Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gay marrige is so yesterday.

sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 9:24:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Now that gay marriage is so yesterday we need to move on to the subject of polygamy. What will be the arguments allowing polygamy. Polygamists rights. They are consenting adults, who are we as a society to say one man can't have 2,4,5,7 wives if they are all consenting.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 10:02:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 9:24:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
Now that gay marriage is so yesterday we need to move on to the subject of polygamy. What will be the arguments allowing polygamy. Polygamists rights. They are consenting adults, who are we as a society to say one man can't have 2,4,5,7 wives if they are all consenting.

Agreed. Same for multiple husbands.

How does it feel being progressive?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 10:05:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't mind. If the other wife did all the housework and brought a big dowry with her that I could spend as the powerful first wife, that would be fine.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 12:21:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 10:05:31 PM, rross wrote:
I don't mind. If the other wife did all the housework and brought a big dowry with her that I could spend as the powerful first wife, that would be fine.

Well, sh*t...
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 12:24:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 9:24:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
Now that gay marriage is so yesterday we need to move on to the subject of polygamy. What will be the arguments allowing polygamy. Polygamists rights. They are consenting adults, who are we as a society to say one man can't have 2,4,5,7 wives if they are all consenting.

Sexual orientation is not the same thing as wanting to have a harem.
Tsar of DDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 12:27:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 12:24:15 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 9:24:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
Now that gay marriage is so yesterday we need to move on to the subject of polygamy. What will be the arguments allowing polygamy. Polygamists rights. They are consenting adults, who are we as a society to say one man can't have 2,4,5,7 wives if they are all consenting.

Sexual orientation is not the same thing as wanting to have a harem.

I do think some of the reasoning carries over, although it's addressing a different part of the system.

While there is no valid reason to restrict gender, we haven't had a real cultural debate on whether there's a valid reason to restrict number. Which neither means there is or isn't necessarily.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 1:29:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 9:24:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
Now that gay marriage is so yesterday we need to move on to the subject of polygamy. What will be the arguments allowing polygamy. Polygamists rights. They are consenting adults, who are we as a society to say one man can't have 2,4,5,7 wives if they are all consenting.

If this is to be satire or tongue-in-cheek, you have failed. You should have brought up incest, as they are far closer in merit.

But to answer your question, I think it should be allowed, as long as a pre-nup and will are drafted upon the second marriage and updated with any additional marriage.
My work here is, finally, done.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 6:56:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It'll never work.

Sit down with three wives and try and explain to them how you'll be dividing the payout to your life insurance as beneficiaries.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 7:46:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 1:29:51 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/23/2013 9:24:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
Now that gay marriage is so yesterday we need to move on to the subject of polygamy. What will be the arguments allowing polygamy. Polygamists rights. They are consenting adults, who are we as a society to say one man can't have 2,4,5,7 wives if they are all consenting.

If this is to be satire or tongue-in-cheek, you have failed. You should have brought up incest, as they are far closer in merit.

Am I missing something here, or are you saying a gay relationship is closer to an incestual relationship than a polygamous one?

Regardless, I think any consenting adult should be able to marry any other consenting adult, whether it's a man marrying his own brother or a woman marrying a man who already has a dozen wives. Why can't people just focus on their own fvcking pathetic lives instead of trying to police the world?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 12:06:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 6:56:34 AM, drafterman wrote:
It'll never work.

Sit down with three wives and try and explain to them how you'll be dividing the payout to your life insurance as beneficiaries.

Now imagine a probate lawyer/family court making the decision...
This is why, if it were to be legal, the will/pre-nup must be completed.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 12:17:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 7:46:25 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 6/24/2013 1:29:51 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/23/2013 9:24:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
Now that gay marriage is so yesterday we need to move on to the subject of polygamy. What will be the arguments allowing polygamy. Polygamists rights. They are consenting adults, who are we as a society to say one man can't have 2,4,5,7 wives if they are all consenting.

If this is to be satire or tongue-in-cheek, you have failed. You should have brought up incest, as they are far closer in merit.

Am I missing something here, or are you saying a gay relationship is closer to an incestual relationship than a polygamous one?

As far as the argument goes, yes. This is why I said "merit".
The only real non-religious argument against SSM is child bearing, which gays cannot have. So, if that is not a requirement for marriage, then neither should the possibilty of imbred children bar couples from marriage. It makes no sense to say that two people who can't have kids should get married, but two people who may have kids who may have issues, should not.

Polygamy's issue is with probate, which is not an issue with same-sex, straight, or incestious marriages, thus it is further away logically.

Regardless, I think any consenting adult should be able to marry any other consenting adult, whether it's a man marrying his own brother or a woman marrying a man who already has a dozen wives. Why can't people just focus on their own fvcking pathetic lives instead of trying to police the world?

Should a retard or comatose person be allowed to wed? It's not so cut and dry, is it? And, should a man be able to take 12 wives, knowing that each wife has less and less a share of the wealth? People do confuse polygamy with commune; they are vastly different. With polygamy, the wives don't have say in the other wives' financial matters (i.e. the second wife is independant of the first).

But, I do think the government should not recognize any marriage, as almost every benefit that is automatic with marriage is offered elsewhere (power of attorney, wills, etc.).
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 12:30:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 12:17:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/24/2013 7:46:25 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 6/24/2013 1:29:51 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/23/2013 9:24:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
Now that gay marriage is so yesterday we need to move on to the subject of polygamy. What will be the arguments allowing polygamy. Polygamists rights. They are consenting adults, who are we as a society to say one man can't have 2,4,5,7 wives if they are all consenting.

If this is to be satire or tongue-in-cheek, you have failed. You should have brought up incest, as they are far closer in merit.

Am I missing something here, or are you saying a gay relationship is closer to an incestual relationship than a polygamous one?

As far as the argument goes, yes. This is why I said "merit".
The only real non-religious argument against SSM is child bearing, which gays cannot have. So, if that is not a requirement for marriage, then neither should the possibilty of imbred children bar couples from marriage. It makes no sense to say that two people who can't have kids should get married, but two people who may have kids who may have issues, should not.

I would argue that it certainly does make sense. One can lead to actual harm, the other cannot. I would say that, if the incestuous couple were sterilized or naturally sterile, the situations could be considered analogous.

Should a retard or comatose person be allowed to wed? It's not so cut and dry, is it?

It really is, because it boils down to ability to consent. A comatose person can clearly NOT consent, so cannot marry. A person with mental disabilities may or may not be competent.

And, should a man be able to take 12 wives, knowing that each wife has less and less a share of the wealth? People do confuse polygamy with commune; they are vastly different. With polygamy, the wives don't have say in the other wives' financial matters (i.e. the second wife is independant of the first).

That's not necessarily so. You're talking about one specific type of a broader class.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:44:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 12:30:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 12:17:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

As far as the argument goes, yes. This is why I said "merit".
The only real non-religious argument against SSM is child bearing, which gays cannot have. So, if that is not a requirement for marriage, then neither should the possibilty of imbred children bar couples from marriage. It makes no sense to say that two people who can't have kids should get married, but two people who may have kids who may have issues, should not.

I would argue that it certainly does make sense. One can lead to actual harm, the other cannot. I would say that, if the incestuous couple were sterilized or naturally sterile, the situations could be considered analogous.

So, two brothers can get married? If so, it would be equally discriminatory as not allowing gays to marry (the argument that counters: it's not discrimination as no man can marry another man, regardless of orientation). If not, why not, since procreation isn't an issue for marriage?

Should a retard or comatose person be allowed to wed? It's not so cut and dry, is it?

It really is, because it boils down to ability to consent. A comatose person can clearly NOT consent, so cannot marry. A person with mental disabilities may or may not be competent.

Fair enough, but where is the line drawn for all of this?

My point is, there was a line in the sand, and now it has been crossed, and reestablishing a line will be difficult to do... with integrity.

And, should a man be able to take 12 wives, knowing that each wife has less and less a share of the wealth? People do confuse polygamy with commune; they are vastly different. With polygamy, the wives don't have say in the other wives' financial matters (i.e. the second wife is independant of the first).

That's not necessarily so. You're talking about one specific type of a broader class.

Can you source this for me? Can you please show me why I am wrong about how multiple spouses work?
My work here is, finally, done.
inferno
Posts: 10,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:58:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 9:24:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
Now that gay marriage is so yesterday we need to move on to the subject of polygamy. What will be the arguments allowing polygamy. Polygamists rights. They are consenting adults, who are we as a society to say one man can't have 2,4,5,7 wives if they are all consenting.

No. We need to move forward to beastiality. Im sure one day it will be okay if we married animals.
They have rights too. =)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 3:29:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 2:58:16 PM, inferno wrote:
At 6/23/2013 9:24:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
Now that gay marriage is so yesterday we need to move on to the subject of polygamy. What will be the arguments allowing polygamy. Polygamists rights. They are consenting adults, who are we as a society to say one man can't have 2,4,5,7 wives if they are all consenting.

No. We need to move forward to beastiality. Im sure one day it will be okay if we married animals.
They have rights too. =)

No they don't, nor can they consent.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 3:54:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Fine with me.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 4:02:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I love how they just assume that polygamy will inspire this instant self-evident opposition. I don't freakin care whether or not someone has multiple wives, how the hell is it my OR your's OR the state's business? And in what manner is it immoral to you if there are no victims in the process?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 4:09:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 9:24:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
Now that gay marriage is so yesterday we need to move on to the subject of polygamy. What will be the arguments allowing polygamy. Polygamists rights. They are consenting adults, who are we as a society to say one man can't have 2,4,5,7 wives if they are all consenting.

As an ugly man, I am opposed to polygamy on the grounds that the male/female ratio is nearly equal. as such, when one person has multiple spouses then another person must go without one. I would say that polygamy is therefore antisocial as it leads to a worse society.

Furthermore, it would be likely that in the event of myself having a daughter, that she would be beautiful and therefore able to find a spouse. As I would be selfish for her well being, I would expect one man to fulfill her needs exclusively rather then divide her among six other wives.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 4:15:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 4:02:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
I love how they just assume that polygamy will inspire this instant self-evident opposition. I don't freakin care whether or not someone has multiple wives, how the hell is it my OR your's OR the state's business? And in what manner is it immoral to you if there are no victims in the process?

Do you ever think about unintended consequences when it comes to social policies?
Or is it always just mind your own business if it isn't hurting anyone, (from your perspective) who gives a crap.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 4:16:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 4:15:01 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:02:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
I love how they just assume that polygamy will inspire this instant self-evident opposition. I don't freakin care whether or not someone has multiple wives, how the hell is it my OR your's OR the state's business? And in what manner is it immoral to you if there are no victims in the process?

Do you ever think about unintended consequences when it comes to social policies?
Or is it always just mind your own business if it isn't hurting anyone, (from your perspective) who gives a crap.

Please list those consequences. What manner of apocalypse will befall us if we let people govern their own lives in peaceful ways?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 4:28:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 4:09:24 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
At 6/23/2013 9:24:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
Now that gay marriage is so yesterday we need to move on to the subject of polygamy. What will be the arguments allowing polygamy. Polygamists rights. They are consenting adults, who are we as a society to say one man can't have 2,4,5,7 wives if they are all consenting.

As an ugly man, I am opposed to polygamy on the grounds that the male/female ratio is nearly equal. as such, when one person has multiple spouses then another person must go without one. I would say that polygamy is therefore antisocial as it leads to a worse society.

Easy fix. Just find a man who already has several wives, befriend him, then marry into the clan. All the wives become yours too. If you have siblings, just marry into one of their clans since there will be no justifiable legal reason for not allowing that too.

Furthermore, it would be likely that in the event of myself having a daughter, that she would be beautiful and therefore able to find a spouse. As I would be selfish for her well being, I would expect one man to fulfill her needs exclusively rather then divide her among six other wives.

Quit being so prudish and old-fashioned. Think progress!!!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 4:29:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 4:02:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
I love how they just assume that polygamy will inspire this instant self-evident opposition. I don't freakin care whether or not someone has multiple wives, how the hell is it my OR your's OR the state's business? And in what manner is it immoral to you if there are no victims in the process?
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 4:30:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 4:16:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:15:01 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:02:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
I love how they just assume that polygamy will inspire this instant self-evident opposition. I don't freakin care whether or not someone has multiple wives, how the hell is it my OR your's OR the state's business? And in what manner is it immoral to you if there are no victims in the process?

Do you ever think about unintended consequences when it comes to social policies?
Or is it always just mind your own business if it isn't hurting anyone, (from your perspective) who gives a crap.

Please list those consequences. What manner of apocalypse will befall us if we let people govern their own lives in peaceful ways?

Well the first thing that comes to mind is how Fkd children will become. Not knowing who to listen to. You're Not my daddy or you aren't my mommy. Then you have the problem with same sex couples marrying someone of the opposite sex for the sole purpose of having children and the financial benefits and then just never live together. All the while the child may never know who their real daddy or mommy is. There are so many countless perversions to list. But none of that even seems to register with you. Contrary to what you might have been told children like to know who their mommy and daddy are. I find it interesting that the destruction and perversion of the family unit will have no effect what so ever on children and society.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 4:31:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 4:15:01 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:02:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
I love how they just assume that polygamy will inspire this instant self-evident opposition. I don't freakin care whether or not someone has multiple wives, how the hell is it my OR your's OR the state's business? And in what manner is it immoral to you if there are no victims in the process?

Do you ever think about unintended consequences when it comes to social policies?

How is polygamy an unintended consequence of same sex marriage?

Or is it always just mind your own business if it isn't hurting anyone, (from your perspective) who gives a crap.

Why wouldn't it be? I mean. At any given moment in time, two penises are touching. Does it bother you that much that you need to eradicate this behavior at any and all costs?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 4:32:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 4:30:48 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:16:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:15:01 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:02:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
I love how they just assume that polygamy will inspire this instant self-evident opposition. I don't freakin care whether or not someone has multiple wives, how the hell is it my OR your's OR the state's business? And in what manner is it immoral to you if there are no victims in the process?

Do you ever think about unintended consequences when it comes to social policies?
Or is it always just mind your own business if it isn't hurting anyone, (from your perspective) who gives a crap.

Please list those consequences. What manner of apocalypse will befall us if we let people govern their own lives in peaceful ways?

Well the first thing that comes to mind is how Fkd children will become. Not knowing who to listen to. You're Not my daddy or you aren't my mommy. Then you have the problem with same sex couples marrying someone of the opposite sex for the sole purpose of having children and the financial benefits and then just never live together. All the while the child may never know who their real daddy or mommy is. There are so many countless perversions to list. But none of that even seems to register with you. Contrary to what you might have been told children like to know who their mommy and daddy are. I find it interesting that the destruction and perversion of the family unit will have no effect what so ever on children and society.

None of this is a consequence of SSM.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 4:38:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 4:32:25 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:30:48 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:16:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:15:01 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:02:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
I love how they just assume that polygamy will inspire this instant self-evident opposition. I don't freakin care whether or not someone has multiple wives, how the hell is it my OR your's OR the state's business? And in what manner is it immoral to you if there are no victims in the process?

Do you ever think about unintended consequences when it comes to social policies?
Or is it always just mind your own business if it isn't hurting anyone, (from your perspective) who gives a crap.

Please list those consequences. What manner of apocalypse will befall us if we let people govern their own lives in peaceful ways?

Well the first thing that comes to mind is how Fkd children will become. Not knowing who to listen to. You're Not my daddy or you aren't my mommy. Then you have the problem with same sex couples marrying someone of the opposite sex for the sole purpose of having children and the financial benefits and then just never live together. All the while the child may never know who their real daddy or mommy is. There are so many countless perversions to list. But none of that even seems to register with you. Contrary to what you might have been told children like to know who their mommy and daddy are. I find it interesting that the destruction and perversion of the family unit will have no effect what so ever on children and society.

None of this is a consequence of SSM.

EHH this is a thread about polygyny, who's talking about SSM. SSM is so yesterday.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 4:45:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 4:30:48 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:16:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:15:01 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:02:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
I love how they just assume that polygamy will inspire this instant self-evident opposition. I don't freakin care whether or not someone has multiple wives, how the hell is it my OR your's OR the state's business? And in what manner is it immoral to you if there are no victims in the process?

Do you ever think about unintended consequences when it comes to social policies?
Or is it always just mind your own business if it isn't hurting anyone, (from your perspective) who gives a crap.

Please list those consequences. What manner of apocalypse will befall us if we let people govern their own lives in peaceful ways?

Well the first thing that comes to mind is how Fkd children will become. Not knowing who to listen to. You're Not my daddy or you aren't my mommy. Then you have the problem with same sex couples marrying someone of the opposite sex for the sole purpose of having children and the financial benefits and then just never live together. All the while the child may never know who their real daddy or mommy is. There are so many countless perversions to list. But none of that even seems to register with you. Contrary to what you might have been told children like to know who their mommy and daddy are. I find it interesting that the destruction and perversion of the family unit will have no effect what so ever on children and society.

So they'll deal with it. Children all over the world and in this country are exposed to far more trying circumstances than that.

You're giving me a headache. There's nothing wrong with same sex marriage and there's nothing wrong with polygamy.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 4:48:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 4:38:18 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:32:25 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:30:48 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:16:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:15:01 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:02:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
I love how they just assume that polygamy will inspire this instant self-evident opposition. I don't freakin care whether or not someone has multiple wives, how the hell is it my OR your's OR the state's business? And in what manner is it immoral to you if there are no victims in the process?

Do you ever think about unintended consequences when it comes to social policies?
Or is it always just mind your own business if it isn't hurting anyone, (from your perspective) who gives a crap.

Please list those consequences. What manner of apocalypse will befall us if we let people govern their own lives in peaceful ways?

Well the first thing that comes to mind is how Fkd children will become. Not knowing who to listen to. You're Not my daddy or you aren't my mommy. Then you have the problem with same sex couples marrying someone of the opposite sex for the sole purpose of having children and the financial benefits and then just never live together. All the while the child may never know who their real daddy or mommy is. There are so many countless perversions to list. But none of that even seems to register with you. Contrary to what you might have been told children like to know who their mommy and daddy are. I find it interesting that the destruction and perversion of the family unit will have no effect what so ever on children and society.

None of this is a consequence of SSM.

EHH this is a thread about polygyny, who's talking about SSM. SSM is so yesterday.

Ok. Can you cite real life examples of these consequences in actual polygynist societies?
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 5:04:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 4:48:06 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:38:18 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:32:25 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:30:48 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:16:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:15:01 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/24/2013 4:02:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
I love how they just assume that polygamy will inspire this instant self-evident opposition. I don't freakin care whether or not someone has multiple wives, how the hell is it my OR yours OR the state's business? And in what manner is it immoral to you if there are no victims in the process?

Do you ever think about unintended consequences when it comes to social policies?
Or is it always just mind your own business if it isn't hurting anyone, (from your perspective) who gives a crap.

Please list those consequences. What manner of apocalypse will befall us if we let people govern their own lives in peaceful ways?

Well the first thing that comes to mind is how Fkd children will become. Not knowing who to listen to. You're Not my daddy or you aren't my mommy. Then you have the problem with same sex couples marrying someone of the opposite sex for the sole purpose of having children and the financial benefits and then just never live together. All the while the child may never know who their real daddy or mommy is. There are so many countless perversions to list. But none of that even seems to register with you. Contrary to what you might have been told children like to know who their mommy and daddy are. I find it interesting that the destruction and perversion of the family unit will have no effect what so ever on children and society.

None of this is a consequence of SSM.

EHH this is a thread about polygyny, who's talking about SSM. SSM is so yesterday.

Ok. Can you cite real life examples of these consequences in actual polygynist societies?

I don't have to prove anything to you. I am merely pointing out possible unintended consequences. You see, this is what is called dialog. People bring up topics of discussion and then they discuss the pros and cons of that particular topic. In this case have brought up very real possibilities should polygamy become law. Now if your response is "That's never going to happen" Fine. Opinion noted.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%