andrew Koppelman in reserching this issue a couple years ago.
The comment 'what's next next, men marrying men' was not made as often as 'what's next, men marrying a dog/animal' as so-called "gay-rights" were not a major issue in the public eye at the time; such questions were present in the objections to interacial marriage non the less.
She's been on Maury... does that count?
I dunno, but the fact that heterosexuals are allowed to marry each other completely invalidates my relationship with my boyfriend and renders it absolutely meaningless.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?