Gay marriage vs. pulygamy

[DriftingSand]

Sin often reveals itself after years of dormancy. Regardless ... wrong will never be right no matter how tightly we squeeze our eyes and dream.

The Fetus I save ISN'T gay. Proper training and good examples will show that baby the difference between right and wrong. There is no "gay" gene.

It's not relevant whether people are born gay or not. Both sides are wrong to give either side of that argument any merit.

There is some relevance because if a person is NOT born gay then homosexuality can be blamed on lack of training and the absence of common sense. Nevertheless, even if someone WAS born gay they could overcome that malady with proper training and good examples.

You're begging the question by presuming homosexuality to be a malady.

Until the early 70s it was considered a mental disorder by our own medical community as well as the majority of the world's cultures. It doesn't cease to be a malady just because the gay lobbyists have enough clout to call it something else.

Anyway, we can expect to see more and more of these kinds of stories as it becomes more acceptable for gays to adopt kids:

Gay couple accused of sexually abusing adopted Russian boy for years RT News

Gay Conn. couple accused of rape face trial - NY Daily News

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, sexual equality has existed outside of the modern era. Was polygamy tried or accepted in those situations?

Yes, no, maybe so. What's your point?

You have devolved into a logically absurd position. You are demanding that polygamy must be observed in a culture of gender equality before we can conclude whether polygamy effects gender equality within a culture. If polygamy were to have an adverse effect on the gender equality of the culture, then we would no longer be observing a culture of gender equality, and thus the observation you are demanding becomes impossible.

Stop, please. You are stretching your otherwise intelligence into ridiculousness. You are making pointless demands which only serve to dismiss the well established evidence and knowledge of the matter. I already explained that your chicken v. egg proposition is a false dilemma.

Even if we could reasonably conclude that polygamy is more of a product than a cause of male dominated societies, we still already know that polygamy makes the problem even worse. It reenforces propagates male dominance in society, even in cases of polyandry. The circumstances that lead to its instantiation certainly make for interesting study. But its effects on society are already understood, and do not require treatment of its origins anymore than we need to question how a forest fire was started in order to understand the effect it had on the forest.

While it may be extremely effective, I don't think the way you prevent forest fires is to outlaw trees. It is not the place of the government to decide whether people are not making appropriate decisions. So long as we are talking about competent adults, they can make their own mistakes.

 

[Montrovant]

The Fetus I save ISN'T gay. Proper training and good examples will show that baby the difference between right and wrong. There is no "gay" gene.

It's not relevant whether people are born gay or not. Both sides are wrong to give either side of that argument any merit.

There is some relevance because if a person is NOT born gay then homosexuality can be blamed on lack of training and the absence of common sense. Nevertheless, even if someone WAS born gay they could overcome that malady with proper training and good examples.

You're begging the question by presuming homosexuality to be a malady.

Until the early 70s it was considered a mental disorder by our own medical community as well as the majority of the world's cultures. It doesn't cease to be a malady just because the gay lobbyists have enough clout to call it something else.

Anyway, we can expect to see more and more of these kinds of stories as it becomes more acceptable for gays to adopt kids:

Gay couple accused of sexually abusing adopted Russian boy for years RT News

Gay Conn. couple accused of rape face trial - NY Daily News

And of course, it's important that child abuse accusations be limited to heterosexuals, right?

 

[PratchettFan]

The Fetus I save ISN'T gay. Proper training and good examples will show that baby the difference between right and wrong. There is no "gay" gene.

It's not relevant whether people are born gay or not. Both sides are wrong to give either side of that argument any merit.

There is some relevance because if a person is NOT born gay then homosexuality can be blamed on lack of training and the absence of common sense. Nevertheless, even if someone WAS born gay they could overcome that malady with proper training and good examples.

You're begging the question by presuming homosexuality to be a malady.

Until the early 70s it was considered a mental disorder by our own medical community as well as the majority of the world's cultures. It doesn't cease to be a malady just because the gay lobbyists have enough clout to call it something else.

Anyway, we can expect to see more and more of these kinds of stories as it becomes more acceptable for gays to adopt kids:

Gay couple accused of sexually abusing adopted Russian boy for years RT News

Gay Conn. couple accused of rape face trial - NY Daily News

More nonsense. If I can produce a new story of a heterosexual couple doing these things does that make being straight a malady?

 

[NLT]

What is pulygamy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Fetus I save ISN'T gay. Proper training and good examples will show that baby the difference between right and wrong. There is no "gay" gene.

It's not relevant whether people are born gay or not. Both sides are wrong to give either side of that argument any merit.

There is some relevance because if a person is NOT born gay then homosexuality can be blamed on lack of training and the absence of common sense. Nevertheless, even if someone WAS born gay they could overcome that malady with proper training and good examples.

You're begging the question by presuming homosexuality to be a malady.

Until the early 70s it was considered a mental disorder by our own medical community as well as the majority of the world's cultures. It doesn't cease to be a malady just because the gay lobbyists have enough clout to call it something else.

Anyway, we can expect to see more and more of these kinds of stories as it becomes more acceptable for gays to adopt kids:

Gay couple accused of sexually abusing adopted Russian boy for years RT News

Gay Conn. couple accused of rape face trial - NY Daily News

So I guess if I post 2 examples of heterosexual abuse we're back to even?

lol, idiot.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I see no valid reason why polygamy is illegal. I know a number of people who have more than one loving relationship. And as long as everyone involved is aware, it does not harm whatsoever.

How about a woman marrying several men.....
Ahh, see got ya thinkin, don't I?
How many of you who think polygamy automatically think one guy, several women. And never gave a single thought to one woman, several men?
Quite frankly I think this is a wasted of time because polygamy is viewed by the mainstream as barbaric and archaic.

 

[PratchettFan]

I see no valid reason why polygamy is illegal. I know a number of people who have more than one loving relationship. And as long as everyone involved is aware, it does not harm whatsoever.

How about a woman marrying several men.....
Ahh, see got ya thinkin, don't I?
How many of you who think polygamy automatically think one guy, several women. And never gave a single thought to one woman, several men?
Quite frankly I think this is a wasted of time because polygamy is viewed by the mainstream as barbaric and archaic.

I see no problem with that. Or three men and two women. It should be left to the individuals involved.

 

[WinterBorn]

I see no valid reason why polygamy is illegal. I know a number of people who have more than one loving relationship. And as long as everyone involved is aware, it does not harm whatsoever.

How about a woman marrying several men.....
Ahh, see got ya thinkin, don't I?
How many of you who think polygamy automatically think one guy, several women. And never gave a single thought to one woman, several men?
Quite frankly I think this is a wasted of time because polygamy is viewed by the mainstream as barbaric and archaic.

Society has made polygamy a barbaric and archaic practice because of the insistence that everyone should find their "soulmate" and be content for the rest of their lives.

And yes, many people think polygamy is a man with numerous wives. That is incorrect. Polygamy is more than one spouse or mate. Polyandry is more than one husband. And polygyny is more than one wife.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay couples can adopt or use a surrogate to have kids. There are also plenty who came out later in life, having had kids before doing so.

Sin often reveals itself after years of dormancy. Regardless ... wrong will never be right no matter how tightly we squeeze our eyes and dream.

The Fetus I save ISN'T gay. Proper training and good examples will show that baby the difference between right and wrong. There is no "gay" gene.

It's not relevant whether people are born gay or not. Both sides are wrong to give either side of that argument any merit.

There is some relevance because if a person is NOT born gay then homosexuality can be blamed on lack of training and the absence of common sense. Nevertheless, even if someone WAS born gay they could overcome that malady with proper training and good examples.

That is as scientific as claiming prayer can heal people.

You can of course believe what ever you want.

 

[DriftingSand]

Sin often reveals itself after years of dormancy. Regardless ... wrong will never be right no matter how tightly we squeeze our eyes and dream.

The Fetus I save ISN'T gay. Proper training and good examples will show that baby the difference between right and wrong. There is no "gay" gene.

It's not relevant whether people are born gay or not. Both sides are wrong to give either side of that argument any merit.

There is some relevance because if a person is NOT born gay then homosexuality can be blamed on lack of training and the absence of common sense. Nevertheless, even if someone WAS born gay they could overcome that malady with proper training and good examples.

It is not a malady any more than heterosexuality is a malady. You are not trained to be attracted to one sex or the other. What your are saying it absolute nonsense.

Nope. I'm right! You just don't like it that I'm right.

 

[SwimExpert]

While it may be extremely effective, I don't think the way you prevent forest fires is to outlaw trees.

That's a silly comparison.

Prevention of forest fires often does involve prohibitions against, for example, unattended camp fires, etc. And reasonably so. In any event, the forest fire comparison was one dealing with causality relationships. Trying to transfer the comparison to legitimizing government action is a logically inappropriate equivalency.

It is not the place of the government to decide whether people are not making appropriate decisions. So long as we are talking about competent adults, they can make their own mistakes.

But the government does have a legitimate interest in seeking to prevent harmful social trends. A male dominated society would do substantial harm to approximately one half of the entire populace, and it's perfectly reasonable for the government to prohibit behaviors and social institutions that would contribute to the same. Personally, I think that if a man wants multiple wives it's better to let him have it and let him hang himself with his own rope. But it's perfectly reasonable for the government to disallow it.

 

[WinterBorn]

While it may be extremely effective, I don't think the way you prevent forest fires is to outlaw trees.

That's a silly comparison.

Prevention of forest fires often does involve prohibitions against, for example, unattended camp fires, etc. And reasonably so. In any event, the forest fire comparison was one dealing with causality relationships. Trying to transfer the comparison to legitimizing government action is a logically inappropriate equivalency.

It is not the place of the government to decide whether people are not making appropriate decisions. So long as we are talking about competent adults, they can make their own mistakes.

But the government does have a legitimate interest in seeking to prevent harmful social trends. A male dominated society would do substantial harm to approximately one half of the entire populace, and it's perfectly reasonable for the government to prohibit behaviors and social institutions that would contribute to the same. Personally, I think that if a man wants multiple wives it's better to let him have it and let him hang himself with his own rope. But it's perfectly reasonable for the government to disallow it.

The substantial harm would be what? Polygamy has only been seen to do such harm in societies where such harm was already being done. There is no evidence that it would do any harm in a society where sexual equality is valued.

I guess the question would be, is our society one which values sexual equality?

 

[SwimExpert]

The substantial harm would be what? Polygamy has only been seen to do such harm in societies where such harm was already being done. There is no evidence that it would do any harm in a society where sexual equality is valued.

False.

 

[WinterBorn]

The substantial harm would be what? Polygamy has only been seen to do such harm in societies where such harm was already being done. There is no evidence that it would do any harm in a society where sexual equality is valued.

False.

Really? Based on what evidence?

 

[SwimExpert]

The substantial harm would be what? Polygamy has only been seen to do such harm in societies where such harm was already being done. There is no evidence that it would do any harm in a society where sexual equality is valued.

False.

Really? Based on what evidence?

*facepalm*

Go get an education, because you clearly are lacking one. The harm inflicted by polygamy is not religious in origin. Despite your arbitrary attempt to blame its failings on religion, your insinuations are devoid of any logical or factual merit. Your entire position is logically absurd. Your entire line of questioning is logically faulty. By continually trying to pin the issue on religious cultures, you are obsessing over superficial qualities to the intentional avoidance of the substantive issues. Your position is the equivalent of saying that the driving too fast has never been tried in cars with 5 wheels, so we don't need to pay attention to the harmful effects observed in driving cars with 4 wheels too fast.

If you can't get that through your head, then your complete lack of ability to think logically and your obsession with attributing all bad things on religion are entirely your problem. And make any further discussion with you pointless.

 

[Brain357]

The big issue with polygamy is that it could get really messy with taxes, Social Security and insurance. Otherwise, I have no issue with it. If I was loaded, I'd give it a go.

And if it's mostly men with multiple wives a serious shortage of women for whoever is left.

 

[WinterBorn]

The substantial harm would be what? Polygamy has only been seen to do such harm in societies where such harm was already being done. There is no evidence that it would do any harm in a society where sexual equality is valued.

False.

Really? Based on what evidence?

*facepalm*

Go get an education, because you clearly are lacking one. The harm inflicted by polygamy is not religious in origin. Despite your arbitrary attempt to blame its failings on religion, your insinuations are devoid of any logical or factual merit. Your entire position is logically absurd. Your entire line of questioning is logically faulty. By continually trying to pin the issue on religious cultures, you are obsessing over superficial qualities to the intentional avoidance of the substantive issues. Your position is the equivalent of saying that the driving too fast has never been tried in cars with 5 wheels, so we don't need to pay attention to the harmful effects observed in driving cars with 4 wheels too fast.

If you can't get that through your head, then your complete lack of ability to think logically and your obsession with attributing all bad things on religion are entirely your problem. And make any further discussion with you pointless.

No, I have not blamed it all on religion. I have simply stated that polygamy has not been tried in modern times, in a society that allows sexual equality, and without the heavy hand of religion.

You are basing your supposition on cultures that have so little resemblance to our modern lives as to be ridiculous. And you have the audacity to claim I need an education??

 

[WinterBorn]

The big issue with polygamy is that it could get really messy with taxes, Social Security and insurance. Otherwise, I have no issue with it. If I was loaded, I'd give it a go.

And if it's mostly men with multiple wives a serious shortage of women for whoever is left.

If it is that. But it could just as easily be a woman with multiple wives or a group relationship with more than one of each gender.

 

[SwimExpert]

No, I have not blamed it all on religion. I have simply stated that polygamy has not been tried in modern times, in a society that allows sexual equality, and without the heavy hand of religion.

For that matter, it hasn't been tried by one eyed, one horned, flying, purple people eaters either. Maybe it will work this time around!!

*shakes head*