Page 51 of 55 FirstFirst ... 414950515253 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 548

Thread: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

  1. #501
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    12-06-16 @ 04:36 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,268

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by finebead View Post
    I don't have to shown anything, until you offer a coherent argument why the country should adopt plural marriage, when even the moron faith has outlawed the practice.
    Now that legal marriage is unequivocally a fundamental right, it would seem he no more needs to offer a coherent argument why the country should adopt it, then he needs to offer a coherent argument as to why the country should allow him free speech. The burden of proof is now squarely on government to provide a compelling interest as to why it will not allow polygamists to exercise their fundamental rights.

  2. #502
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    18,293

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Whether you intended to or not, you just put forth a major correlation/causation fallacy. Polygamy is practiced in many countries where is it not legal, just without the legal paperwork thus making no conflict between the poly family and the government. In some places there were other laws that tried to cover that bypass, such as Utah's cohabitation laws, which were finally shot down.

    You also have another major logic fail. We weren't the first country to allow interracial marriage. We weren't the first country to allow SSM. But we were fighting for those rights when other countries made them legal. Thus the fight goes on and whether the US is first or not remains to be seen. But the goal is not to be first with polygamy, but to get it passed.
    Fallacy or not, I hope you realize that most of the posters on this board are talking about polygamy not because they endorse it but because they don't like the ruling on SSM and are trying to us polygamy as a "slippery slope" argument against SSM. Polygamy has a very bad name here as the practice been abused by pedophiles in very well publicized cases and they are attempting to equate those with gays and SSM. Don't fall into their trap and start believing that crap. We are no closer to making polygamy legal than before the ruling. The custom of marriage being between 2 people that love each other is likely to remain for a very long time.

  3. #503
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    12-06-16 @ 10:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,435

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Now that legal marriage is unequivocally a fundamental right, it would seem he no more needs to offer a coherent argument why the country should adopt it, then he needs to offer a coherent argument as to why the country should allow him free speech. The burden of proof is now squarely on government to provide a compelling interest as to why it will not allow polygamists to exercise their fundamental rights.
    You are wrong. Marriage was expanded from one man and one woman, to any two human beings. That is all. This was done, as I have shown in this thread, because gay people naturally occur within the human population, across both sexes and in all societies throughout time. They are citizens and should be entitled to the right of one person to marry another person.

    We did NOT expand the law beyond that, sorry.

    You are also wrong in that it was NEVER the govt. responsibility to explain why it previously so fit to deny marriage to gays, rather gays had to sue the govt. and go to court and PROVE that they had an overridding interest in having access to marriage rights and responsibilities, and they successfully did that over the last 4 decades, in legal case after case.
    Last edited by finebead; 07-05-15 at 11:10 AM.

  4. #504
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,729

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by finebead View Post
    Thank you for rightly admitting that polygamy does not work economically the way the systems are currently designed.
    I really don't think that there are many who would not admit to it. Oh there will always be some, but by and far, the poly community simply knows better.

    Polygamy is a choice. It is learned behavior, taught in certain sects and those are the only places that it exists. Therefore there is no moral obligation to accommodate it, unless you can demonstrate one.
    Show me the study on this. Much like a homosexual can enter into a heterosexual marriage and engage in heterosexual sex while still being homosexual, behavior and attraction are separate things. How learned is it? I am not Mormon or any other religious faith that teaches polygamy. Or of any non religious group that teaches such. Yet from an early age, I have always wanted to have multiple mates. Now much like young gays in my day, we were just overwhelmed with the concept of straight 2 person marriage and anything else was wrong and immoral. So I didn't realize back then all I know now, much as many gay kids didn't understand what they were feeling.

    I have also known people who have tried poly (marriage or otherwise) and found that it is not for them. I've met others who could go either way. So I have to really wonder if for some it is not learned but a part of who they are.

    But remember this, the Mormon Faith long ago outlawed polygamy, so there is NO institutional support for polygamy in the US:
    Define institutional support. Because Loving More might disagree with you.


    So if the Mormons moved forward to monogamy long ago, what is the moral imperative to justify the learned behavior of polygamy? We have a set of laws, live within them.
    The concept that is was a move forward is a subjective one. And no I would not classify it as a move backwards either. It was simply a change in how things were done, when looked at objectively. We had a set of laws against interracial marriage, SSM, for slavery, Jim Crow laws. Obviously live with them was not an acceptable argument, so why should it be so here?
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  5. #505
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    12-06-16 @ 10:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,435

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Define institutional support. Because Loving More might disagree with you.
    Loving more looks like a nice little club, not an institution. An institution would have a great many members, not just a few.

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat
    The concept that is was a move forward is a subjective one. And no I would not classify it as a move backwards either. It was simply a change in how things were done, when looked at objectively. We had a set of laws against interracial marriage, SSM, for slavery, Jim Crow laws. Obviously live with them was not an acceptable argument, so why should it be so here?
    These moves forward were moral imperatives. Interracial marriage hurt nobody, and no other laws had to be changed, nor any benefit plans nor family law. It fit within all other existing frameworks. Slavery is such a simple case of immorality I won't discuss it. Jim Crow laws were designed to discriminate against minorities, and eliminating them required absolutely no other changes in the legal system, everything worked as is. For all of these changes, the impact was very broad based in the nation, affecting millions of people, and putting them in effect required no other changes in the law or benefit systems.

    You are asking us to make a change that would require many changes in many areas of the existing system, to benefit a few people. That is not the way the laws work in this country. The criteria for the changes you cite are:
    1. Moral imperative
    2. Affects many people
    3. Does not require broad changes in the rest of the legal or benefit system.

    You have not provided reasoning for any of that.

  6. #506
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    08-12-16 @ 12:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    History shows otherwise. You are being far from realistic about it. I provided a rationale for why polygamy should not be legalised, and it is a legitimate one, so if you want to legalize polygamy then that is irrelevant to the facts. I am not going to try to convince people that polygamy should not be legalised, only dismiss the baseless notion that it is the same as same-sex marriage.

    What amazes me about all of this is how we have been hearing all the stupid slippery slope arguments coming from the homophobes for years about gay marriage paving the way for polygamy, incest, child abuse, bestiality and who knows what only to have posters arrive making damn well sure to confirm their fears.

    You would almost think it was by design.
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  7. #507
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,729

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by finebead View Post
    It's one data point, in an area without a lot of data. Do you dispute that Mr. Brown's family has 22 people? I only used the show to demonstrate ONE thing, the SIZE of their family and if it is correct, then the show fulfills that specific mission PERFECTLY.
    Exactly! It's one data point. Yet you called it "typical". A single data point can be normal or it can be a outlier. Normal in the statistical sense.

    Do you have reliable statistics to show how many polygamist families there are in the US, and what their average family size is. I notice you are not providing ANY data, while criticizing mine. I await your authoritative data.
    Mind you I suck at locating actual studies online. There have numerous media ventures that are looking at other than the FLDS for what polygamy is. I have seen a couple of documentaries on TV dealing with polygamy that showed women who had two husbands as well as men who two wives. Sadly I was not at home and did not catch what channel they were on. It also doesn't help that polygamy and polyamory are becoming as synonymous in the general language as polygamy and polygyny are, thus further muddying the waters. That said I found these:
    What Do Polys Want? Results of the 2012 Loving More Polyamory Survey
    http://polytical.org/2012/09/uk-poly...urvey-results/
    https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1UtG...SERVTEw5UXc6MA
    Polygamy Survey Statistics and Results


    I don't have to shown anything, until you offer a coherent argument why the country should adopt plural marriage, when even the moron faith has outlawed the practice.
    You made a very specific claim that allowing polygamy would significantly increase the average size of the american household. Back up your claim.

    Show me. You have no proof. And anyhow, where else would there be a large representation of polygamist families in the US, outside of the FLDS? It seems this is EXACTLY the sample you want to see.
    It is exactly the sample I want to see and we are out there. We don't all live in communities like the FLDS do. I live in a typical small city in MD just south of DE. It is a conservative area (despite MD being mostly liberal). So it's not like we announce our family to the whole city. We do have alt lifestyle friends of various ilk with whom we can be open with. I personally know another poly unit up near Baltimore. If you look at the links I provided in post #29, you can see that those of us who are not FLDS are all across the country. And very few of us believe in the abuse the FLDS of the Jeffery's ilk do. Hell there are even some independent FLDS who denounce what those in the compounds do. I honestly want to see such studies and if I knew who to talk to and could get the money I'd start one.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  8. #508
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,729

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Fallacy or not, I hope you realize that most of the posters on this board are talking about polygamy not because they endorse it but because they don't like the ruling on SSM and are trying to us polygamy as a "slippery slope" argument against SSM. Polygamy has a very bad name here as the practice been abused by pedophiles in very well publicized cases and they are attempting to equate those with gays and SSM. Don't fall into their trap and start believing that crap. We are no closer to making polygamy legal than before the ruling. The custom of marriage being between 2 people that love each other is likely to remain for a very long time.
    Wow that line sounds like we're trying to eliminate monogamy. I would hope that monogamy would remain for a very long time. And yes there are many other groups, such as NAMBLA who want to ride on any coattails they can, be it SSM or poly, to obtain their objective. Just like the gays had to fight to disassociate themselves with the pedophile, because quite honestly there are gay pedophiles, so will polys have to fight that same thing, because quite honestly there are polys who are also pedophiles.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  9. #509
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,729

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    What amazes me about all of this is how we have been hearing all the stupid slippery slope arguments coming from the homophobes for years about gay marriage paving the way for polygamy, incest, child abuse, bestiality and who knows what only to have posters arrive making damn well sure to confirm their fears.

    You would almost think it was by design.
    First of all let's back up. Remember that interracial marriage also paved the way for SSM and all the others. Let's not forget our history. But the argument is flawed because these are not sequential event, where one is required before the others can be made legal. We could have managed to achieve SSM before interracial. Then we would have had white men suing to marry black men. Or poly could have won out first, and then we'd be suing to allow for other races within a poly group. If poly was first then SSM, would have rapidly fallen into place faster than interracial being first.

    Pedophilia and beastility are a fallacy argument because the whole basis of marriage is the ability to consent.

    Incest marriage (as opposed to sex) has it's chance because in the legal system, sex is not a requirement of marriage.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  10. #510
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    18,293

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Wow that line sounds like we're trying to eliminate monogamy. I would hope that monogamy would remain for a very long time. And yes there are many other groups, such as NAMBLA who want to ride on any coattails they can, be it SSM or poly, to obtain their objective. Just like the gays had to fight to disassociate themselves with the pedophile, because quite honestly there are gay pedophiles, so will polys have to fight that same thing, because quite honestly there are polys who are also pedophiles.
    I guess I mispoke. I meant to say the custom of marriage EXCLUSIVELY being between 2 adults that love each other will remain for a very long time. You have a long road ahead before you change that convention if EVER. There are too many obstacles in the path of polygamy for it to become accepted like SSM. Don't forget that being accepted is what you need before there is even a chance at legality.



    Last edited by iguanaman; 07-05-15 at 01:22 PM.

Page 51 of 55 FirstFirst ... 414950515253 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •