cynic, can you tell me in plain english what you think ? really i mean it
?
According to my research, I think cynic's use of the word polygyny is meant to limit the discussion to the practice of allowing a man to have more than one wife or female mate at the same time --- as opposed to polygamy, which by definition (but not by mormon practice) means that either spouse may have multiple mates of the opposite sex. In other words, if the doggone mormons were honest, they wouldn't have called their practice polygamy, but used the word "polygyny" instead, because polygamy would have allowed a wife to have more than one husband at the same time.
Now that that distinction has been made clear, what do we do now?
Bob and Tom have the same right to engage in a marriage as any other person, they simply cannot get married to each other, or any other member of their own gender.
Neither can marry his sister, either, no matter how much the two might consent, even if both are sterilized. Nor can either marry a six-year old unrelated girl.
It doesn't matter how much any of them whines about it, the fact is that the state has always reserved the right to dictate marriage restrictions for the greater good of the society as a whole. As has been repeatedly asked and avoided, there is no apparent societal plus side for the defense of homosexuality whatsoever, whereas there is an obvious downside to it, just the same as incest, polygamy, and pedophilia.
One always has to take the responsibility for every single privilege they wish to claim. They do not get to transgress the rules just because they want to have their cake and eat it, too. If a person wants to be a Catholic priest, they cannot also have sex with women. If a person wants to enjoy base purchase privileges, they must be a member of the Armed Forces. If you refuse to pay the price, you don't get to have the goods. I don't see why that's so difficult for anyone to grasp.
If you want to be married, you can only be married to one unrelated person of the opposite gender. That's the price of being married. Attempting to change a long-established institution is very much seeking special privilege. Homosexuality is not a disability. Just as the priest-wannabe must choose to repudiate his sexual preferences in order to become a priest, homosexuals must currently make the same choice if they want to enjoy the benefits of marriage. If they cannot choose that path, no one will force them to. But just as single people must also marry if they want marriage benefits, should they be able to just claim they don't want to marry and receive them anyway? Of course not.
quote:Neither can marry his sister, either, no matter how much the two might consent, even if both are sterilized. Nor can either marry a six-year old unrelated girl.
okay i don't get this comparison
and the next one....
quote:whereas there is an obvious downside to it, just the same as incest, polygamy, and pedophilia
quote:One always has to take the responsibility for every single privilege they wish to claim. They do not get to transgress the rules just because they want to have their cake and eat it, too. If a person wants to be a Catholic priest, they cannot also have sex with women. If a person wants to enjoy base purchase privileges, they must be a member of the Armed Forces. If you refuse to pay the price, you don't get to have the goods. I don't see why that's so difficult for anyone to grasp.
?
[This message was edited by pawtucket on February 07, 2004 at 11:02.]
It is illegal to marry a first cousin or closer relative because of the real danger of genetically damaged inbred children, which have a high probability of winding up wards of the state, taken care of at society's expense.
Polygyny is illegal because such families can quickly overexpand past the ability of the adults to provide for basic needs of the children, let alone how it subjugates women.
Pedophilia is illegal because minors are not deemed able to understand the ramifications of their actions, no matter if the child consents.
Why should homosexual relationships be grouped with heterosexual relationships, rather than with relationships historically viewed as aberrant in biblically influenced cultures, for the purposes of assigning legal standing?
Personally, I can't think of a single reason, beyond religious ones, why polygamy can't be legal. Sure tax forms and social security rules would have to be changed. Big deal.
It isn't like there aren't already guys out there making babies with five and six different women and women making babies with five or six different men. The government has already found ways to deal with the paternity and maternity issues in such cases, at least to some degree.
There could even be some value in it, if all the people could figure out how to get along and not be jealous. (I'm woman enough to admit I couldn't do that.) Think about it, more people to help pitch in and raise the kids, keep house, share expenses. Hell, I have no romantic or sexual interest in a woman, but I sure would love to have a wife. :D-->
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 5
68
Feb 7
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
Trefor Heywood
cynic:
Or rather your reading of scripture, or the reading of scripture you have been taught.
After all, scripture can be read,understood and translated mamy different ways.
Take a look at http://www.truluck.com/index.htm sometime.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
ohmygosh catch me i'm about to faint
i didn't know this was a religious discussion
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
According to my research, I think cynic's use of the word polygyny is meant to limit the discussion to the practice of allowing a man to have more than one wife or female mate at the same time --- as opposed to polygamy, which by definition (but not by mormon practice) means that either spouse may have multiple mates of the opposite sex. In other words, if the doggone mormons were honest, they wouldn't have called their practice polygamy, but used the word "polygyny" instead, because polygamy would have allowed a wife to have more than one husband at the same time.
Now that that distinction has been made clear, what do we do now?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
we send cynic back to the scriptures to search if these things were so
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Bob and Tom have the same right to engage in a marriage as any other person, they simply cannot get married to each other, or any other member of their own gender.
Neither can marry his sister, either, no matter how much the two might consent, even if both are sterilized. Nor can either marry a six-year old unrelated girl.
It doesn't matter how much any of them whines about it, the fact is that the state has always reserved the right to dictate marriage restrictions for the greater good of the society as a whole. As has been repeatedly asked and avoided, there is no apparent societal plus side for the defense of homosexuality whatsoever, whereas there is an obvious downside to it, just the same as incest, polygamy, and pedophilia.
One always has to take the responsibility for every single privilege they wish to claim. They do not get to transgress the rules just because they want to have their cake and eat it, too. If a person wants to be a Catholic priest, they cannot also have sex with women. If a person wants to enjoy base purchase privileges, they must be a member of the Armed Forces. If you refuse to pay the price, you don't get to have the goods. I don't see why that's so difficult for anyone to grasp.
If you want to be married, you can only be married to one unrelated person of the opposite gender. That's the price of being married. Attempting to change a long-established institution is very much seeking special privilege. Homosexuality is not a disability. Just as the priest-wannabe must choose to repudiate his sexual preferences in order to become a priest, homosexuals must currently make the same choice if they want to enjoy the benefits of marriage. If they cannot choose that path, no one will force them to. But just as single people must also marry if they want marriage benefits, should they be able to just claim they don't want to marry and receive them anyway? Of course not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
and the next one....
SAME ????? what ?
now i'll go back and keep reading
?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
FORGET IT. i'm not going back to read
the fact that you just said that as there is an obvious downside to it, just the same as incest, polygamy, and pedophilia
i do not care if you come back and say you didn't mean they are the 'SAME' thing
you have lost all my respect by your whatever you call it logic
i KNOW ABOUT incest and pedophilia firsthand
HOW DARE YOU !!!!
bible man
you and cynic and everyone else
HOW DARE YOU
you make me puke
?
[This message was edited by pawtucket on February 07, 2004 at 11:01.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
?
[This message was edited by pawtucket on February 07, 2004 at 11:02.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Come ON, ex! No one can be that dense!
It is illegal to marry a first cousin or closer relative because of the real danger of genetically damaged inbred children, which have a high probability of winding up wards of the state, taken care of at society's expense.
Polygyny is illegal because such families can quickly overexpand past the ability of the adults to provide for basic needs of the children, let alone how it subjugates women.
Pedophilia is illegal because minors are not deemed able to understand the ramifications of their actions, no matter if the child consents.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
excuse me ? no one can be HOW dense ? haven't gotten past that part of your post
but i have a strong feeling that you and i disagree
be back soon
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Trefor,
Why should homosexual relationships be grouped with heterosexual relationships, rather than with relationships historically viewed as aberrant in biblically influenced cultures, for the purposes of assigning legal standing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
QamiQazi
I knew you were going to say that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
okay mr. density, i don't know where you are coming from as far as what i said
and cynic as usual i have no clue what you're talking about
ohmygod what if you both spoke english? SCARE ME
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
I do not wish to compare homosexuality to pedophilia.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i thought we were talking about homosexuality relationships
what the hell are you talking about ?
give me a break
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Or oppose it because of its lack of societal usefulness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
.
[This message was edited by pawtucket on February 07, 2004 at 11:05.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
zixar, i have tried to read your post once again but i have decided to just let it go due to your ignorance
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Don't sweat it, Exie. I've noticed that he does that with everyone with whom he disagrees.
Old Way habits dies hard.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
cynic are you talking to me or QQ ?
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
To you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
talking about the real issue is not derailing
oh and thank you danny
ps. cynic why don't you (and zix) say something worthwhile for once ?
?
[This message was edited by pawtucket on February 07, 2004 at 11:05.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Personally, I can't think of a single reason, beyond religious ones, why polygamy can't be legal. Sure tax forms and social security rules would have to be changed. Big deal.
It isn't like there aren't already guys out there making babies with five and six different women and women making babies with five or six different men. The government has already found ways to deal with the paternity and maternity issues in such cases, at least to some degree.
There could even be some value in it, if all the people could figure out how to get along and not be jealous. (I'm woman enough to admit I couldn't do that.) Think about it, more people to help pitch in and raise the kids, keep house, share expenses. Hell, I have no romantic or sexual interest in a woman, but I sure would love to have a wife.
:D-->
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
abi i think there was a "village" concept at one time
ps. you other guys, why are you so rude ? if you hate homos, just say so. that would be a lot easier for a dense derailer like me
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.