I like the sign that reads, "When do I get to vote on your marriage?"

if you believe in legalized gay marriage, do you also believe in legalized polygamy? these are both extensions of the same basic principle.

if you believe in one extension, but not another, you are a hypocrite.

^ the main problem with polygamy is the patriarchy.

^berticus,

do you think polygamy should be legal?

yup.

>> ^imstellar28:
if you believe in legalized gay marriage, do you also believe in legalized polygamy? these are both extensions of the same basic principle.
if you believe in one extension, but not another, you are a hypocrite.


I just had to search the definition of polygamy to check I wasn't misunderstanding your statement. But no, I was right.

I don't believe that your statment has any kind of foundations for a reasoned argument. How is same sex marriage between two individuals an extension of one individual having multiple spouses? Even at the most basic of extensions, I can't see any parallels between the two without being ridculous about it.

To call someone a hypocrite for agreeing with the equality of one instance whilst disagreeing with the social implications of the other in my opinion, is just plain dumb.

Btw, not that it should matter, I am a straight non-american.

Seric,

I never said that polygamy was an extension of gay marriage, I said both polygamy and gay marriage are an extension of the same basic principle (human rights).

Thus if you believe in the particular human right which enables someone to choose a same-sex partner, you must also believe in the human right which enables someone to choose multiple partners because they are one in the same. That is, if you are to be consistent (i.e. not a hypocrite)

It is consistent to be both for or against both gay marriage and polygamous marriage, but it is not consistent to be in favor of one but not the other--if--you are trying to base your reasoning in human rights (which is what most gay marriage defenses stem from)

Perhaps I worded it badly.

Essentailly, I don't believe you can lump the two together under such a broad spectrum of 'human rights'.

Under the same logic you could tie in torture, POW's, Reciprocity, Race, Universal Jurisdiction, Whatever. It's too broad of a subject to call someone a hypocrite for agreeing to one aspect whilst disagreeing with another under the title of 'Human rights' even when they're doing so under different pretenses.

Either way, if someone agrees with same sex marriage, but disagrees with polygamy, I doubt I could find a way to clearly and systematically argue my resoning behind this without being able to pick holes in it myself. In my mind the problems that could be associated with each are in different aspects of sociology, and therefore, cannot be deemed as comparable when making a decision on the hypocrisy of an individual.

Edit: no fair, you edited your statement

No, stella, the marriage of 2 people is not the same as the marriage of more than two people, the marriage of two relatives, the marriage of an adult and a child, the marriage of a human and an animal, or the marriage of a human and Rick Santorum.

It's like saying if you believe murder is wrong then you shouldn't swat flies in your kitchen.

This is a terrible argument, even by your standards.

>> ^imstellar28:
if you believe in legalized gay marriage, do you also believe in legalized polygamy? these are both extensions of the same basic principle.
if you believe in one extension, but not another, you are a hypocrite.

^dystopianfuturetoday, seric,

do you think polygamy should be legal? what about gay marriage? if so/not can you briefly explain why?

Before he founded the Mormon religion, Joseph Smith was a known flim-flam artist. Think, P.T. Barnum... perhaps people who's core beliefs are based on humbug shouldn't be deciding who can and can't get married?

I don't see anything wrong with two or more consenting adults getting married. I say go for it.

Do you have a problem with gay marriage or polygamy?

>> ^imstellar28:
^dystopianfuturetoday, seric,
do you think polygamy should be legal? what about gay marriage? if so/not can you briefly explain why?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I have no problem with polygamy, polyandry, animal marriage - or marrying your toaster.

Perhaps I'm not helping ...

polygamy and gay marriage should both be legal, as they follow from basic human rights.

the point here is that dystopianfuturetoday is trying to champion gay rights because it is important to him, but cares little for the peoples rights whose lifestyles he does not agree with (i.e the rights of polygamists) even when the basic argument behind both are identical . I would say that is both a poor way to "defend human rights", and a hypocritical one. please stop me if I am wrong in my assumptions dystopianfuturetoday.

In effect, I am charging him of the same intolerance exhibited by those condemning gay marriage. The only difference is he is intolerant towards a different group of people.

Marriage is a legal definition and one that provides a whole host of implicit rights; such as the division of assets, which is not clear in the case of polygyny and polyandry. Secondly, many would very effectively argue that while the concept of polygamy is acceptable, but in many practical instances individuals who enter into such relationships do so involuntarily. In an effort to prevent such abuses the federal government and states have chosen to enforce laws which make it illegal to enter into such contracts.

The rights guaranteed when one agrees to a marriage contract are not provided in the same way under civil unions, because there is no established case law, or so my lawyer friends tell me.

The real reason gay unions should be awarded by the state is to provide these equal rights. Furthermore, a solid argument can be made that the only reason why marriage could be defined as between a man and a woman is through a traditional Abrahamic religious interpretation.

I would argue that a law based on a religion is unconstitutional, just like a law which prevents a black man from marrying a white woman or one that permits people to own slaves.

My personal belief is that only civil unions granted by the state, and marriages documents should be reserved for the various religious institutions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

^MycroftHomlz,

Your arguments as I read them are:

1. The division of assets into 50/50 is much easier than the division of assets into 33/33/33, which makes polygamy complicated to the point where it should be illegal.
2. Because a small percentage of marriages may or may not be forced, all polygamy should be outlawed--rather than addressing those specific cases.
3. Homosexuals deserve equal rights, but polygamists do not.

The first argument is rather absurd, the second a pretty good example of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", and the third pretty glaring intolerance. Do you support gay marriage, but not polygamy?

I think your specific example imstellar is reductio ad absurdum, or the slippery slope logical fallacy.

In many examples of polygamy, all wives and husbands are not equal. The point is that the law would have to consider this in the granting of rights, division of assets, and the whole mess that comes with the legal definition of marriage.

So my argument against granting polygamy unions in the same context as gay marriage is not simply that the vast majority of polygamist sects involve the involuntary participation of at least one individual, but also that these relationships also have innate hierarchies that would be near impossible to account for in a legal definition.

It is not that I am intolerant of polygamist relationships, it is that the legal definition is not quantifiable in the same way as a union between two individuals.

That is not to say I am against individuals in polygamist relationships entering into legal contracts, what I am saying is that the legal definition is not as straight forward.

Following your line of reasoning, if "complicated" things (such as the division of assets between polygamists) are to be outlawed, wouldn't we also have to ban such things as nuclear physics, which is decidedly more complex than the drafting of legal contracts between three partners instead of two?

Are you a polygamist imstellar28?

^Farhad2000,

I am not a polygamist, gay, nor do I have any interest in either lifestyle. I'm also not black, a woman, or a muslim, yet I would gladly defend their rights just the same. The fact that you bring this up shows how intolerant you are. You are no different than those who call gay marriage defenders gay as an attempt to scare them into silence.

Personally, I see no reason to involve lawyers in my sex life, nor will I ever.

It is impractical to make a logical defense of individualism with either you or dystopianfuturetoday (I know, I've tried). So here I am, defending polygamists to demonstrate with an empirical example that your philosophy as just as intolerant as those who think gay people should be sent to hell. I chose polygamy because the arguments are the same as for gay marriage, and they are both about marriage--yet almost 90% of Americans are against it so I knew it was extremely likely you were against it as well--even if you are for things like gay marriage.

You don't really care for human rights, you just think gay people should be married. If you really cared for human rights, you wouldn't be oppressing other groups you don't agree with, such as people who marry multiple partners.

Polygamy is an example where democracy and collectivism fails. It is an extension of basic human rights, yet your philosophy completely fails to protect it--just as it did slavery and women's suffrage 200 years ago. Democracy, by definition, will always oppress the minority.

Wait.. that 90 story office building is a Mormon Temple? (time=2:00)

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
No, stella, the marriage of 2 people is not the same as the marriage of more than two people, the marriage of two relatives, the marriage of an adult and a child, the marriage of a human and an animal, or the marriage of a human and Rick Santorum.
It's like saying if you believe murder is wrong then you shouldn't swat flies in your kitchen.
This is a terrible argument, even by your standards.
>> ^imstellar28:
if you believe in legalized gay marriage, do you also believe in legalized polygamy? these are both extensions of the same basic principle.
if you believe in one extension, but not another, you are a hypocrite.



I don't always agree with imstellar, but your argument doesn't beat back his in this case.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/M/Murder.aspx
"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought."

Including flies would be a redefinition of murder too.

My main problem with this whole marriage fight is that it involves redefining an existing word.

I find it very frustrating discussing things with you because it feels like you don't read what I write.

I am not saying it shouldn't be legal. I am saying it shouldn't be legalized in the same context as gay marriage, because it is a contract involving more than two individuals and the case law is not established.

In other words, you can not equate the two in legal terms.

>> ^imstellar28:
Following your line of reasoning, if "complicated" things (such as the division of assets between polygamists) are to be outlawed, wouldn't we also have to ban such things as nuclear physics, which is decidedly more complex than the drafting of legal contracts between three partners instead of two?

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, November 8th, 2008 1:12pm PST - promote requested by MycroftHomlz.

I'm gonna guess imstellar28 is LDS. And polygamy in LDS circles is about power and control, not some ideal of 1 man and several adult, self aware, and equal women. It is in fact the very opposite of that. (I call it LDS even though they are officially excommunicated if they practice, the mythology and culture are the same even if the "official" mormon church is against it on paper.)

It should come as no surprise that Mormons hate equality. They have been discriminating against women for 150 years or so.

>> ^imstellar28:
if you believe in legalized gay marriage, do you also believe in legalized polygamy? these are both extensions of the same basic principle.
if you believe in one extension, but not another, you are a hypocrite.


Polygamy should be legal between consenting adults.

>> ^Seric:
>> ^imstellar28:
if you believe in legalized gay marriage, do you also believe in legalized polygamy? these are both extensions of the same basic principle.
if you believe in one extension, but not another, you are a hypocrite.

I just had to search the definition of polygamy to check I wasn't misunderstanding your statement. But no, I was right.
I don't believe that your statment has any kind of foundations for a reasoned argument. How is same sex marriage between two individuals an extension of one individual having multiple spouses? Even at the most basic of extensions, I can't see any parallels between the two without being ridculous about it.
To call someone a hypocrite for agreeing with the equality of one instance whilst disagreeing with the social implications of the other in my opinion, is just plain dumb.
Btw, not that it should matter, I am a straight non-american.


The reason the issues are related is thus:
Both are based on 51% of the population imposing their religious bullshit on everyone else.

obscenesimian,

I downvoted your comment because:

1. You made a really poor assumption about my personal life.
2. Your post is hate speech.

>> ^Krupo:
My main problem with this whole marriage fight is that it involves redefining an existing word.

Can you explain more? What's your solution?

krupo makes a legitimate point, and while I personally don't care about semantics, an easy solution could be:

marriage: civil union between a man and woman
garriage: civil union between two men or two women
parriage: civil union orgy

so two gay people would be "garried" instead of "married". its kind of like how the Inuit have 5 different words for snow in order to describe it more accurately.

as long as people are legally permitted to enter into civil unions with whomever they are want, thats what I care about.

homosexual marriage? that's just plain unnatural...

>> ^imstellar28:
if you believe in one extension, but not another, you are a hypocrite.

That's kind of like saying you should be able to use a real-estate lease contract to hire an employee, we don't currently have an institution which can do both. While I don't think the gov should be giving people any benefits on the basis of how they relate to their sexual partners, we have it, and it structurally includes only two people, and there is no structural/legal reason that those people should have complimentary genitals.

This is not about who people are "allowed" to have sex with, it's about who the government wishes to subsidize, and we subsidize binary relationships. Put "revoke all marriage benefits" on the ballot and you get my vote, but that's not happening. We don't currently have an institution which works for larger groups, Prop 8 was about an institution we have, not one somebody thinks we should have.

Having a pragmatic position which is sub-optimal is not hypocritical, having half of an "Ideal" situation is sometimes worse then having none of it at all. Some things should not be done piece-meal, and barring major overhauls in our legal system I support this legal extension, but not the other.

>> ^solvent:
homosexual marriage? that's just plain unnatural...


as opposed to something natural like hairless monkeys driving huge metal boxes powered by explosions, or typing on keys made of dinosaur remains which send pulses of light through cables made of sand?

dgandhi,

if you dress up your intolerance in big words and pseudo-legitimate logic, the intolerance doesn't vanish.

and it structurally includes only two people, and there is no structural/legal reason that those people should have complimentary genitals.

yeah, and theres no structural/legal reason why we can't allow multiple contracts or more than two people anymore than there is a reason we can't allow complimentary genitals. this is about who you can make a contract with, and what the contract can state.

the government's proper role is to enforce contracts, not dictate their terms. that is why gay marriage should be legal, and it is also why polygamy should be legal.

your personal prejudice or intolerance of others (or the prejudice or intolerance of the majority) has absolutely no place in a system of law.

>> ^imstellar28:
yeah, and theres no structural/legal reason why we can't allow multiple contracts or more than two people anymore than there is a reason we can't allow complimentary genitals. this is about who you can make a contract with, and what the contract can state.

While I have no issue with the idea of creating institutions which can handle that, we have no such institutions, saying we could, in no way addresses the fact that we don't. It would require a major restructuring to allow group or parallel marriages, and while I have no ethical problem with them I don't want the marriages subsidies we have, so I can't fathom creating a whole new institution which will provide more.

To say that the institution we have should be applied equally is not inconsistent with wanting these institutions changed or abolished in the ideal case.

the government's proper role is to enforce contracts, not dictate their terms. that is why gay marriage should be legal, and it is also why polygamy should be legal.

They are not illegal, they are just not officially recognized, that's the point you don't seem to get. Sleep with whomever you want, under whatever conditions you desire, and call it whatever you desire. You just don't get a gov license or subsidy unless you can fit into the existing institution.

Just so we're all clear:

1. That is not a Mormon Temple.
2. Mormons do not support polygamy, nor is the general membership of the church sympathetic toward practicing polygamists.
3. The LDS Church teaches that a husband and wife are equal partners. A man who oppresses his wife, cheats on his wife, or abuses her in any way is excommunicated.

Polygamy and polyandry would be terribly complicated, legally speaking. Imagining a complication is trivial: what happens when one partner is critically injured and the other partners cannot agree whether a do not resuscitate order should be signed?

The line of argument presented by imstellar is patently ridiculous. As are all arguments against same sex marriage. They're all based on bigotry, intolerance, hatred and religious dogma.

The Mormon church needs its tax exempt status revoked.

i dont get why people care how other people choose to love. when did love become something bad? i can't think of a worse cause than fighting for the prevention of happiness between two people so that you can pretend like gay people don't exist or something.

anyprophet,

your hate of others is sickening. its people like you that make this world such a sh*tty place to live for a lot of people. you wanna make the world a better place? go lay down in the bathtub and fill it to the brim.

that, or open your f*cking eyes and go meet people who aren't the same color, religion, or culture as yourself.

fyi, i'm not taking offense to this as a mormon (I'M AN ATHEIST) im taking offense to this as a human being. this is the 21st f*cking century. religious persecution should have been dealt with a long time ago.

>> ^imstellar28:
^Farhad2000,
I am not a polygamist, gay, nor do I have any interest in either lifestyle. I'm also not black, a woman, or a muslim, yet I would gladly defend their rights just the same. The fact that you bring this up shows how intolerant you are. You are no different than those who call gay marriage defenders gay as an attempt to scare them into silence.

I never knew asking questions can make me intolerant.

You say that "Democracy, by definition, will always oppress the minority.", the democracy discriminates only by definition what the collective does not see as being socially acceptable, this is understandable. I don't see you offering any other system that would allow for the minority to be equal.

I read over your views and I wanted to ask you this, if you say that by extension if gay marriage should be allowed so should polygamy would you say that pedophile relationships should be allowed by consenting parties? man boy love and so on?

Where exactly does one draw the line then?

PS: I really think your whole thing about polygamy is a false flag, polygamy is pretty tolerated, sure people who practice live on fringe societies. But there is places you can get killed for being a faggot. Furthermore polygamy is not tolerated because the grounds for child abuse, child exploitation and not committal to sustaining the extended family. This is the same reason polygamy has been shed from the modern Islamic world.

"Oh you support gays you must support polygamy" is just like "Oh you support freedom you must support war"

^Farhad2000:
>> ^imstellar28
I never knew asking questions can make me intolerant.

asking questions can't make you intolerant, but the questions you ask can reveal that you are in fact, intolerant . For instance, if I asked you "why should gay people be considered real human beings?" You were trying to insinuate that I was a polygamist to get me to shut up, pure and simple. People do the same thing with supporters of gay rights--they question them about being gay to prey on their insecurity in the hopes of silencing them.

I don't see you offering any other system that would allow for the minority to be equal.

A republic which is a rule of law. We write a constitution which says that all humans have basic rights which cannot be violated, then we set up a police, military, fire, and legal system to ensure these rights aren't violated. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness covers just about everything. Sounds vaguely familiar right? This is the system of governance that thousands of people died for 300 years ago, and the system which has since been replaced by democracy. freedom is hard to obtain, and its even harder to keep.

That single line "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is enough to ensure gay rights, polygamist rights, womens suffrage, forbid slavery, racism, protect freedom of speech and religion, maintain economic liberty, and guard against any other form of oppression.

Its only when the majority (or a despot) comes in and overrides the rule of law that the minority (or majority) is oppressed. A legitimate system of law based on fundamental human rights is the only system which can protect against oppression.

A system where "laws" are created based on the whims of the majority (democracy) is not a legitimate system--it just another system of oppression. That is why we don't have gay marriage in this country--our system of law is not legitimate, it is just a glorified lynch mob: if 51% of people think you should die (or not marry someone of the same sex) then that is your fate and theres nobody to protect you.

Furthermore polygamy is not tolerated because the grounds for child abuse, child exploitation and not committal to sustaining the extended family.

None of those necessarily follows from polygamy, and that exact same kind of argument is often used against gay marriage. That argument is fallacious in both cases.

^very true jwray. nothing bout polygamy even states that children have to be involved. you could have 20 wives but choose to not have any children. you could also have 20 "wives" of the same sex.

of course, i think for many Americans imagining a gay polygamist would probably make their head explode.

Steller, I upvoted your second comment, because I didn't see any reason it should be downvoted.

I believe Gay people should have all the same rights that Straight people do, including marriage.

Multi-marriage is a different issue, and honestly one I haven't given much thought to. If polygamists want to make their case before the courts, I think they should, and I'll listen with an open mind. My impression of polygamy is that it seems to generally be psychologically unhealthy and unfair to the women. Polygamy is also often linked with incest, abuse and child molestation.

These crazy Mormons -->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVGK2Aa4uEk&feature=related creep the hell out of me, but you are free to make the case for polygamy if you like.

--Comment edited because: I thought you were arguing against gay marriage with the old gay-marriage-leads-to-polygamy-leads-to-incest-leads-to-bestiality-leads-to-necrophilia-slippery-slope-argument, but you are actually arguing in FAVOR of polygamy. Sorry for the misunderstanding. More power to ya' then.

dystopianfuturetoday,

those are unfortunate cases but that is not true for everyone. if there is even one case where three people can live happily married why would you want to take that away from them?

the problem of child/spouse abuse occurs in all marriages: straight, gay, and polygamous and should be addressed directly as what is is: abuse. abuse is already against the law. its not fair or moral to make marriage illegal for everyone because in some situations it turned out poorly.

^Fair points. I'm open to reading some positive polygamy stories if you've got them.

>> ^dag:
I have no problem with polygamy, polyandry, animal marriage - or marrying your toaster.
Perhaps I'm not helping ...


I uh...don't suppose Sifty's single, is he?

My impression of polygamy is that it seems to generally be psychologically unhealthy

In what scientifically measurable way?
Without answering that question, that is rather a restatement of your bias against polygamy than a reason against it.
People said the same thing about homosexuality, and had the studies to prove a correlation.
However correlation does not imply causation.
In fact, being treated as a second class citizen is the most likely cause of such distress.

and unfair to the women.
If the women or men give their informed consent and are free to leave/divorce, no it's not.

Polygamy is also often linked with incest, abuse and child molestation.

What scientific study has found any such causal link?
Has there even been found a correlation?
A couple of sensationalized cases in the media about crazy mormons don't make it generally true.

Even if one could demonstrate such a correlation, it would not imply causation. A more plausible hypothesis besides any such causal link would be that a couple of socially unusual behaviors are weakly correlated with each other because of another variable that is weakly linked to both, namely conformity (a person's willingness to accept all social norms and trends without a second thought) But this speculation is hardly relevant since those crimes alleged to flow from polygamy are crimes in themselves that would remain illegal, and polygamy can and does often exist without any such violations.

I think the two sides are fighting on different levels and basically can't really understand. I think transporter said it really well- people treat gays as if they don't exist... because if they ignore them long enough, like insubordinate children who only seek attention, they will obviously come to their senses, be enlightened by god, and fall in the right kind of love and make lots of babies. Gays don't have the luxury of waiting it out (until that miraculous straight fairy comes and they can suddenly join good common folks), they live life in the here and now and need those benefits that marriage and recognition of it grants straight couples.
To religious folks it's all theoretical because besides the few of them that are in the closet, they have no idea how it feels to be on the persecuted side of this debate. It should be interesting in a few decades when the tables are turned, people are free to marry the sex of their choice, the world is run by logic and good will towards others, and Christians are a minority that has to defend their ways as they make others now...
maybe that's too optimistic.

>> ^Farhad2000:
PS: Furthermore polygamy is not tolerated because the grounds for child abuse, child exploitation and not committal to sustaining the extended family. This is the same reason polygamy has been shed from the modern Islamic world.


Child abuse and exploitation already have legal recourses. That's no reason preclude the former.


>> ^MycroftHomlz:
I think your specific example imstellar is reductio ad absurdum, or the slippery slope logical fallacy.
In many examples of polygamy, all wives and husbands are not equal. The point is that the law would have to consider this in the granting of rights, division of assets, and the whole mess that comes with the legal definition of marriage.
So my argument against granting polygamy unions in the same context as gay marriage is not simply that the vast majority of polygamist sects involve the involuntary participation of at least one individual, but also that these relationships also have innate hierarchies that would be near impossible to account for in a legal definition.
It is not that I am intolerant of polygamist relationships, it is that the legal definition is not quantifiable in the same way as a union between two individuals.
That is not to say I am against individuals in polygamist relationships entering into legal contracts, what I am saying is that the legal definition is not as straight forward.


That should have ended the fruitless comparison to polygamy right there.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex...

I guess the whole issue is that marriage came from religion, and having religion not support gays, they therefor cannot technically marry.

Instead people argue that the union between same-sex couples should be called something else, not marriage.

BUT, then there is the insinuation that same-sex couples cannot be religious or believe in God because their actions are not condoned by God. Take away the ability to marry, then you're arguably trampling on their rights for happiness, etc. Either way, they're getting screwed (no pun intended).

I don't see this issue being resolved any time soon.

democracy is system for corruption, gays are everywhere in america because no strong leader for many years.

Except... he doesn't read my comments.

That's no reason preclude the former.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

It is not that I am intolerant of polygamist relationships, it is that the legal definition is not quantifiable in the same way as a union between two individuals.
That is not to say I am against individuals in polygamist relationships entering into legal contracts, what I am saying is that the legal definition is not as straight forward.

That should have ended the fruitless comparison to polygamy right there.

As for women, I personally prefer quality over quantity.

The gay marriage = polygamy/bestiality/pedophilia argument is so tiresome. It's obviously a deeply addled mind that makes those connections.

Let us equate gay marriage to something more realistic. Does anyone here feel that black people shouldn't be allowed to get married? Because that's the idea you're advocating. Just as a black person has no control over their ethnicity, a homosexual person has no control over their sexual preference, and you're an idiot if you think they do.

The biggest problem with the entire gay marriage argument is the legislation of religious beliefs as law.

I propose that the solution is to remove marriage from the laws. If the religious of this country want to monopolize marriage fine. If you want to get married let your minister do it. But as far as the legal side is concerned, couples will have to file for a domestic partnership/civil union. I know it spoils things for some people, but if that's what it takes for equality then so be it.

Steller. I've thought about it a bit. I don't think most polygamous relationships are built on a healthy foundation, because in every case (that I am aware of) the wives are only married to the husband and not to each other. I think a true multiple marriage would require that the women are in love with, and have sex with each other as well as the man, otherwise it's just a glorified harem. I'm still not sure how I'd vote on a pro-polygamy initiative.

Borat?

>> ^stalingrad1942:
democracy is system for corruption, gays are everywhere in america because no strong leader for many years.

WARNING THIS THREAD CONTAINS NUTS

HollywoodBob,

Read my comments. For the third time in this single thread, I am in favor of BOTH gay marriage and polygamy. I am not using a "slippery slope argument" I have never even heard of crap like that until this thread. how are all three of you (mycroftholmz, dys, and yourself) arriving at the same incorrect conclusion and all using the same word? its creeping me out a little.

my intention of this thread was to prove that even people who are supporters of gay marriage can be just as intolerant as anyone else--specifically, they can be just as intolerant as people who condemn gay marriage.

i proved that by revealing a type of marriage they were intolerant about (polygamy).

the reason i did this was to illustrate that democracy is a flawed system and does not protect against oppression, intolerance, and hate--the only system which does this is a rule of law derived by basic human rights!


Redsky, Mycroftholmz,

no amount of legal excuses changes the fact of whether you support polygamy or not. you either do or you don't. why are you making excuses for what you believe? if your beliefs are correct you should proud of them, not trying to explain them away.

in conclusion. I SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE and I SUPPORT POLYGAMY am i'm being serious, not making some kind of roundabout BS argument.

dystopianfuturetoday,

there is no reason that all three cannot be married to each other. e.g. the man married to both women, and each woman married to both the other man and other woman. then, you would have 3 marriages between three people. complicated? maybe. but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal.

what if someone meets their soul mate, and they are happily married. something tragic happens and one of them is paralyzed. rather than divorce them and find someone else as some would, the disabled partner, out of their undying love of their partner tells them to remarry. out of his own undying love, he doesn't want to divorce his soul mate so he finds another wife but remains married to his soul mate. the new wife is understanding and not jealous. she had a husband too, but he was wrongly accused of murder and ended up in jail so she can be with him mentally but not physically. for this reason, she stays married to him but takes the new relationship on the urging of her husband in jail. etc. etc.

or theres a man who is married to his wife for 40 years before he realizes hes actually gay. he loves his wife so he doesn't want to divorce her. the wife realizes that she likes two guys at the same time, so they decided look for a third partner to kill two birds with one stone. kinky as hell, ya. but why would you want to take that away from them if thats what makes them happy?

or theres a couple who is infertile. they want to have a baby together more than anything. one of their close friends is a single mother. the mother goes on vacation for a year and they babysit the kid. they grow attached and ask the mother to raise it together. all three love the baby deeply, and all three decide to be its parents under one house to help it get the best life it can. they were already good friends and physically attracted to each other, and eventually fall in love. the married couple eventually proposes to the single mother.

theres a million ways it could make sense. i'm not into it just like i'm not into gay marriage but i would die before i oppress someone and tell them who to marry and who not to marry.

>> ^deedub81:
"Not only are the beliefs of people who belong to the FLDS church very different from those of the LDS faith, but the culture couldn't be more different.


And the Mormon church teaches that a husband and wife are equal partners. A man who oppresses his wife or abuses her in any way will be excommunicated.

...So are you an expert on polygamy and the Mainstream LDS Church because your preacher told you all about it, or did you watch some special on PBS?"


Well as a matter of fact, I have first hand experience with polygamists, and I do not have to refer to a book by Krakauer or a PBS special to comment on the activities, personalities and bigotry associated with FLDS members. I have had the misfortune to be materially involved in a job that FLDS members "e.g. Jacob Jessop" were the low bidder on. I as well have a long experience living and working among the LDS. Is 6 miscarriages and 7 adopted children, along with a profoundly disabled child, all as a component of being a good mormon, which leads to a breakdown and divorce considered abuse in your eyes? Do you think the guy in this example was excommunicated? My preacher is not a part of my views as I long ago gave up religion for truth, and do not have a preacher. Keep being an apologist for polygamy and you will continue to support the actions of those the church has excommunicated.

Republics with constitutions that protect human rights aren't a panacea. They won't necessarily include rights that they ought to include. It's still all dependent upon whoever has the power to make those laws. Ignorant but honest people often elect ignorant and dishonest representatives. Moreover, it is much easier to bribe one person than to bribe 300,000 people.

^thats not true jwray, a constitution only needs a single sentence:

"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

name a single right that doesn't protect? human rights are really very simple...our constitution already has everything in it that it needs to protect against every form of oppression. all we need to do is enforce it. we don't need to make a single new law, we never did. we could get rid of all 10,000 laws in the US and that single sentence could protect everyone just the same.

murder, theft, vandalism, assault, rape, reckless driving, fraud, slavery child abuse--all of those are a violation of that single sentence.

women's rights, gay marriage, polygamy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, the right to a fair trail, all of these rights follow from that single sentence.


all we have to do is throw this democracy bullsh*t in the garbage and enforce that single sentence.

Stella:

Are you humming with your fingers in your ears? I can't discuss things with you. You need to reread my comments and make certain that they are saying what you think they are saying. I assure, I never said polygamy shouldn't be legal. I said it is a different legal beast than gay marriage.

If you don't get that, then I can't help you.

^ the philosophical underpinnings are identical--THAT was my argument. i never said the legal implementation was the same. if you aren't saying it should be legal, then why are you saying its a different legal beast? nobody (that i've seen) is arguing for gay marriage because "the legal changes are simple" they are arguing for it based on equal rights. THAT was my point:

that if you argue for gay marriage based on equal rights, you also have to argue for polygamy based on equal rights.

so why on earth are you talking about the legal implementation--it has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. was it just supposed to be some kind of "for your information" ? if so, why do you want me to respond so much? i know exactly what you are saying, i'm not responding because its a different topic. you are the one who doesn't understand what i'm saying--because you think its somehow a "refutation" of my argument.

1. one guy thought i was a mormon
2. one guy thought i was a polygamist
3. three people thought i was using a "slippery slope" argument (including yourself)
4. four or more people thought i was arguing against gay marriage
5. several people thought i was arguing against polygamy.

wtf?? you aren't the one who should be complaining about people not reading what you are writing.

you can see words with your eyes. you can speak words out loud. you can even read sentences and speak them out loud but that does not mean you actually understand what that combination of words means or implies. you may have "read" what i wrote, but you sure as hell didn't understand any of it.

^Imstellar

You say:
"the reason i did this (gay marriage = polygamy) was to illustrate that democracy is a flawed system and does not protect against oppression, intolerance, and hate--the only system which does this is a rule of law derived by basic human rights!"

Your proposition was:
"Republic government" + "That single line "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is enough to ensure gay rights, polygamist rights, womens suffrage, forbid slavery, racism, protect freedom of speech and religion, maintain economic liberty, and guard against any other form of oppression."

Do we live in the same world?

The United States is a federal constitutional republic not a democracy. Bill of rights (1791) and the US Constitution (1787).

Even then slavery ended (legally speaking only) in 1865, racism continued for a long time culminating with the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Woman's suffrage only came into nationalized form in 1920.

I find it silly to lay the blame at the feet of democracy which doesn't currently exist in the US, and claim that solutions exist in a republic that issues laws and decrees that you expect to be perfectly respected by every organ of the government and applied fairly across the nation.

The obstacles to same-sex marriage stem from basic social incompatibility out of years of fear mongering that gays would ruin America and its moral standing originating in the fundamentalist christian right. It's basic social taboo, which we might find wrong but wouldn't be thought of so in the Midwest and most of the Christian enclaves in the US.

These fears are then expressed in election that bring social conservatives to power, resulting laws passed by congress, house and signed in by the President, the largest one being the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), authored by Bob Barr (republican at the time) in 1996 going fast tracked through a republican controlled house and congress.

Its Congressional sponsors stated, "[T]he bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex."

^we are SUPPOSED to be a republic but we are NOT currently a republic, we are a democracy.

if we are a rule of law, how the hell is gay marriage illegal? how the hell could slavery be legal 200 years ago if we really were a rule of law? why didn't women have the right to vote? the answer is we WEREN'T a republic we were just a democracy pretending to be a republic. if the laws aren't being enforced, you don't have a rule of law!

your own ignorant statements are a democratic attitude: "in a few years, if it matters, we will get around to polygamy". its dumbass statements like that that end freedom and rule of law. what you are really saying is "i don't care about polygamy because i'm not a polygamist, therefore i have no interest in enforcing that area of law"

in a republic, EVERY breech of law as equally important as the next. polygamy being illegal is just as important as murder being legal. its only when you believe in majority rule that certain things get "prioritized" such that they never are addressed. it took over a 250 years, and a civil war, to get rid of slavery because of your dumbass attitude.

Then if polygamy is such a big issue and concern well they can mount a organized movement to have state recognition for that (even though I think its a really minority and fringe issue not on the same scale as gay rights).

what kind of intolerant asshole are you? if 99% of americans are against polygamy (as is pretty much the case) how the hell are they going to "mount an organized movement" against it. how many generations of sludging through percentage points is that going to take? you don't believe in rule of law, you just believe in your bullsh*t hate views, you aren't interesting in protecting anyone thats different from yourself.

human beings shouldn't have to mount an organized movement to convince other human beings that they have human rights, you hateful piece of sh*t.

if you can't realize that you don't understand sh*t about a republic, or the basis for them.

I don't possess hateful views nor am I an asshole, this is simply you inferring something about my character because I choose to paint a realistic picture of how society operates in reality with the imposition of laws. Unlike you I don't fall back on using ad hominems when someone doesn't agree with me.

Laws are created and followed when a majority agrees on its benefits, however they will not be readily followed outright just because a republic says it should.

Who writes these laws in your republic? Who dictates what is right and what is wrong? I mean you say that democracy is a failure so the majority cannot be trusted so in a standard republican frame of a council elected by the majority cannot be imposed. Is it a bunch of intellectuals then? Is it you? Sounds like a benevolent dictatorship to me. But lets say it does happen.

What if this great republic with laws passes a law after years of populace resistance that whose who choose not to follow these laws (say people who don't follow republic laws or discriminate against polygamists/gays/blacks) should be shot.

That would conflict with the first tenant of life of liberty and happiness and so on, but the republic can say that such drastic actions are vital to preserve the integrity of the republic because all the laws should be followed.

I know what laws are, I just happened to lived under nations who passed laws they said were right for the people. When in reality it was a simply tool of oppression.

^i'm not inferring anything about your character. it follows directly from your statements.

are you listening? it doesn't matter who makes the laws or how they are physically recorded. what matters is what the laws are based on. the only legitimate law is a law based on unalienable human rights. who decides that? human nature. doesn't matter if its one or 1000. "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" you dumb motherf*cker. the work is already done! someone a lot smarter than you already came up with it! who the f*ck cares who! the law is there, all you have to do is enforce it! its unalienable dipsh*t, derive it for yourself! it is impossible to contradict and it follows directly from human nature. are you a human or are just a really stupid robot programmed to hate?

it is an innate right of humans, but it was discovered with reason and logic via a scientific method. it has been proven as rigorously as gravity. it is true. someone has already solved the equation. all you have to do is freaking apply the answer.

if a republic passes a law which is unlawful (that is, it violates unalienable human rights) that is no longer a republic or a rule of law.

how f*cking thick are you, seriously? when do we get the technology which implants information directly in peoples brains? christ.

Fear is also part of human nature, we signed alot of laws based on fear. Fear of terrorism has allowed military commissions, patriot act, elimination of heabus corpus and torture to arise in America.

Likewise fear of moral decay resulting from legalization of gay marriage is the reason most Christians vote against the implementation of same sex marriages.

Your concerns with regards to Republics I addressed in another comment.

Imstellar you could not be more wrong... the fundamentals your are preaching for... are in my mind... to protect us AGAINST human nature...

Things like Fear, Hatred, Bigotry, Extreme Violence against one another... these are our nature!... the inalienable human rights you argue for... and I COMPLETELY agree with you there... are not derieved FROM our nature... but to protect us from it...

>> ^imstellar28:
^thats not true jwray, a constitution only needs a single sentence:
"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
name a single right that doesn't protect? human rights are really very simple...

It still depends upon who gets to interpret that constitution (in the supreme court) and the many different ways it will be interpreted by different people in specific cases. Nearly every case is a result of one person's liberty conflicting with another person's liberty, and who or what is to decide what kinds of liberty are more important and where to draw the line? "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" isn't enough to determine the outcomes of Eldred v. Ashcroft, Morse v. Frederick, or Newdow. All of those require weighing one kind of liberty against another.

a simple refutation of your argument:

if fear, bigotry, and violence are a part of human nature, humans could not exist without it. isn't that correct? clearly this is not the case--so human nature can not include fear, bigotry, or violence.

if i was going to use words to describe human nature, i would use words like:

alive, metabolizes, eats, drinks, cognitive, social.

those words describe all humans, and "being human" is not possible without them. that is what human nature really is. the common definition of human nature simply isn't correct.

Januari,

I really can understand what you are thinking believe it or not. I was in the same position you are in today, once. When we are growing up, we hear a lot of different things from a lot of different people. A lot of things which can be labeled "common knowledge". The reality, you will find, is that a lot of what you are told is simply not true. Much of it is misguided, even if well intentioned. You will come to realize this over time, even if you don't believe me today.

3 years ago, I sat at a table with my roommate trying to convince him that "human nature" is inherently aligned to either good or evil. That is what I had heard and been taught by everyone I had ever met, just about. It made sense at the time, because I wasn't actually thinking about what I was saying. I really didn't consider the implications of my words, or the actual meanings of things I took for granted.

Read my words above without bias, without prior knowledge, and consider them honestly and internally. I know its hard because what I am saying might be extremely foreign, but please try. Can human nature really be violent, bigoted, or fearful?

a simple refutation of your refutation:

>> ^imstellar28:
a simple refutation of your argument:
if fear, bigotry, and violence are a part of human nature, humans could not exist without it. isn't that correct?


No. No, that's not correct.

You said somewhere that you've got your own definition of what "human nature" means, but that doesn't change its accepted meaning:

"Human nature is the concept that there are a set of logical characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that all 'normal' human beings have in common."

Fear, bigotry and violence are part of human nature. They are primitive, instinctual and not the least bit desirable, but they are still part of how we think, feel and act.

^it is impossible to prove that violence is a "way of thinking, feeling, and acting that all human beings have in common"

to do so, you would have to survey the actions of every human on the planet. unless you are omnipresent, this is impossible. to prove it for fear or bigotry would be even harder because these are emotions. you would have to be omniscient for that.

your definiton of:
"Human nature is the concept that there are a set of logical characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that all 'normal' human beings have in common."
is precisely correct.

"alive, metabolism, eats, drinks, cognitive" are a set of logical characteristics which satisfy that definition.

"fear, violence, and bigotry" are not. your definition is right, but your set of logical characteristics is wrong. they may be prevalent characteristics, or reoccurring motifs, but they are by no means human nature.

the reason is that the definition of a "human" does not require violence, fear, or bigotry. however, the definition of a "human" requires metabolism, cognition, and being alive.

I am going to *promote this again just because of the discussion.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, November 9th, 2008 2:09pm PST - promote requested by MycroftHomlz.

>> ^imstellar28:
^it is impossible to prove that violence is a "way of thinking, feeling, and acting that all human beings have in common"

Correct but irrelevant to my point. You can go on all you want about how you disagree with the definition but it's still the definition. Human nature encompasses branches of sociology, biology and psychology. Just because you may not care about the sociology and psychology aspects doesn't mean you can ignore those aspects when someone else uses the term.

I can declare that "sandwich" now means a kick in the crotch but it doesn't mean that's what people want when they ask me to make lunch.

All of nature is legitimate. End of discussion.

I understand what your saying imstellar... but there is nothing inherently human about 'metabolism' or 'breathing' or 'eating and drinking'... the only one of those that is truly human is cognition... but you cannot lay claim to that as a human trait and ignore the psychology and sociology that comes with being cognitive.

My percieved bias and knowledge base as well as experience cannot be just negated by your recommendation that it is somehow invalid... It certainly isn't more so than anything you've suggested.

You said yourself that the correct definition of human nature includes but is not limited to feeling and acting... but your more narrow defintion does not come close to adressing either...

I don't disagree with... but it ignores in my opinion a great deal of what it means to be human... and that does not always mean our better angels... it also includes an inherient dark side... of course i can't prove that... but we are now discussing things that have been wrestled with for all of human history... I don't believe we will resolve it in this thread...

^cognition requires metabolism though. metabolism requires food and water.

regardless, its not enough to argue about my alternative traits. you also have to prove yours. you have to prove that all humans are fearful, violent, and bigoted--if--you are going to claim that those traits are human nature.

You can get a good look at a T-Bone by sticking your head up a steer's ass, but wouldn't you rather take the butcher's word for it.

Wow

you Americans have a lot of catching up to do to the morals of the 21^st century.

Come on guys, you can do it.

Token Canadian out.

>> ^imstellar28:
you have to prove that all humans are fearful, violent, and bigoted--if--you are going to claim that those traits are human nature.

Your insistence on proof in a discussion about scientific study shows that you are either incapable or unwilling to have a productive discussion. I think I'm done here.

I like to think that comment down votes are a good thing.