"Why not polygamous marriage?"

[Marduk]

You are failing to see the fundamental sexism in his argument. .

I think she's well aware of it, her mother didn't raise any dumb children
apart from her brother

 

[Ziggurat]

your examples are not relevant to the discussion in any way, try to stay engaged in the subject

They are directly relevant to pointing out the logical error you committed in confusing the difference between something that is unequal and something that is unjust. Your only logical argument here is that the treatment of polygamy is unjust, not that it is unequal.

so you can marry the person you love whereas I cannot and you think thats equality ?

The law doesn't care about love, and love is just a particular form of want. I can marry one person. You can marry one person. You and I are therefore treated equally by the law, regardless of any differences in what you and I want. That you think the law's treatment of you is unjust doesn't make it unequal, even if you're right that it's unjust.

 

[Ziggurat]

You are failing to see the fundamental sexism in his argument. All women care about is a successful man, ergo they will choose to share a successful man instead of having a less successful man to themselves. That is the fundamentals of his position.

Strawman. Nothing about my argument requires that all women want the same thing. But what many women want is a successful man. Just like many men want a sexually attractive woman. It may not be true for every man or every woman, but it's most certainly true for a lot of men and women. That's reality, if you want to define noticing reality as sexist, the problem is with you, not me.

 

[Complexity]

They are directly relevant to pointing out the logical error you committed in confusing the difference between something that is unequal and something that is unjust. Your only logical argument here is that the treatment of polygamy is unjust, not that it is unequal.8u

The law doesn't care about love, and love is just a particular form of want. I can marry one person. You can marry one person. You and I are therefore treated equally by the law, regardless of any differences in what you and I want. That you think the law's treatment of you is unjust doesn't make it unequal, even if you're right that it's unjust.

Quit hiding behind 'the law'.

You simply get off on trying to control others.

This shouldn't be any of your business.

I'm in favor of any combination of consenting adults entering into a marriage.

 

[Ziggurat]

Quit hiding behind 'the law'.

The law is what we're discussing.

You simply get off on trying to control others.

Do you get off on insulting people you disagree with?

This shouldn't be any of your business.

The law shouldn't be any of my business?

No, the law should be all of our business.

What individuals choose to do on their own within the law may be none of my business, but I have never made any claim on that here.

I'm in favor of any combination of consenting adults entering into a marriage.

That's great that you also support incest.

 

[bookitty]

You are failing to see the fundamental sexism in his argument. All women care about is a successful man, ergo they will choose to share a successful man instead of having a less successful man to themselves. That is the fundamentals of his position.

Which is so weird because you can bounce right over to one of the threads next door and find out that women have all the power in the US. Apparently, that power is pretty fragile because one little change in the marriage laws would dissolve it completely.

(please note: the above is sarcasm and is not to be taken literally.)

 

[Ziggurat]

Which is so weird because you can bounce right over to one of the threads next door and find out that women have all the power in the US. Apparently, that power is pretty fragile because one little change in the marriage laws would dissolve it completely.

(please note: the above is sarcasm and is not to be taken literally.)

I understand that it's sarcasm, I just don't know who the sarcasm is directed at, since I'm not part of whatever thread you're referring to.

 

[bookitty]

The law is what we're discussing.



Do you get off on insulting people you disagree with?



The law shouldn't be any of my business?

No, the law should be all of our business.

What individuals choose to do on their own within the law may be none of my business, but I have never made any claim on that here.



That's great that you also support incest.

You know, given that humans have very strong psychological aversion* to incest, I sincerely doubt that allowing relatives to marry will in any way increase the amount of incest that occurs. People who are in a relationship with a relative already have some social issues. (family gatherings being awkward, complete social rejection, fear for any offspring, that sort of thing.) Why make it worse by not allowing them the benefits of marriage? It harms no one.

(*and didn't they discover some physical one, too? Need to look that up.)

 

[tyr_13]

I understand that it's sarcasm, I just don't know who the sarcasm is directed at, since I'm not part of whatever thread you're referring to.

I'm betting the Drag Queen thread. They have all the Power of Lies or something. I'm not sure, I haven't read it but I assume that's what it's about.

 

[Ziggurat]

You know, given that humans have very strong psychological aversion* to incest, I sincerely doubt that allowing relatives to marry will in any way increase the amount of incest that occurs.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Nevertheless, that is a logical part of what he advocated.

People who are in a relationship with a relative already have some social issues. (family gatherings being awkward, complete social rejection, fear for any offspring, that sort of thing.) Why make it worse by not allowing them the benefits of marriage? It harms no one.

What harms no one? Letting them get married? Maybe not directly. The incest itself? I beg to differ. So why forbid it? Well, possibly because I don't share your assumption about the effects of legalization. But I've already been over that in a previous thread. Resurrect that one if you want to keep talking about that subject, I think we've gone far enough off topic on this tangent.

 

[Marduk]

They are directly relevant to pointing out the logical error you committed in confusing the difference between something that is unequal and something that is unjust. Your only logical argument here is that the treatment of polygamy is unjust, not that it is unequal.
.

how do you figure that, its perfectly legal for me to live with both my partners, but I'm not allowed to take that to the next step, I have therefore no right to have church or state sanctify my partnership. That is inequality, so I'd have to choose which of my two partners to marry, thats not fair on the one I don't choose, or horror of horrors from your perspective, they might decide to marry each other, thats two elligible women the menfolk won't be getting their hands on eh

The law doesn't care about love, and love is just a particular form of want. I can marry one person. You can marry one person. You and I are therefore treated equally by the law, regardless of any differences in what you and I want. That you think the law's treatment of you is unjust doesn't make it unequal, even if you're right that it's unjust.

the law in this case is based on a claim about mythology made by a Roman catholic saint 1500 years ago, thats not a good example to base a law on.
Again it discriminates against anyone but monogamous heterosexual relationships so that goes double for me because I'm not heterosexual, now if I convert to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints , its suddenly ok again, so apparently the FLDS have more rights than you do
you really think thats fair, your attempts to demonize polygamous marriage have failed, so really, you seem opposed to anyone who doesn't obey religious law
is this a religious argument for you ?

 

[Lowpro]

You know, given that humans have very strong psychological aversion* to incest, I sincerely doubt that allowing relatives to marry will in any way increase the amount of incest that occurs. People who are in a relationship with a relative already have some social issues. (family gatherings being awkward, complete social rejection, fear for any offspring, that sort of thing.) Why make it worse by not allowing them the benefits of marriage? It harms no one.

(*and didn't they discover some physical one, too? Need to look that up.)

If the law doesn't prevent a couple from having kids when they're carriers for Tay Sachs, they shouldn't prevent a blood-related couple from having kids; the health of the kids doesn't seem central to any argument to prevent an incestuous marriage. It's just a taboo.

 

[crimresearch]

Relatives are already legally allowed to marry in the US.

Over the issue of being too closely related, the laws narrowly defining illegal incest were developed over perceptions of genetic consequences.

So again, those dodging the questions have tossed up another HBI, to cover their retreat.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Strawman. Nothing about my argument requires that all women want the same thing. But what many women want is a successful man. Just like many men want a sexually attractive woman. It may not be true for every man or every woman, but it's most certainly true for a lot of men and women. That's reality, if you want to define noticing reality as sexist, the problem is with you, not me.

So just a majority of them.

 

[Ziggurat]

how do you figure that, its perfectly legal for me to live with both my partners, but I'm not allowed to take that to the next step, I have therefore no right to have church or state sanctify my partnership. That is inequality

At least in the US, if the church wants to sanction a marriage to multiple women, that's fine, it's only the state which refuses to do so. And I explained exactly why it's not inequality: the prohibition is laid upon everyone equally. The only difference is that some people want to do it and others don't. But equality doesn't mean everyone gets to do what they want, equality means everyone gets to do the same things.

Do not confuse equality with justice.

Again it discriminates against anyone but monogamous heterosexual relationships, now if I convert to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints , its suddenly ok again, so apparently the FLDS have more rights than you do

I have absolutely no idea where you got this from, but you are badly mistaken on the facts. Mormons have no more legal right to polygamy than anyone else. It's legally prohibited for everyone. Some fringe sects practice polygamy in a non-state-sanctioned setting (that is, their priests may perform multiple religious marriages, but the state still doesn't recognize more than one), but you don't need to be a Mormon to do that. You can start your own religion and marry yourself to as many people as you want, as long as you don't try to get the state to sanction those multiple marriages. Nobody is being treated any differently than anyone else.

 

[crimresearch]

And I explained exactly why it's not inequality: the prohibition is laid upon everyone equally...

And the Supreme Court already explained exactly why that assertion is untrue, a half century ago.

Since we're talking about 'the law' and all...

 

[Ziggurat]

And I explained exactly why it's not inequality: the prohibition is laid upon everyone equally...

And the Supreme Court already explained exactly why that assertion is untrue, a half century ago.

Since we're talking about 'the law' and all...

I presume you mean Brown v Board of Education, which ruled that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

But there is nothing separate here. Everyone is subject to the exact same legal institutions, implemented in the exact same ways. So you have no point, and Brown. v Board of Education has no bearing.

 

[Marduk]

At least in the US, if the church wants to sanction a marriage to multiple women, that's fine, it's only the state which refuses to do so. And I explained exactly why it's not inequality: the prohibition is laid upon everyone equally. The only difference is that some people want to do it and others don't. But equality doesn't mean everyone gets to do what they want, equality means everyone gets to do the same things..

I am asking for people to marry whoever they like, how is that not wanting equality, the law is unjust, its based on biblical teaching, which is perverse

Do not confuse equality with justice.

someone else said you resorted to word games, this is what the third time it hasn't worked with me, perhaps you should try addressing the facts instead

I have absolutely no idea where you got this from, but you are badly mistaken on the facts.

I got it from wiki and from the documentary "escape from polygamy" which was on tv earlier this evening, please do continue to get the basic facts wrong, its really helping you not to appear like a misogynist insecure religious bigot

Still, the practice of plural marriage continues among tens of thousands of members of various fundamentalist splinter groups long disassociated from the main body of the church, such as the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB) or the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS). These polygamist sects are generally located in Utah, Arizona, Texas, and other parts of the Western United States, Canada, and Mexico. Even though polygamy is generally illegal in all 50 states and in all three countries, practitioners are almost never prosecuted unless there is evidence of abuse, statutory rape, welfare fraud, or tax evasion.

seems like tacit state sanction to me, what if it was someone who the state repeatedly failed to prosecute for car theft, would you now be saying that the state didn't allow that either ?

 

[crimresearch]

I presume you mean Brown v Board of Education, which ruled that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

But there is nothing separate here. Everyone is subject to the exact same legal institutions, implemented in the exact same ways. So you have no point, and Brown. v Board of Education has no bearing.

Nope, you presume incorrectly.

You cited the 'prohibits equally' claim from Pace v. Alabama 1883, which the Supreme Court overruled in Loving v. Virginia 1967.

 

[bookitty]

So just a majority of them.

Well, not really a majority. Just enough that if polygamy were legal we would have feral gangs of young, blue-balled men wandering the streets and tearing down society as we know it. Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together (for protection!) Mass hysteria!