[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Cause they be hoggin teh weminz?[/quote]
Less of an issue in our society, but I suppose it could be - mostly because this “relic of barbarism” undermines marriage and has troubling consequences for children.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Cause they be hoggin teh weminz?[/quote]
Less of an issue in our society, but I suppose it could be - mostly because this “relic of barbarism” undermines marriage and has troubling consequences for children.
[/quote]
But those “barbaric” times did produce the religious tomes that are most studied and followed today.
It was common in biblical times. Again, not advocating…but one cannot quote selective scripture.
I guess what I am getting at, does a child need a nuclear family or just love?
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
But those “barbaric” times did produce the religious tomes that are most studied and followed today.
It was common in biblical times. Again, not advocating…but one cannot quote selective scripture.[/quote]
That’s super. Good thing, then, that I am not quoting scripture on this issue, and never have.
A loving nuclear family, if we can give it to him/her, and we have every duty to try.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
But those “barbaric” times did produce the religious tomes that are most studied and followed today.
It was common in biblical times. Again, not advocating…but one cannot quote selective scripture.[/quote]
That’s super. Good thing, then, that I am not quoting scripture on this issue, and never have.
A loving nuclear family, if we can give it to him/her, and we have every duty to try.[/quote]
By we, do you mean other people?
What about penalties for divorce and the like?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
But those “barbaric” times did produce the religious tomes that are most studied and followed today.
It was common in biblical times. Again, not advocating…but one cannot quote selective scripture.[/quote]
That’s super. Good thing, then, that I am not quoting scripture on this issue, and never have.
A loving nuclear family, if we can give it to him/her, and we have every duty to try.[/quote]
Was not referring to you quoting scripture Mr. Bolt…but I do appreciate some good sarcasm when I read it!!
I have known some very happy, well adjusted polygamists living here in Utah…and I have seen many, many fucked up kids from “traditional” families.
Do I believe in polygamy - no
Do I believe in gay marriage - no
but I would say that the chance of a child being raised well in these households compared to traditional families is about the same odds.
Of course I was raised Mennonite so take that as you will.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
By we, do you mean other people? [/quote]
In addition to ourselves, yes, other people - our culture (“other people”) should reinforce it and help provide it, and so should our policy.
Penalties? Not sure what you mean in the current context.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
but I would say that the chance of a child being raised well in these households compared to traditional families is about the same odds.[/quote]
I disagree, but let’s take your point - if children are just as likely to be raised “just as good” in these alternative households, as you suggest, you would agree with me then that there is no reason to recognize and privilege any one form of marriage over another?
This weird, unsupported egalitarianism that any ole arrangement will do for children is puzzling.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
but I would say that the chance of a child being raised well in these households compared to traditional families is about the same odds.[/quote]
I disagree, but let’s take your point - if children are just as likely to be raised “just as good” in these alternative households, as you suggest, you would agree with me then that there is no reason to recognize and privilege any one form of marriage over another?
This weird, unsupported egalitarianism that any ole arrangement will do for children is puzzling.
[/quote]
I would agree that is is puzzling.
But children have been raised for thousands of years in many different familial arrangements.
The modern nuclear family is relatively new…I see your point, only offering what I think is a fair counter argument.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
By we, do you mean other people? [/quote]
In addition to ourselves, yes, other people - our culture (“other people”) should reinforce it and help provide it, and so should our policy.
Penalties? Not sure what you mean in the current context.[/quote]
Shouldn’t there be punishment for breaking up a nuclear family and hurting society?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Shouldn’t there be punishment for breaking up a nuclear family and hurting society?[/quote]
I’d revisit no-fault divorce, but no, we don’t need to erect additional statutory penalties for breaking up nuclear families. In reality, there are already penalties in-fact - you forfeit the benefits you had when you were married, as an example. As a practical matter (and an ideological one), that’s as far as the state can reasonably police the break-up of a family.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Shouldn’t there be punishment for breaking up a nuclear family and hurting society?[/quote]
I’d revisit no-fault divorce, but no, we don’t need to erect additional statutory penalties for breaking up nuclear families. In reality, there are already penalties in-fact - you forfeit the benefits you had when you were married, as an example. As a practical matter (and an ideological one), that’s as far as the state can reasonably police the break-up of a family.[/quote]
Why is that as far as they can go?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Why is that as far as they can go?[/quote]
That’s as far as I think we should go (which isn’t the same as how far we can go), as I said, for practical and ideological reasons. I don’t like interfering that far into the thicket of private lives, and even if I did, I don’t think we would manage the costs versus the benefits very well.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Why is that as far as they can go?[/quote]
That’s as far as I think we should go (which isn’t the same as how far we can go), as I said, for practical and ideological reasons. I don’t like interfering that far into the thicket of private lives, and even if I did, I don’t think we would manage the costs versus the benefits very well. [/quote]
So a fine is too personal, but outlawing relationships isn’t?
To be clear myself, if someone is calling their relationship a marriage, I’m not interested. Well, not interested as far the state is concerned. If someone is asking that it too be recognized and privileged by the state, well, that’s where I come in.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So a fine is too personal, but outlawing relationships isn’t?[/quote]
Well, yep - you’re talking about two different issues and two different policy problems.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
To be clear myself, if someone is calling their relationship a marriage, I’m not interested. Well, not interested as far the state is concerned. If someone is asking that it too be recognized and privileged by the state, well, that’s where I come in.[/quote]
But in the case that started this thread, they aren’t asking for state recognition. They are asking to simply not be prosecuted against for evening saying they have a spiritual, non-government sanctioned marriage. Do you take issue with this?
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
But in the case that started this thread, they aren’t asking for state recognition. They are asking to simply not be prosecuted against for evening saying they have a spiritual, non-government sanctioned marriage. Do you take issue with this?[/quote]
I take issue with them saying it, I don’t support the government doing anything about it. co-habitation, having children out of wedlock, or homosexuality…None of these, either, do I grant the state the authority to punish. What I do grant the state the ability to do is to recognize, exclusively, the smallest biological unit capable of bearing and rearing it’s own children, privileging it in status and benefits. Any other relationship would have to organize it’s affairs with the same limitations as a pair of best friends would run into.
[quote]No, he stated that the overriding principal of a republic was common interest. And that personal rights are overridden by that public interest. This is completely wrong.
I stated the constitution allows for public interest to be served as long as it doesn’t interfere with individual rights, but the ultimate law of our constitutional republic is individual rights codified by the constitution.
You claimed they do that all the time, but have yet to provide any example.
Public interest is NOT the litmus test for a law in a constitutional republic. Period. Kamui, was completely wrong.[/quote]
-maybe it was poorly worded (remember that i’m not a native english speaker), but i was thinking about marriage laws. not about all laws.
-i never said that a law can override the individual right granted by the constitution if this law benefit the public interest.
i simply stated that, in a republic, you don’t add a law or modify an existing law for the sole benefit of a minority.
it’s a negative statement, not a positive one.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
The polygamist challenging the constitutionality of this case is a perfect example. Despite jail time, social harassment, intimidation and the like they desperately want to be together and do so in spite of all these dangers. They love each other and want to make that love more permanent than an open ended ‘dating’ relationship. Gays have for years been having their own ‘non-official’ marriages to symbolize their love for one another and differentiate their love from simply dating someone.
I believe we should cherish and encourage the family unit which is why it seems ass backwards to me to be keeping folks who want to create family units, regardless of the makeup of that union, from doing so.
[/quote]
Except we shouldn’t just let them do what they want as it is unnatural and immoral.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
My point was that even lacking the economic reasons, polygamists would still exist due to their cultural/religious convictions.[/quote]
Everything we do is because of culture (which even supersedes religion).[/quote]
Religion supersedes culture.