[quote]kamui wrote:
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]
This is so blindingly simple it’s easy to see why it is drowned out (almost certainly on purpose) by the blood curdling screams for EQUAL RIGHTS and admonitions against BIGOTRY!!!
If you want benefits and you are a member of a minority group, the onus is upon YOU to demonstrate why you deserve them, not upon us to demonstrate why you don’t, though we can oblige our end.
[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. [/quote]
Given that religion is culture I fail to see how it could possibly do that.
[quote]kamui wrote:
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]
This is so blindingly simple it’s easy to see why it is drowned out (almost certainly on purpose) by the blood curdling screams for EQUAL RIGHTS and admonitions against BIGOTRY!!!
If you want benefits and you are a member of a minority group, the onus is upon YOU to demonstrate why you deserve them, not upon us to demonstrate why you don’t, though we can oblige our end. [/quote]
Pish posh, in a two party system you are he kingmaker if you are a solid voting block.
If they scream really, really loud and vote as a unit they get what they want.
Not to mention that they can team up with other minorities and logroll.
[quote]Pish posh, in a two party system you are he kingmaker if you are a solid voting block.
If they scream really, really loud and vote as a unit they get what they want.
Not to mention that they can team up with other minorities and logroll. [/quote]
we are not discussing “might”, we are discussing “right”.
btw, we are all fully aware that representative democracy has some flaws.
It was already old news when Aristotle was alive.
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]
The fact of the matter is that there will be very few men capable of having a polygamous marriage. Only the really wealthy can do this and really most women do not see any economic benefit from this sort of arrangement anymore. Woman are, after all, allowed to be more than just a carrier of man’s seed these days.[/quote]
Okay…so what? It’s not like they’re saying ALL marriages must be polygamous. They just want to be able to do it. Personally, I don’t think there are a lot of women who want to be one of many. I know I don’t.
[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]
I didn’t mean to misquote you. Though the “it’s wrong” part was accurate… Which I wholeheartedly disagree with. And I fail to see how moral relativism could be distorted or weird… since it’s relative…
Also, I know you understood what I meant. I was trying to switch to the topic at hand. I disapprove of your style of debate. I find it childish and tiresome. I would like to understand other’s opinions, but you have made it hard to tolerate yours…
I did not know that gays have a high rate of domestic abuse (and still don’t since you didn’t provide me with a source) but I would be willing to wager that, if they do, it is not BECAUSE they’re gay, but because they are treated differently or are not encouraged to seek help as well as heterosexuals. Native Americans in Canada have extremely high child abuse, alcoholism, poverty and crime rates (among other things), but that isn’t because they’re Native, it is because of a history of violent oppression to the point of genocide has started a cycle.
[quote]Kebvin wrote:
I didn’t mean to misquote you. Though the “it’s wrong” part was accurate… Which I wholeheartedly disagree with. And I fail to see how moral relativism could be distorted or weird… since it’s relative…[/quote]
Because it fails to be relative. Because as soon as it gets to me, if my morality is okay for me, then my morality says that everyone has to follow it, too. But they can’t have that so they tell me I am wrong (I thought it was relative so I am not sure how it could be wrong). Half the time they don’t actually believe in moral relativism, but social laxity. And, the other half are just loons that say stuff like “it is okay to kill a three year old if you don’t want them because I can’t push my opinions on to you.”
Why because I ask hard questions that point out your argument is in-congruent?
What most everyone is missing is that is a ploy for TV ratings. They have never been charged with a crime, only investigated, hence they have no case to fight. The Attorney General of Utah knows that he cannot fight people living together. The slippery slope does not apply. If it did They would be fighting to be recognized, not just to be left alone.
[quote]waterskiin wrote:
What most everyone is missing is that is a ploy for TV ratings. They have never been charged with a crime, only investigated, hence they have no case to fight. The Attorney General of Utah knows that he cannot fight people living together. The slippery slope does not apply. If it did They would be fighting to be recognized, not just to be left alone.[/quote]
Well, it does apply. Because that’s the next logical step. To get it recognized. The arguments have already been made for through the SSM movement.
[quote]waterskiin wrote:
What most everyone is missing is that is a ploy for TV ratings. They have never been charged with a crime, only investigated, hence they have no case to fight. The Attorney General of Utah knows that he cannot fight people living together. The slippery slope does not apply. If it did They would be fighting to be recognized, not just to be left alone.[/quote]
Well, it does apply. Because that’s the next logical step. To get it recognized. The arguments have already been made for through the SSM movement.[/quote]
Why does the slippery slope apply since this has gone on since the days of Jasus?
[quote] Brother Chris wrote:
Why because I ask hard questions that point out your argument is in-congruent? [/quote]
No! Because you seem to avoid the point anyone else is trying to make or you just fail to understand it.
[quote]So, being gay is like being an Indian, now? I don’t think you have access to the database at my school, so I’ll just post up this wiki thingy: http://conservapedia.com/...mestic_Violence
It lists a few of the studies I have found in my school’s database.[/quote]
Indians come from India. And you fail to understand again. Minorities will always be compared because the effects of major or minor oppression are comparable no matter who the subjects are. There are similarities.
My point was that if gays are more likely to be abusive, it is because they have a history of being treated differently which is comparable to other groups.
Thank you for the source. I look forward to reading it.
I have to laugh at the intellectual dishonesty of people that think this is any different than gay marriage.
The fools blasted Rick Santorum when he discussed this but he was very accurate. His belief system happens to be against these changes but I lean to supporting both.
[quote]Kebvin wrote:
No! Because you seem to avoid the point anyone else is trying to make or you just fail to understand it.[/quote]
That might be the case, if it is please tell me point I am missing and I will address it.
I am making the point you cannot compare someone’s race to someone’s actions. One’s actions are choices whether or not one has a choice in their sexual tendencies.
[quote]My point was that if gays are more likely to be abusive, it is because they have a history of being treated differently which is comparable to other groups.
Thank you for the source. I look forward to reading it.[/quote]
You’re welcome, I will look forward to further discourse.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You’re welcome, I will look forward to further discourse.[/quote]
I found the studies pretty interesting though I noticed that they did not examine why there is more violence among same-sex couples. I found some other studies myself that start to examine that aspect but they were few and rarely peer reviewed so this seems up for debate.
Polygamy-wise child abuse is common, and this should be paramount to stop before legitimizing in any way.
I disagree with you on this. Because, if you can, imagine that being gay is what is normal and you were the odd one out for thinking that men aren’t attractive to you but women are. I think you’d be hard pressed to choose to marry a man, or choose to become celibate.
But morally, we seem to be almost polar opposites on this. So we’ll probably never see eye to eye.