• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

What say you?

  • Yes. All humans should be protected under the law.

    Votes: 23 26.4%

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

    Votes: 18 20.7%

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

    Votes: 5 5.7%

  • I don’t care what they do as long as they stay out of my business.

    Votes: 31 35.6%

  • My cat’s name is Mittens.

    Votes: 10 11.5%
  • Total voters
    87
  • Poll closed .
douglas said:
I can't remember the name, but I remember a Biblical scholar putting it like this; Christians claiming Sodom and Gomorrah is a story about Homosexuality is just like thinking a story about an Axe Murderer is a story about an Axe.
Click to expand...
It's a good point. Anyone who thinks S&G was solely about homosexuality is a sinner, himself.
 
Dooble said:
Should Plural Marriage be legalized too?
Click to expand...

I could not pick any of the options given in the OP... here's why:

I would like to say that to all those who think this would be a grand idea... read the book "The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology" first.

Contrary to what most people may believe, evolutionarily speaking, the institution of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman actually benefits men more than women. Most men believe that polygamy would be better for men because men are "horn dogs" and all they want is tons of women for themselves. However, if polygamy were the socially appropriate mating style, men would loose on the deal. Here is why:

First here are a few facts:

1.) Woman are much more likely to be a biological parent than are men. How can this be you may ask? Its simple, look at the next fact:
2.) Men and woman both often have multiple sexual partners.
3.) Woman can be absolutely sure that the child(ren) they care for are their own. Men do not have that certainty. If a woman has unprotected sex with more than one man (especially during ovulation) she will have a child that is most certainly her own. However, a man can have unprotected sex with as many women as he wants and is not guaranteed to father a child (biologically at least). Therefore, monogamy protects men from providing resources to children that aren't his own. A woman does not have to worry about this since if it comes out of her womb it is most likely her own.
4.) In world where highly disproportionate amounts of resources are dispersed between individuals, i.e. only a few people hold all the wealth, if polygamy and or Polyandry were socially appropriate and it where the norm, it is likely that harems would emerge. This would be bad for most men on all fronts (evolutionarily at least). In the case of polygamy, there would only be a few happy men and many unhappy men because most of the men with the most money would have wives, leaving no wife for the poorer men. This would be a recipe for disaster, since studies have shown that men are married or partnered have fewer problems and are generally happier. Indeed, a chemical is released in the male that has calming effects; it also decreases testosterone in the male. The case of polyandry is obvious since only one man of the many, could father (biologically) a child. Essentially, not only would polygamy and or Polyandry be bad for most males, it would likely be bad for society since there would likely be more aggressive crimes etc.
It should be noted that most women would reply to this argument by saying that women would never go for it... however, in a world where one individual's income could provide for 100's of wives, its not inconceivable. Indeed, if the social stigma against polygamy and or polyandry were removed, there wouldn't be much from preventing this from happening on a large scale. Sure, the wives would be jealous of the other wives, but evolutionarily speaking, the increase in resources would overrule that jealousy.

Does this mean it should be illegal? To me, given the above evidence, I don't see the point in injecting more suffering into the world. So I vote that it should remain illegal. Lets not legally endorse something that will likely cause more harm than good.

So, I suppose none of the options given in the OP apply, since this is really about what is best for society... not what is best for certain lifestyle choices.
 
Last edited:
Dooble said:
Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of sin. Homosexuality was only part of it.
Click to expand...

Not according to the Bible itself nor any of the actual stories about Sodom and Gomorrah.
 
roguenuke said:
Not according to the Bible itself nor any of the actual stories about Sodom and Gomorrah.
Click to expand...
The Bible is replete with references to S&G's wickedness. Now, I understand that you're an atheist and are unable to grasp the spiritual nuances of the Bible, but the scriptures do state that God overthrew these cities (Jeremiah 50:40) so even a leftist like you can't dispute what's stated in black and white. Now, I'm guessing that you will dispute this anyways, which leads me to believe that you are more interested in lingering contention than you are anything else. So at this point I can only give advice. And my advice to you is stay out of the Bible when I'm around. You'll only get corrected. ;)
 
Last edited:
Dooble said:
The OT is replete with references to S&G's wickedness. Now, I understand that you're an atheist and are unable to grasp the spiritual nuances of the Bible, but the scriptures do state that God overthrew these cities (Jeremiah 50:40) so even a leftist like you can't dispute what's stated in black and white. Now, I know that you will try, which leads me to believe that you're more interested in lingering contention than anything else. My advice to you is stay out of the Bible when I'm around. You'll only get corrected. ;)
Click to expand...

None of which say anything about homosexuality. None of the stories passed down in Judaism mention homosexuals or same sex relationships occurring in Sodom, nor that this was ever a reason for God's wrath.

I'm not an atheist. I believe in God. I just don't believe in the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, or any other holy book because they are all written by men, not God.

You are very uneducated and illogical in your translations of the Bible that you tout to know so well.
 
roguenuke said:
None of which say anything about homosexuality.
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to. There isn't a single scripture in the Bible that condones the behavior. In fact, every time homosexuality IS mentioned, it's in a negative light. There's only one acceptable configuration in the Bible, and that's marriage between a man and a woman. Everything else is contrary to God's will, hence, it's a sin.
 
roguenuke said:
I'm not an atheist. I believe in God.
Click to expand...
Uh-uh. You believe whatever the so-called scholars tell you to believe. The spiritual side utterly escapes you.

roguenuke said:
You are very uneducated and illogical in your translations of the Bible that you tout to know so well.
Click to expand...
Stop ignoring the Holy Spirit.
 
Dooble said:
Uh-uh. You believe whatever the so-called scholars tell you to believe. The spiritual side utterly escapes you.

Stop ignoring the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring God. I'm ignoring those men who presume to speak for God. I can hear God just fine and He isn't being overshadowed by the beliefs of others.
 
Dooble said:
It doesn't have to. There isn't a single scripture in the Bible that condones the behavior. In fact, every time homosexuality IS mentioned, it's in a negative light. There's only one acceptable configuration in the Bible, and that's marriage between a man and a woman. Everything else is contrary to God's will, hence, it's a sin.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. Homosexuality is mentioned only because of a very poor, lazy, and/or biased translation of a condemnation of an adult man having a sexual relationship with a boy or young teen, which is not actually homosexuality. It is like saying that God finds being a woman to be a sin because of how many times specifically it is mentioned that behaviors of women are sinful.
 
roguenuke said:
I'm not ignoring God. I'm ignoring those men who presume to speak for God. I can hear God just fine and He isn't being overshadowed by the beliefs of others.
Click to expand...
What does God tell you about homosexuality?
 
Dooble said:
What does God tell you about homosexuality?
Click to expand...

That He has no issue with it. It is just like being heterosexual. He put the processes in place to naturally lead to all sexualities and since same sex relationships do not cause harm to anyone, then there is no reason why He would consider such relations bad or sinful.
 
roguenuke said:
Yes, it does.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't, and I just told you why.

roguenuke said:
Homosexuality is mentioned only because of a very poor, lazy, and/or biased translation of a condemnation of an adult man having a sexual relationship with a boy or young teen, which is not actually homosexuality. It is like saying that God finds being a woman to be a sin because of how many times specifically it is mentioned that behaviors of women are sinful.
Click to expand...
That's your poor, lazy and/or biased analysis of the word of God. Yes, the Bible has been through many translations, but it's translated well enough to still convey God's will. The spiritual aspect of the Bible is what escapes you, and that's why it seems like scrambled eggs. Stop ignoring the Holy Spirit.
 
Dooble said:
No, it doesn't, and I just told you why.

That's your poor, lazy and/or biased analysis of the word of God. Yes, the Bible has been through many translations, but it's translated well enough to still convey God's will. The spiritual aspect of the Bible is what escapes you, and that's why it seems like scrambled eggs. Stop ignoring the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I am supported by actual research and scholarly writing that prove that the translations were bad.

You cannot prove "divine inspiration" of any part of the Bible. All you have is your belief, nothing more.
 
roguenuke said:
Wrong. I am supported by actual research and scholarly writing that prove that the translations were bad.

You cannot prove "divine inspiration" of any part of the Bible. All you have is your belief, nothing more.
Click to expand...
You don't believe in God. Just admit this and I'll leave you alone.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Be careful not to attack other posters.
 
Dooble said:
So He didn't actually TELL you this, correct?
Click to expand...

He doesn't actually tell anyone anything. Those who believe differently are either delusional or misunderstanding the processes of their own mind.
 
Dooble said:
You don't believe in God. Just admit this and I'll leave you alone.
Click to expand...

I believe in God. You just don't approve of the God I believe in because it isn't the same God you believe in.
 
roguenuke said:
I believe in God. You just don't approve of the God I believe in because it isn't the same God you believe in.
Click to expand...
Your god exists only in your mind. How convenient is that? I'll bet your approval rating with your god is continuously off the charts. ;)
 
Dooble said:
Your god exists only in your mind. How convenient is that? I'll bet your approval rating with your god is continuously off the charts. ;)
Click to expand...

As does yours, if you want to try to diminish my own beliefs because they are not yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom