View Poll Results: What say you?

Voters
97. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. All humans should be protected under the law.

    27 27.84%
  • No. Marriage is between one man and one woman, period.

    20 20.62%
  • No. Only homosexuals and heterosexuals should be allowed to marry.

    6 6.19%
  • I donít care what they do as long as they stay out of my business.

    34 35.05%
  • My catís name is Mittens.

    10 10.31%
Page 32 of 73 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 725

Thread: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

  1. #311
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,964

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by mpg View Post
    We have parallel problems with traditional marriage and we have courts to sort it out.
    No, these problems are not parallel in any way with traditional marriage because no person is currently allowed to have more than one spouse, which means the question of how many people a person can file jointly with is never an issue.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #312
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    well this will surely blow your mind then: I also don't see a problem with INCEST marriage, as long as both people are consenting adults. hell....I don't even give a **** if some guy wants to marry his pet goat.
    Ewww. That's totally creepy. Way more creepy than polygamy IMO.

  3. #313
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Further, my orientation explanation explains the lack of equivalency issue.
    I'm not trying to equate SSM with polygamy but there are certain parallels that can be seen.
    From what I said in post #9:

    Further, the inconsistency in caretaking responsibilities and in child rearing responsibilities, compounded by the hierarchies and rivalries will harm the children, affecting their functioning. We already see some of this in divorced families, where inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting, and rivalries, negatively affect children.
    These are all things that would run counter to the point in polygamy.
    You imply that situations that occur in both monogamous and polygamous families as being only present only in polygamous families. Inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting and rivalries occur in families where the parents are still together as well as divorced. In addition, these things are absent in divorced families as well. It's not the status of the parents, but the combination of the parents.

    The point of polygamy is the same as the point of monogamy. To form a family. Whether that family consists of only two adults, or three adults or four, or of any of the above plus some number of children. There are good mono families and there are bad mono families. There are good poly families, and there are bad poly families. And there is no research that shows any higher incidence of harm in poly families, save those where they include other harmful practices, such as the FLDS whackos. They give as much a bad name to polys as NAMBLA gives to gay men

    False equivalency as I explained above.
    The equivalency is legit as the issues occur regardless of the marriage status; monogamy, polygamy, or divorced. Any problems you can find within a poly family can be found in mono families and divorced familes and all three types also have examples that do not have those problems.

    That is a very different type of need from a sexual orientation. The orientation is whether they are attracted to males or females, NOT how many.
    One's relationship "orientation" is as different from one's sexual orientation as the sexual orientation is from one's sexual identity. None of the three are the same, but still have certain parallels. Simply because one has a male identity while in a female body, does not mean that they will automatically be attracted to females, anymore that one who is attracted to both will seek to live a polygamous lifestyle. Many bi- and pan-sexuals are monogamous. But all three are part of one's self. In other words, one is born, with a given sexual identity (that may conflict with the physical body), a sexual orientation and a relationship "orientation".

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    And you continue to miss the point. Firstly, the government has a vested interest in sanctioning marriage. There are reasons why that happens... and these reasons are supported by research in regards to heterosexual and homosexual unions. They are NOT in regards to polygamous unions.
    Where is the research that shows that the positives of marriage do not happen at all in a polygamous union? Or that they always occur in a monogamous union? There will be none because those aspects will occur in both and the negative aspects will occur in both.

    Secondly, from an equality standpoint, it is argued that it is discriminatory towards homosexuals to not allow gay marriage. This is based on sexual ORIENTATION. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation.
    Discrimination is discrimination regardless of the basis of the discrimination. Whether it's based upon gender, sexual orientation, skin color, or grouping preference, it's still discrimination. The above are all different things, but they have all been a basis for denying a marriage right.

    As I explained above, sexual orientation is completely relevant when discussing SSM and polygamy has no connection because it is not an orientation.
    As is race when discussing interracial marriage (once illegal) and one's mono/poly status when discussing polygamy. They are not the same but are all related when it comes to their aspect in marriage.

    And for that matter, sexual orientation can be completely irrelevant when it comes to SSM. There are marriages out there that have no sex between the couples. Boston Legal gave a prime example of why two people of the same gender but both straight might want to get married. In the end, and I'm sure you'll agree with me here at least, it's not about anything other than people; no genders, no orientations, no identities, no race, no religions,....just people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    No, for the same reason that if one chooses to support interracial marriage it is not logical to include gay marriage in the same discussion.
    But it is logical to note the parallels and how the same arguments are being used against the various specific marriages.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    I want to make it clear that I am not supportive of polygamy to make some sort of point about SSM. I support both because I think consenting adults SHOULD be able to make their own choices regarding personal matters such as marriage and things like that.
    Except when you don't. To prevent thread jacking I will only say that you have shown yourself to not hold entirely true to this statement in a different thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    I'm not forcing what I would like on anyone. It is others who are attempting to do so, but if you want to open up marriage for interpretation, then let's do it...
    To force something on you is to force you to do it. At what point has there been anyone trying to force you into polygamy? Or is trying to force only polygamy and not monogamy as the available form of marriage. Sorry, allowing something that does not force you to do anything additional, is not forcing it upon you. Removing blue laws (thus allowing businesses to be open on Sundays) at no point forced any business to be open on Sundays.

  4. #314
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Except when you don't. To prevent thread jacking I will only say that you have shown yourself to not hold entirely true to this statement in a different thread.
    What incest marriage? It's a little bit different when people who are relatives are marrying, especially considering the dynamics between family members. THAT has been explained to you multiple times but you refuse to accept it.

  5. #315
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    What incest marriage? It's a little bit different when people who are relatives are marrying, especially considering the dynamics between family members. THAT has been explained to you multiple times but you refuse to accept it.
    So then you don't think that consenting adults should be able to make their own choices regarding personal matters such as marriage and things like that. Just those matters that you agree with. So how is that any different from those who would try to limit consenting adult decisions on SSM, interracial marriage or the equivalent sexual relationships?

  6. #316
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    So then you don't think that consenting adults should be able to make their own choices regarding personal matters such as marriage and things like that. Just those matters that you agree with. So how is that any different from those who would try to limit consenting adult decisions on SSM, interracial marriage or the equivalent sexual relationships?
    Yes I do, as long as they aren't related.

  7. #317
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Yes I do, as long as they aren't related.
    Again I say:

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Just those matters that you agree with.
    and again I ask:

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    So how is that any different from those who would try to limit consenting adult decisions on SSM, interracial marriage or the equivalent sexual relationships?

  8. #318
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Again I say:



    and again I ask:
    Because in those marriages, the people aren't related.

  9. #319
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Because in those marriages, the people aren't related.
    Because in those marriages, the people aren't the same gender.

    Because in those marriages, the people aren't different races.

    Sorry that simply isn't an argument, not when you want to claim that you support consenting adults in their decision. Either you do or you don't. Now you can support their right to make consenting decision as adult and still feel that they are wrong or icky or whatever. But when you claim that you support them....except for this, then it's no different from anyone else's exceptions: Racial, sexual orientations, whatever.

  10. #320
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Because in those marriages, the people aren't the same gender.

    Because in those marriages, the people aren't different races.

    Sorry that simply isn't an argument, not when you want to claim that you support consenting adults in their decision. Either you do or you don't. Now you can support their right to make consenting decision as adult and still feel that they are wrong or icky or whatever. But when you claim that you support them....except for this, then it's no different from anyone else's exceptions: Racial, sexual orientations, whatever.
    I disagree. I think it is perfectly reasonable. If you are related, then no marriage for you!

Page 32 of 73 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... 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
  •