- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,557
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Or it could be that you're prejudiced against poly's for reasons similar to why others are prejudiced against SSM... you don't like it, you think it is bad for the children, you think it is bad for society, etc.
Why is that your call to make, for others choices in life?
:shrug:
Ok, let me slow this down for you: I have not taken a position on polygamy in this thread. I really do not care about the issue. I am just pointing out that equating polygamy and SSM is kinda stupid since they are not the same thing. A point you have been going to great pains to avoid.
You're right, and I edited my post, but not fast enough.I did not say that.
Well, do you support marriage equality for those who wish to willingly enter into poly-whatever marriage, or not?
If not, why do you support marriage equality for SSM but not for Polys?
You're right, and I edited my post, but not fast enough.
Can polygamous parents be good parents? If yes, then what's your point?
I am somewhat indifferent and would have to do far more research than I care to to form a proper opinion.
Let me try this again: they are not the same thing. Maybe you did not notice, but SSM involves 2 people, polygamy more than 2. The effects on those in polygamous relationships and their families is different from those in SSM relationships. The effects on society may be different. Why is this so hard for you?
I see your point, but is there something that makes it very difficult for polygamous parents to be good parents?Can be is very broad. Individuals can be good at just about anything, just as some people can drive 100 mph safely. That does not mean it is a good idea to raise the speed limit to 100.
Again, we come back to.... SSM is different from traditional marriage, but you're fine with that.
Poly is different from two-party marriage, and you seem to view that as a problem.
Yet I've heard innumerable arguments by pro-SSM activists saying "you can't help it if you fall in love with someone society says you're not supposed to love", and "marriage isn't only about children, it is about people's happiness", and all the stuff about equal access to a legal institution.... does that not also apply to Poly's, if no why not?
I see your point, but is there something that makes it very difficult for polygamous parents to be good parents?
I see your point, but is there something that makes it very difficult for polygamous parents to be good parents?
Sigh, already explained this, but since it hurt your argument, you ignored it and built an already refuted straw man. I have not said SSM and mixed sex marriage are the same, or that arguments for one necessarily are arguments for the other. Making **** up is not a good debate tactic Goshin.
Further, the potential problems with poly is not because it is different. Because they are different, the arguments for and against are different. The problem with your argument is you are assuming that they must be the same, when it is clearly not the case.
I already have. Legally, the state has to show it has a rational(at the least) reason to ban either SSM or polygamy. Since the two types of marriages are significantly different the arguments are different. You fail.
Let's make it simple then.
Sisters Jane and Janet both fell in love with the same man, Jim. They've talked about it and all agree they want to marry as a polygamous family because they all love each other.
Can you justify refusing them equal access to the legal institution of marriage?
They're only circumstantially different. Circumstances aside, they are both covered under equal rights laws to the same degree.
well that is a way, but what if the company chooses not too,...do they face the wrath of government?
If the company follows the law, they face nothing. If the law is changed and they ignore it, then yes, they incur the wrath of the government. But companies would have no reason to reject just a coverage system. The enrollee pays the fee, not them.
I'm trying to help the libs sort through their own fuzzy logic.Lose the "too", because SSM shouldn't be.
UHC is also a bad idea I strongly disagree with. I was speaking mostly of divorce courts. I know people think they'll live happily ever after forever and ever when they get married, but statistics say otherwise. Domestic courts are tied up enough as it is. This would absolutely destroy an already choked up system.Obama'Care is a legal nightmare. Polygamy would only require a couple regulations.
Not talking about other people looking from the outside in. No woman is going to share a man with other women. This isn't Pakistan where women just accept that a man is going to have other wives. It's not normal in our culture, and completely unacceptable. Maybe the Obamacare program can have hospitals everywhere dedicate a branch to reattaching polygamist's dicks.Same as SSM.
UHC is also a bad idea I strongly disagree with. I was speaking mostly of divorce courts. I know people think they'll live happily ever after forever and ever when they get married, but statistics say otherwise. Domestic courts are tied up enough as it is. This would absolutely destroy an already choked up system.
Not talking about other people looking from the outside in. No woman is going to share a man with other women. This isn't Pakistan where women just accept that a man is going to have other wives. It's not normal in our culture, and completely unacceptable. Maybe the Obamacare program can have hospitals everywhere dedicate a branch to reattaching polygamist's dicks.
Ok, let me slow this down for you: I have not taken a position on polygamy in this thread. I really do not care about the issue. I am just pointing out that equating polygamy and SSM is kinda stupid since they are not the same thing. A point you have been going to great pains to avoid.
They all have to be covered somehow, right? Why not in this polygamous household?let me throw something at you and see what you think.
suppose a person could marry 10 people, and say that person had a good job, with health benefits, and in the marriage there are 22 children, this makes 33 people that the insurance company that the person works for woulds have to provide for.
If this is valid, then it is a valid argument against SSM as well.
Um bud, I hate to tell you but there's already a lot more of this going on than you apparently realize; just not on the official level. Not just Mormons either.
That would only make sense if we assume that the six “parents” are producing children at a rate that would otherwise only take two genuine parents to achieve; and this seems like a wildly unrealistic assumption.
More realistic is that the six “parents” in this one “family” would collectively produce a similar number of children similar to that which would be produced by three normal families with two parents each. Each child may have three times as many “parents”, but would also be competing with three times as many “siblings” for the attention of these “parents”.
I consider overpopulation to be an approaching issue, so this argument falls flat.
And as to competition for attention. Nobody is "on" all the time. Not for a kid or a spouse. Other times everybody is extra "on", able to "be there" for the whole clan.
Stress on parents is a known. Many hands make light work.
Two can live as cheaply as one. How cheaply can six or twelve live.
You're just being dismissive here.
Indeed they aren't.
Polygamy, while unconventional, is genuine marriage, and it fulfills the purpose of marriage, while “same sex marriage” is not, never was, and never will be genuine marriage, and can only undermine and degrade the purpose of genuine marriage; and can only ever harm the society which embraces it.
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?