• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Group Marriage on the Way?

wakephan09 said:
Because evangelical politicians and voters justify their beliefs (and policy positions) with the bible. Other politicians don't use random internet sites to justify their policy positions.
Click to expand...

I'm voting Jill Stein because it looks like I side with her on ISideWith.com
 
The counter argument is harm to a participant. It does not apply with consenting adults.
 
ReturnofMf said:
Do you really want me to lay out a 22 page legal argument in these posts? I call both sides simpletons and or obtuse. For my work, I will get endless grief here?

There is an an excellent 1st amendment argument that attacks, but concurs in the decision of, Kennedy's 14th Amendment simplistic crap. It does involve religion and state and a 5,000 year journey.

Basically, we are required to accept most religions. Several accept, condone, or perform gay marriage. Not recognizing this is a favoring of a religion (which was meant to be Protestant v. Catholic), which fails under any test of later cases. Trust me.
Click to expand...

That's not a very good argument, even in sketch.
 
Junebug said:
That's not a very good argument, even in sketch.
Click to expand...

You want to drop 10K, I'll give you the whole brief. If you want to drop 12K, I'll give you the counter-brief.

Sadly, the only somewhat conservative at UGA. Problem is never wrong, never trump#

And R's are losing by 4.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Consenting adults, RJ. In countries with polygamous marriages, the whole consent and choice thing is pretty much nullified before girls grow tits and are bartered off to the neighbor's kid for a goat and a couple chickens, and they're lucky if they get a couple chickens. Polygamy does not cause these issues you point out. It may be employed because the problems preexisted, but that's a different issue altogether. And do you think any of those countries would ponder the concept of polygamy meaning one woman and multiple husbands?
Click to expand...

And multiple husbands for a woman would happen here if she's very rich and buying the men.

Polygamy in the US does cause those issues. Women don't work in those groups. In fact many are on welfare as you can see on a volume of articles. Of course there's no sense bringing them here, because like Wrangor and others, you simply ignore any stories, even court cases that challenge your position.
 
Or there is no sense bringing them here because they don't make sense.
 
Last edited:
wakephan09 said:
Because evangelical politicians and voters justify their beliefs (and policy positions) with the bible. Other politicians don't use random internet sites to justify their policy positions.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but not sure what that has to do with anything. You can take anything out of context. Am I taking something out of context in my argument? I am calling for consistency in our stance on marriage. I am not using the Bible to do that. So while I agree with your point, I don't think it has anything to do with the discussion at hand.
 
PhDeac said:
You asked for the difference. That's the difference.
Click to expand...

No I asked why is marriage between two people? What's your basis for this statement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Wrangor said:
I don't disagree, but not sure what that has to do with anything. You can take anything out of context. Am I taking something out of context in my argument? I am calling for consistency in our stance on marriage. I am not using the Bible to do that. So while I agree with your point, I don't think it has anything to do with the discussion at hand.
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out that you were dismissing scientific studies sourced from Google News with the argument that anybody can "prove" anything with the internet while opponents of evangelical politics make an essentially similar claim about policies founded in biblical reasoning.
 
wakephan09 said:
I was just pointing out that you were dismissing scientific studies sourced from Google News with the argument that anybody can "prove" anything with the internet while opponents of evangelical politics make an essentially similar claim about policies founded in biblical reasoning.
Click to expand...


Also, it's one thing to use Google searches to find proponents or opponents versus well known, respected professional groups and studies. I used Google to find Psychology Today and an Ivy League university. I'm not using it to quote Breitbart, Daily Kos or Hannity.

Dismissing the work of accepted experts in the field is very Trump-esque.

09, just so you know, we are in agreement. I am expanding on your statement not challenging it.
 
wakephan09 said:
I was just pointing out that you were dismissing scientific studies sourced from Google News with the argument that anybody can "prove" anything with the internet while opponents of evangelical politics make an essentially similar claim about policies founded in biblical reasoning.
Click to expand...

I dont disagree with you at all. Not sure I have ever argued that. Its ridiculous to try and convince someone that doesn't believe in the Bible by using the Bible as your reference. It makes sense if two Christians are arguing over something, but doesn't make any sense when you are looking to convince a group of people that may or may not operate underneath the same set of faith principles.
 
RJKarl said:
Also, it's one thing to use Google searches to find proponents or opponents versus well known, respected professional groups and studies. I used Google to find Psychology Today and an Ivy League university. I'm not using it to quote Breitbart, Daily Kos or Hannity.

Dismissing the work of accepted experts in the field is very Trump-esque.

09, just so you know, we are in agreement. I am expanding on your statement not challenging it.
Click to expand...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201210/the-three-reasons-polygamy

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201507/the-pros-and-cons-polygamy

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-polygamy-i-why-most-americans-are-polygamous

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...x-polygamy-ii-why-most-women-benefit-polygamy

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201108/are-people-naturally-polygamous-0

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201212/are-monogamous-relationships-really-better

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201401/most-marriages-are-polygamous

There is some good reading for you. Some of them more applicable than others. Since Psychology today is a proper resource then I present evidence that there are plenty of smart people who have analyzed polygamy and decided that it can be a healthy choice, perhaps even healthier than a forced monogamous relationship. Here is the thing. I don't agree, but I respect people's right to disagree, and I think you are being hypocritical to single out one form of mate choosing as preferable to another when the entire gay movement was about allowing people to choose whom they love. So you can continue to google search for as many articles as you like, but I assure you that there is a counter-argument article out there to refute you.

I would rather discuss these topics then attempt to shut down dissent with some article and claim it as 'proof' that I am right. In the end I am arguing in which direction our society is going. I am not arguing for polygamy. I don't think it is the kind of relationship we are intended for, but there are people who disagree, and if we are going to give the right to marry to homosexuals (who I also disagree with), I think it is pretty disingenuous to withhold that 'right' from polygamists. I also don't think people should get married for a multitude of reasons (as a personal choice) but I wouldn't dare restrict them through the force of our laws.

Maybe the simplest and most compelling argument in favor of legalization is that it would enhance people's freedom to choose their own mates. No one on either side of the debate suggests that it should be legal to coerce anyone into a polygamous marriage. Jonathan Rauch's comment (above) that polygyny allows "high-status men to hoard wives" suggests wives being collected like possessions, but this overlooks the fact that in many cultures, women in polygynous marriages actively choose to enter them—and the same goes for men in most polyandrous marriages. If the government prohibits people from choosing to marry polygamously, this is the equivalent of telling them that instead of marrying their preferred partner, they must instead marry someone they would otherwise not choose, or else not marry at all.

So it does seem that by prohibiting polygamy between consenting adults, we restrict people's ability to choose their own mate(s). However this doesn't mean making it legal is a good idea. Personal freedom is not the only value we should strive to maximize, of course, and there may be a greater social good served by keeping polygamy illegal. Would the potential costs of legalizing polygamy—such as reduced gender equality, increased numbers of low-status unmarried men, decreased social stability, or some other unmentioned problem—exceed the potential benefits?
Click to expand...

Once we begin to look at things through the lens of evolutionary psychology and biology, they start to look quite different. Something that we previously thought was quite bizarre and morally wrong, like polygyny, begins to look quite natural and common. The perspective also gives us a new insight, like how women, not men, mostly benefit in polygynous societies.
Click to expand...

In light of the cross-cultural evidence, then, the question of what kind of marriage system emanates most directly from evolved human mating psychology does not appear to be a very challenging one. That system is polygyny. Most ancestral men aspired to polygyny, even if only a minority could achieve it, while many ancestral women perceived that their own interests would be better served as the co-wife of a really impressive man than as the sole wife of a lesser one. The modern human mind is composed of genetically encoded psychological adaptations for mating behavior that evolved in these ancestral polygynous environments. That's why there is so much de facto polygyny in Western culture, despite the West's attempts to abolish polygyny in favor of a marriage system that biologist Richard Alexander refers to as "socially imposed monogamy."

So the more challenging question is: Why, given the "naturalness" (I hesitate to use that term, because in an important sense everything is natural, but hopefully you'll get my meaning) of polygyny, did the West end up proscribing polygyny and prescribing monogamy?
Click to expand...

In the interviews, the parents described a number of ways their children benefited from the polyamory:

“The children had more individualized time with adults.”
They “could spend less time in day care because of the flexibility of having multiple parental figures involved in their lives.”
“…the greater diversity of interests available from adult figures helped children foster a wider variety of hobbies and skills.”
Click to expand...

Rather than make blanket claims about Polygamy being 'PROVEN' as dangerous, tell me why it is dangerous? Tell me how you have seen that play out in a modern society that allows polygamy. Tell me why I am supposed to believe it is dangerous when that is the exact same argument that the Religious Right used against homosexuality for decades in this country. Explain to me the difference. Don't post an article, tell me in your own words why polygamy is such a danger in a modern society where there are bad monogamous relationships all the time that we allow.
 
Last edited:
Wrangor said:
I dont disagree with you at all. Not sure I have ever argued that. Its ridiculous to try and convince someone that doesn't believe in the Bible by using the Bible as your reference. It makes sense if two Christians are arguing over something, but doesn't make any sense when you are looking to convince a group of people that may or may not operate underneath the same set of faith principles.
Click to expand...

Agreed, except for that many politicians that you support do exactly that.
 
ReturnofMf said:
Do you really want me to lay out a 22 page legal argument in these posts? I call both sides simpletons and or obtuse. For my work, I will get endless grief here?

There is an an excellent 1st amendment argument that attacks, but concurs in the decision of, Kennedy's 14th Amendment simplistic crap. It does involve religion and state and a 5,000 year journey.

Basically, we are required to accept most religions. Several accept, condone, or perform gay marriage. Not recognizing this is a favoring of a religion (which was meant to be Protestant v. Catholic), which fails under any test of later cases. Trust me.
Click to expand...

I kinda see where you're going here, but I don't buy it. Nobody is preventing those religions from performing marriages. It's a question of whether the state recognizes them. And there's no disparate treatment because all religions were treated the same
 
wakephan09 said:
Agreed, except for that many politicians that you support do exactly that.
Click to expand...

This is such a silly side argument to make. I can't think of a single time in the past 5 years i have supported a politician who made his pitch based primarily on Biblical principles that weren't generally acceptable to the public (i.e.: love your neighbor as yourself).

Still not sure what this has to do with marital preferences. Just feel like you are trying to make some personal point against me that really has no bearing on the topic. So wherever point you are trying to make, I wish you the best. I'm not going to get caught jumping into the rabbit hole. I have responded to whatever your point is fully enough.

I've still yet to see a compelling argument as to why polygamy is different from homosexuality based in the rights we have bestowed people with regards to marriage. 923 is arguing a utilitarian approach but that misses the point of the entire gay movement IMO. Gay marriage wasn't granted because it was a net positive society, it was granted because it was considered discrimination or bigotry to withhold happiness from someone who was unable to personally fulfill their desire to marry the person of their choosing. If that is our baseline then we are committing the same crime against polygamists who just want to live and be free to choose their own partners in life. To prevent polygamist marriage and allow homosexual marriage is very inconsistent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I know I'm whistling in the dark, but can those of you who are disagreeing with Wrangor please try to emulate him and argue in an honest and sincere fashion? I don't know how much of it's because you're incapable of understanding what he's saying or how much of it's because you're arguing dishonestly, but it's exasperating to see him patiently and calmly restate his position over and over. Show him the same respect he's shown you throughout this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top