- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Messages
- 54,873
- Reaction score
- 43,229
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they want.
To simplify it way down: is 2 the same thing as more than 2? If the answer is no, then they are not the same thing.
In the context of this argument, two and more than two are the same since both are completely arbitrary. The reason that traditional marriage infers a quantity of two is because it is based on the dissimilarity of the genders, therefore, the qualitative infers the quantitative. If you alter the qualitative aspect of marriage, as SSM does, then you also alter the quantitative. Since SSM marriage is based on similarity, rather than dissimilarity, then the inferred quantity is entirely arbitrary. Polygamy is not a slippery slope argument. It is logically inferred.
True. That's why marriage should be heterosexual only, because that and homosexuality are two different things.Except it is not fuzzy logic, unless you think two different things should be considered the same.
You'll get your wish soon enough. I suspect it won't be too long before marriage will become more commonplace than dating.Consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they want.
Here in SD we see it in Native American communities, too. Their tribes have always practiced polygamy. It's died down a lot since we blue-eyed devils "stole their land", but I'll look for stats later this evening.Of course. Why shouldn't consenting adults be able to marry multiple partners if they want? All of you are just thinking of situations such as have occurred within the extremist Mormon community and you are applying it to ALL polygamist marriages.
Bull****. The reason mixed sex marriage is two is irrelevant
It is very much a slippery slope argument since it is a different legal and moral and logical argument from SSM and from mixed sex marriage.
Here in SD we see it in Native American communities, too. Their tribes have always practiced polygamy. It's died down a lot since we blue-eyed devils "stole their land", but I'll look for stats later this evening.
The thing is, you're assuming those in polygamist marriages are 1. consenting, and 2. adults. They frequently are neither, and before you say "then that's illegal" understand that the Lakota and Suix Nations are actual sovereign nations within the US with their own set of laws, courts and law-enforcement structure. State LEOs can only enter tribal land under very limited conditions and routine enforcement of civil law isn't it. Short of a Federal warrant, a State LEO has to be actively cashing a murderer or similar, and even then still has to stop the pursuit when ordered by the tribal police. Sanctioning polygamy typically results in families selling young daughters in pre-arranged marriages.
Opposition to polygamy has nothing to do with consenting adults.
Should Plural Marriage be legalized too?
True. That's why marriage should be heterosexual only, because that and homosexuality are two different things.
I see. Since you can't refute what I said, it has now become irrelevant. Typical Liberal.
Your moral argument has no basis since Polygamy introduces no new element that isn't already contained within SSM and traditional marriage. The same is true for your legal argument. Multiple wives, multiple husbands, multiple mothers and multiple fathers. Polygamy adds no new element.
As for your logical argument...well, you have no logical argument.
Of course. Why shouldn't consenting adults be able to marry multiple partners if they want? All of you are just thinking of situations such as have occurred within the extremist Mormon community…
I thought mods were given a different Award when they stepped down from the active mod team.That's right, my being a liberal made you post irrelevant crap.
I thought mods were given a different Award when they stepped down from the active mod team.
Oh, sorry about posting irrelevant crap, you being a liberal forced me to do that
Please elaborate. Thank you.
Yes.Look at tax code alone.
If you are married to two women, can you claim them both as a dependent?
Married-joint or married-separate, as appropriate for their situation.Can all three of you file "jointly"?
That's communal marriage. No one is supporting communal marriage. People are supporting polygyny and polyandry, where a man or woman takes multiple wives/husbands, and there is no marriage between the wives/husbands.If one of those two women is married to a second man, can both husbands claim her as a dependent? Which claims her income, if there is any? If she has a child with the second man, but the child spends significantly more time with the household of the first man, can the first man claim the child as a dependant? What about if the second man is married to a completely seperate woman as well and they have a kid. The wife the two men share is now the "mother" of another woman's child, who and how can that child be claimed for tax purposes?
I see. Since you can't refute what I said, it has now become irrelevant. Typical Liberal.
Your moral argument has no basis since Polygamy introduces no new element that isn't already contained within SSM and traditional marriage. The same is true for your legal argument. Multiple wives, multiple husbands, multiple mothers and multiple fathers. Polygamy adds no new element.
As for your logical argument...well, you have no logical argument.
It doesnt have to be'50'. Hel...TWO is insanity. What do you get when you marry 2 women? TWO WOMEN!I think the critical part here is "Sane"... if a guy wants to marry 50 women... then you cant say he is sane..
then polygamy is perfectly acceptable and should be legal.Well that is just stupid. Not every one fears everything which is different. Sometimes different is good.
Right, but on other threads, especially gun threads, people get all pissed when I stick to exact names of things.Communal marriage can be a form of polygamy, so saying it's communal marriage on it's own is not really a counter.
then polygamy is perfectly acceptable and should be legal.
That's right, my being a liberal made you post irrelevant crap. .
so you think 2 is the same as more than 2.
Actually, it's irrelevant because it's irrelevant. Typical conservative to not see that.
Now, you want to dispense with the stupid hackery and actually debate?
Of course it adds a new element. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation.
And since you have not presented a logical argument...