[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
As long as those laws don’t interfere with the protected rights of individuals, which is what the constitution is all about. That is what makes it a constitutional republic. The common interest is placed beneath Individual interest.[/quote]
Well, certainly, but the national government is afforded all kinds of powers to act in the general interest, which was Kamui’s point, and sometimes the common interest is - and can be - placed above individual interests.
If you read the article, the Browns aren’t asking for legal recognition of their polygamous marriages. They’re fine with just the first marriage entailing the legal responsibilities of marriage. They just want to be left alone, since their children are well cared for and nobody is being hurt. The state isn’t being asked to pay a dime toward their support.
[quote]forlife wrote:
If you read the article, the Browns aren’t asking for legal recognition of their polygamous marriages. They’re fine with just the first marriage entailing the legal responsibilities of marriage. They just want to be left alone, since their children are well cared for and nobody is being hurt. The state isn’t being asked to pay a dime toward their support.[/quote]
Of course not - yet. First they want to decriminalize their behavior. Then, in short order, no doubt they will demand “equality”. As a practical matter, they have to take the process in order.
And just as Lawrence v. Texas was the kernel for the gay marriage popcorn, we’ll see the same playbook here.
And accordingly, if we follow the new definition(s), this must be the New New Civil Rights in action.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
As long as those laws don’t interfere with the protected rights of individuals, which is what the constitution is all about. That is what makes it a constitutional republic. The common interest is placed beneath Individual interest.[/quote]
Well, certainly, but the national government is afforded all kinds of powers to act in the general interest, which was Kamui’s point, and sometimes the common interest is - and can be - placed above individual interests.
[/quote]
When?
And that isnâ??t what he was discussing. He was saying sometimes, he was saying our government is based on doing things for the common good. He was saying common interest overrides personal freedoms, period. Which is backwards.
deleted for relevance
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Off the top of my head, I really don’t see any harm in it, but I’m open to debate on that.
IMO, it would seem that the bigger the team, the more successful they can be. It’s a numbers game. [/quote]
As an aside, that’s what happens in third world countries where a family has 6 kids to help out…I wonder how that’s working for them? Not that great in most accounts…
[/quote]
So, according to you and in your opinion, the problems that 3rd world countries are facing is because of one guy having too many wives? That’s real cute.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Kebvin wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do you guys see polygamy or ssm harming society? Assuming the government didn’t have anything to do with marriage at all, how do you see these two types of marriage arrangements as being harmful? Assume no laws concerning underage sex or sexual abuse are broken. This is a genuine question, so please keep it civil.[/quote]
a culture need structure
“the rules of kinship” are the most basic and fundamental of structures
in our culture, the “rules of kinship” are herosexual and monogamous
no minority should be allowed to change these basic rules.
in other words :
even if it does not harm society (and polygamy surely does because, if anything, it would increase the number of single men in the long run) it does harm (our) culture.
and since we are speaking about the laws of a republic the question is not “how is it harmful ?”
the question is “how would it be beneficial for everyone ?”
[/quote]
This seems crazy… maybe I just can’t see the “big picture” or something but why can’t we all just relax and let some things be…
Also, I’m not sure that changing the heterosexual and monogamous rules will change anything but the rules and the ability of some to get married. Monogamous heterosexuals probably aren’t going to switch because it becomes legal… or at least not the vast majority. So the rules really are still there, they’re just no longer the written rules.[/quote]
Let’s just all take a chill pill and relax right? It doesn’t matter that a 5000 year old institution will be recked by the liberal politically correct machine. Let’s all homosexual’s, polygamists, and those who enjoy incestuous relationships to marry. How could that possibly harm society?
It’s like important things effect other things. There is no ripple effect at all. [/quote]
No one has brought up incest, just you. Like I said in the other thread, incest is against natural law (NOT to be read as God’s law even though to some people “natural law” and “God’s law” are synonymous).
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Kebvin wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do you guys see polygamy or ssm harming society? Assuming the government didn’t have anything to do with marriage at all, how do you see these two types of marriage arrangements as being harmful? Assume no laws concerning underage sex or sexual abuse are broken. This is a genuine question, so please keep it civil.[/quote]
a culture need structure
“the rules of kinship” are the most basic and fundamental of structures
in our culture, the “rules of kinship” are herosexual and monogamous
no minority should be allowed to change these basic rules.
in other words :
even if it does not harm society (and polygamy surely does because, if anything, it would increase the number of single men in the long run) it does harm (our) culture.
and since we are speaking about the laws of a republic the question is not “how is it harmful ?”
the question is “how would it be beneficial for everyone ?”
[/quote]
This seems crazy… maybe I just can’t see the “big picture” or something but why can’t we all just relax and let some things be…
Also, I’m not sure that changing the heterosexual and monogamous rules will change anything but the rules and the ability of some to get married. Monogamous heterosexuals probably aren’t going to switch because it becomes legal… or at least not the vast majority. So the rules really are still there, they’re just no longer the written rules.[/quote]
Let’s just all take a chill pill and relax right? It doesn’t matter that a 5000 year old institution will be recked by the liberal politically correct machine. Let’s all homosexual’s, polygamists, and those who enjoy incestuous relationships to marry. How could that possibly harm society?
It’s like important things effect other things. There is no ripple effect at all. [/quote]
5000 years of what exactly?
State sanctioned marriages?
Monogamous marriages?
Because in either case you would be wrong.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
When?
And that isnâ??t what he was discussing. He was saying sometimes, he was saying our government is based on doing things for the common good. He was saying common interest overrides personal freedoms, period. Which is backwards.[/quote]
Yes, and Kamui is right - common interest does override personal freedoms in certain instances. If this weren’t true, we’d have no government. Our federal Constitution does both - it protects freedoms and authorizes grants of power. Not either/or. And this is especially true for states, which have had the authority to pass public welfare laws since before our country was a country.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
So, according to you and in your opinion, the problems that 3rd world countries are facing is because of one guy having too many wives? That’s real cute.[/quote]
In some cases, yes - polygamy creates a class of men with no wives and a diminished future (particularly in a culture built on the status of having wives and property). That can be a social recipe for disaster.
[quote]Kebvin wrote:
A couple days ago I got like 7 pages in and the arguments got so vague that I realized there isn’t much of an argument against them other than “it’s wrong, and somehow contributing to the slow downfall of society.”[/quote]
No one said (well maybe someone did, but not me or Sloth) that ssm is contributing to the slow downfall of society. We said it was a symptom of the downfall of society, specifically its religious and moral fabric being turned into a weird and deformed version of moral relativism.
So, you don’t care homosexuals have one of the highest rates of domestic abuse? It’s okay if gays get beat up by their partner, but it’s wrong if straight couples beat up on each other? That’s not very tolerant of you.
[quote]Kebvin wrote:
This seems crazy… maybe I just can’t see the “big picture” or something but why can’t we all just relax and let some things be…
Also, I’m not sure that changing the heterosexual and monogamous rules will change anything but the rules and the ability of some to get married. Monogamous heterosexuals probably aren’t going to switch because it becomes legal… or at least not the vast majority. So the rules really are still there, they’re just no longer the written rules.[/quote]
And what basis do you believe that if we just let some things be, that it will just be fine?
[quote]Kebvin wrote:
polygamy or ssm[/quote]
Why are you discriminating against incestuous relations?
So, something is sacred only if something is treated as sacred? So, if I treat you like a subhuman does that mean you’re subhuman? Or, am I just mistreating you?
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Again let’s assume the government
[/quote]
That is about as useful as assuming men didn’t have blood flowing through their veins. Man is a political creature, he is also a religious creature. To yank him out of it is abstract and useless.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
No one has brought up incest, just you. Like I said in the other thread, incest is against natural law (NOT to be read as God’s law even though to some people “natural law” and “God’s law” are synonymous). [/quote]
So is polygamy and so is homosexual unions.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
So, according to you and in your opinion, the problems that 3rd world countries are facing is because of one guy having too many wives? That’s real cute.[/quote]
In some cases, yes - polygamy creates a class of men with no wives and a diminished future (particularly in a culture built on the status of having wives and property). That can be a social recipe for disaster.
[/quote]
Wait, how is allowing polygamy going to keep men from getting married? You really think there’s going to be this run on women and there’s going to be a sudden shortage of marriageable women for single men to marry?
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
So, according to you and in your opinion, the problems that 3rd world countries are facing is because of one guy having too many wives? That’s real cute.[/quote]
In some cases, yes - polygamy creates a class of men with no wives and a diminished future (particularly in a culture built on the status of having wives and property). That can be a social recipe for disaster.
[/quote]
Wait, how is allowing polygamy going to keep men from getting married? You really think there’s going to be this run on women and there’s going to be a sudden shortage of marriageable women for single men to marry?[/quote]
Sorry to do this at your expense…
This isn’t a response.
This is me saying, “told ya so.” Keep a look out for the “Non-marital romance” movement, too.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
No one has brought up incest, just you. Like I said in the other thread, incest is against natural law (NOT to be read as God’s law even though to some people “natural law” and “God’s law” are synonymous). [/quote]
So is polygamy and so is homosexual unions.[/quote]
Again…not talking about God and religion. Polygamy and homosexual relations happen in nature all the time. There is only one male lion in a pride with multiple lionesses. Chimps (particularly bonobos) practice same sex all time. Shit, bonobos use sex so commonly it’s almost like saying thank you or something. There have been cases of two male penguins “parenting” an egg (cue Morgan Freeman).
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
So, according to you and in your opinion, the problems that 3rd world countries are facing is because of one guy having too many wives? That’s real cute.[/quote]
In some cases, yes - polygamy creates a class of men with no wives and a diminished future (particularly in a culture built on the status of having wives and property). That can be a social recipe for disaster.
[/quote]
Wait, how is allowing polygamy going to keep men from getting married? You really think there’s going to be this run on women and there’s going to be a sudden shortage of marriageable women for single men to marry?[/quote]
Sorry to do this at your expense…
This isn’t a response.
This is me saying, “told ya so.” Keep a look out for the “Non-marital romance” movement, too.[/quote]
No offense taken. You still don’t understand I was using “romantic relationship” as a way of saying “two people in love”.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
So, according to you and in your opinion, the problems that 3rd world countries are facing is because of one guy having too many wives? That’s real cute.[/quote]
In some cases, yes - polygamy creates a class of men with no wives and a diminished future (particularly in a culture built on the status of having wives and property). That can be a social recipe for disaster.
[/quote]
Wait, how is allowing polygamy going to keep men from getting married? You really think there’s going to be this run on women and there’s going to be a sudden shortage of marriageable women for single men to marry?[/quote]
Sorry to do this at your expense…
This isn’t a response.
This is me saying, “told ya so.” Keep a look out for the “Non-marital romance” movement, too.[/quote]
No offense taken. You still don’t understand I was using “romantic relationship” as a way of saying “two people in love”. [/quote]
No, I mean, actual calls to equalize non-marital romance. New York Times Op-ed is a start…
"…Of course, this means weâ??ll be treated just as straight people are now. But this moment provides an opportunity to reconsider whether we ought to force people to marry â?? whether they be gay or straight â?? to have their committed relationships recognized and valued…
As strangers to marriage for so long, weâ??ve created loving and committed forms of family, care and attachment that far exceed, and often improve on, the narrow legal definition of marriage. Many of us are not ready to abandon those nonmarital ways of loving once we can legally marry.
…Of course, lots of same-sex couples will want to marry as soon as they are allowed to, and we will congratulate them when they do even if we ourselves choose not to. But we shouldnâ??t be forced to marry to keep the benefits we now have, to earn and keep the respect of our friends and family, and to be seen as good citizens."