Group Marriage on the Way?

[Wrangor]

Not really focusing on the group marriage, which you have presented well on this thread, but it's always been a circular argument in my opinion to say the above.

I wasn't attempting to establish a causal relationship with those principles (even though that is surely my belief) but more that there are principles that align universally with other belief systems and thus I wouldn't consider them to be labeled as a Christian principle by an atheist or someone who believes in reincarnation . Kindness, respect of property, generosity, etc.... I agree the logic is circular, but there is no way to really get around that. All believe systems start with just that...a belief. At some point the logic FOR the belief is going to get back around to the origin which is a leap of faith and cannot be proven. Your starting point is everything, but there are shared values across the spectrum that we can all co-enlist. While you may attribute their origin to 'Reason X', I can attribute their origin to 'Reason F'. But we can both agree that the value is desirable to be shared. I hope I am saying that correctly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MysteryMen]

Start castigating the people who have been attacking me for months and I might start to take your criticism a bit more seriously.

Nobody has used the profanity towards you that you use towards others. If they did, I'd castigate them as well

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

Nobody has used the profanity towards you that you use towards others. If they did, I'd castigate them as well

Oh, so you're not concerned about people treating others poorly, just if they use bad words when treating others poorly. That makes sense.

 

[MysteryMen]

Oh, so you're not concerned about people treating others poorly, just if they use bad words when treating others poorly. That makes sense.

No.....the words themselves determine how poor the treatment is. Calling someone dumb or a buffoon is a lot different than calling them a shitstain cockgobbling cunt.

Anyway, just stop using profanity towards other people and they would probably take you a lot more seriously.

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

No.....the words themselves determine how poor the treatment is. Calling someone dumb or a buffoon is a lot different than calling them a shitstain cockgobbling cunt.

Anyway, just stop using profanity towards other people and they would probably take you a lot more seriously.

Actually, calling someone dumb can be just as hurtful if not moreso than calling someone a cunt. Just be honest and admit you don't mind people being dicks to others, as long as they're dicks to someone you don't like. Can you do that? Can you try to be honest? But once that person who has been regularly attacked starts being a dick back to the bullies who have attacked and insulted him for months, oh, the horror! Suddenly you're outraged. I mean, keep up the phony outrage if you want. And the next time dv7 calls me or someone else a cunt, be sure to make a number of indignant posts.

 

[Junebug]

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

A counterargument to your last paragraph is that the SCOTUS concluded that prohibitions on SSM were discriminatory precisely -- but only -- because they weren't motivated by any legitimate utilitarian concerns. In other words, it's not as if the SCOTUS was saying that they were going to start with the presumption that everyone has a right to marry whomever(s) or whatever(s) they want. Rather, they looked at prohibitions on SSM and evaluated whether they were motivated by utilitarian concerns. Because they couldn't find any, they concluded that the motivation was pure animus.

I disagree with both that mode of analysis and the SCOTUS's conclusion, but applying it to polygamy, it is much more difficult to reach the same conclusion. Unlike same-sex relationships, we have mountains of evidence of the negative effects of polygamy on the women who are in polygamous relationships. For that reason, the SCOTUS would be perfectly consistent to hold that prohibitions on SSM are motivated by animus and that prohibitions of polygamous marriage are motivated by legitimate utilitarian concerns.

 

[Wrangor]

A counterargument to your last paragraph is that the SCOTUS concluded that prohibitions on SSM were discriminatory precisely -- but only -- because they weren't motivated by any legitimate utilitarian concerns. In other words, it's not as if the SCOTUS was saying that they were going to start with the presumption that everyone has a right to marry whomever(s) or whatever(s) they want. Rather, they looked at prohibitions on SSM and evaluated whether they were motivated by utilitarian concerns. Because they couldn't find any, they concluded that the motivation was pure animus.

I disagree with both that mode of analysis and the SCOTUS's conclusion, but applying it to polygamy, it is much more difficult to reach the same conclusion. Unlike same-sex relationships, we have mountains of evidence of the negative effects of polygamy on the women who are in polygamous relationships. For that reason, the SCOTUS would be perfectly consistent to hold that prohibitions on SSM are motivated by animus and that prohibitions of polygamous marriage are motivated by legitimate utilitarian concerns.

Good response. I wouldn't say that society has defined marriage that way, but SCOTUS definitely included it in their decision. I would also be willing to predict that a modern society such as the United States would view polygamy much differently than many of the studies that project that lifestyle out to the entire population. In the US it would still be a very isolated event, so you would not see widespread results (loss of female suitors, etc...). In the same manner if projected gay marriage out to the entire population there would be some massive impacts, most importantly on child bearing and rearing. So while i do agree that a polygamous society has severe pitfalls, as a part of a modern culture, in the minority, I don't see many of those massive pitfalls coming to fruition.

 

[MysteryMen]

Actually, calling someone dumb can be just as hurtful if not moreso than calling someone a cunt. Just be honest and admit you don't mind people being dicks to others, as long as they're dicks to someone you don't like. Can you do that? Can you try to be honest? But once that person who has been regularly attacked starts being a dick back to the bullies who have attacked and insulted him for months, oh, the horror! Suddenly you're outraged. I mean, keep up the phony outrage if you want. And the next time dv7 calls me or someone else a cunt, be sure to make a number of indignant posts.

Dude, you're getting attacked because of the way you talk to other people. I disagree with a lot of what Wrangor says, but he's polite so I'm polite back to him. You're an asshole to people on here, so I don't really feel that bad about being a dick back to you (although I certainly don't come close to your levels)

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

Dude, you're getting attacked because of the way you talk to other people. I disagree with a lot of what Wrangor says, but he's polite so I'm polite back to him. You're an asshole to people on here, so I don't really feel that bad about being a dick back to you (although I certainly don't come close to your levels)

I'm done engaging in this foolishness. Let Wrangor, Junebug, Doofus, ELC, etc continue their discussion.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Who knew that a poster could be so annoying as to make you appreciate JHMD or 2&2. BSF has all of the obstinence and self-righteousness of bobknightfan, the "look at meee" martyr complex and melodrama of RJkarl, and 2 scoops of wing nut conspiracy theorist to top it off.

 

[RJKarl]

Or be as lazy and cliched as MDMH?

 

[ONW]

Actually, calling someone dumb can be just as hurtful if not moreso than calling someone a cunt. Just be honest and admit you don't mind people being dicks to others, as long as they're dicks to someone you don't like. Can you do that? Can you try to be honest? But once that person who has been regularly attacked starts being a dick back to the bullies who have attacked and insulted him for months, oh, the horror! Suddenly you're outraged. I mean, keep up the phony outrage if you want. And the next time dv7 calls me or someone else a cunt, be sure to make a number of indignant posts.

Challenge for the day: Walk down the street and call 10 people dumb, then call 10 people cunts, then report back on their level of hurt.

 

[knowell]

Challenge for the day: Walk down the street and call 10 people dumb, then call 10 people cunts, then report back on their level of hurt.

Interesting that both of those posting techniques tend to reflect back on the poster. Calling someone a "cunt" is just a more vulgar way of calling someone a jackass. It is not a particularly biting insult as I am pretty sure many of the posters work pretty hard to be jackasses. Calling someone a "cunt" really says very little about the target, but it does say a lot about the poster.

Calling someone "dumb" usually has more of an intent to stifle discussion or to be hurtful. Typically used by a poster who is incapable of formulating an effective rebuttal argument but is quite sure that he/she is correct anyway.

The poster calling someone a "cunt" or jackass is showing himself or herself to be one while the poster using the intellectually lacking "dumb" insult is showing himself or herself to be exactly that.