Polygamy, right or wrong?

[Hygro]

Thank you, gentlemen

Just a little clarification, the final sentence of that analogy could even read "good is to good what bad is to good".

 

[MobBoss]

Yes it is.

No, I dont think so. Aside from having a single word in common, the two are quite different. Thats not to say I think being in a loving relationship is wrong, but its simply not the same.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Only if you consider "penis enters vagina" as the only correct way of having sex. Quite funny if you don't think that for example anal sex isn't sex.

I would consider it sex the same way oral is sex. That is to say, yes, but it is not a natural biological form of sex.

1. Why not?

Because its a means of forcing society to view gay marriages as "Equal" when they are not natural.

2. Why should the government recognize any marriages?

I wouldn't really have an issue if they didn't, but if they are going to, they should do it correctly.

The definition of marriage isn't as set in stone as you portray it, you may think of it as a union between a man and a woman while others may consider marriage a union between two or more people. Just because you have your own definition of marriage doesn't make it the right one (to be honest the same goes with those who think that two men can get married, but at least those people aren't preventing certain groups of people from getting married).

These people are historically wrong. Marriage as an instutition has NEVER been a man and another man until modern homosexuals redefined the definitions. Even in ancient Greece and Rome where homosexuality was usually seen as acceptable, there was no gay marriage.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No, I dont think so. Aside from having a single word in common, the two are quite different. Thats not to say I think being in a loving relationship is wrong, but its simply not the same.

"The whole point of same sex marriage is to say it is exactly equal as an heterosexual marriage."

"Equal" does not mean "the same".

 

[say1988]

Because its a means of forcing society to view gay marriages as "Equal" when they are not natural.

So they are equal. Both are not natural. They are both human constructs.

 

[Synobun]

These people are historically wrong. Marriage as an instutition has NEVER been a man and another man until modern homosexuals redefined the definitions. Even in ancient Greece and Rome where homosexuality was usually seen as acceptable, there was no gay marriage.

The actual concept of marriage has been around since before institutions were in power.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

However, it would be correct to say that of all the myriad forms that marriage has taken (legal contract, religious rite, between one man and several women, between siblings, largely metaphorical) the idea that two people of the same sex can be married in the same sense that two people of the opposite sex can be, is a very unusual thing to see.

Not to say that marriage can't be defined that way - it is a very mutable social concept. But it shouldn't be surprising that people object to fundamentally redefining a major social concept, even if they have no rational basis for doing so.

Anyways, to bring it back to the actual OP: yeah, mutable, means different things to different people, might as well have the government's definition be as broad as possible.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'd say that not only is a monogamous homosexual relationship a bit unnatural, because humans are naturally polyamorous, but it's also something to be rather admired when it's done successfully. Humans do better (emotionally) when they're able to get a life-long partner.

Now, homosexual unions are natural, because we pair-bond rather instinctively. It's the marriage part, the monogamy, which seems to be unnatural.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, the fact that pair-bonding for life exists in so many different human cultures suggests that it is, in fact, something that humans naturally do.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Didn't read the post you replied to, ignore.

 

[Disgustipated]

Ok... so, does a polygamist get more BAH in the military, based on number of wives?

Don't get me started on BAQ BAH. It's the primary reason I got out of the military. Married guys got special treatment as far as I'm concerned, and the military treats single guys as second class citizens. Not only do they get paid more, but they work less hours, because the supervisors let them off whenever the wife has a problem at home. Which means the single guys are working even more hours.

I friggin' hated the military for that reason. The only reason to stay in until retirement is if you are married. It's a married man's society. I've only seen a couple single guys stick it out for 20 years.

The civilian world is much better where I get equal pay for equal work.

I apologize for getting off topic. As for the topic, things like this would be a mess to figure out with a large polygamist family. I can't figure out how child support and alimony would go. So I don't think it's fair to compare it to gay marriage. Gay marriage doesn't have those issues.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I don't see how child support would be that difficult to figure out, really. And issues like alimony can be sorted out with a prenup or whatever.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

I would consider it sex the same way oral is sex. That is to say, yes, but it is not a natural biological form of sex.

Because its a means of forcing society to view gay marriages as "Equal" when they are not natural.

Contraception isn't a part of natural biological form of sex, but I don't think you're against it? And what about hermaphrodites, are they the only ones who can marry whoever they want (and please, don't say that "they're just a very small minority", if your God is so omnipotent he must be able to solve these kind of things).

I'm sorry, but just because you're a Christian you can't have a monopoly on the definition of word "natural."

I wouldn't really have an issue if they didn't, but if they are going to, they should do it correctly.

Sometimes your way =/= correct way.

These people are historically wrong. Marriage as an instutition has NEVER been a man and another man until modern homosexuals redefined the definitions. Even in ancient Greece and Rome where homosexuality was usually seen as acceptable, there was no gay marriage.

Why should we define marriage by what it has been before, instead of what it is now? With your logic one could argue that a marriage where the wife supports the husband is "not natural" and "wrong" because there were no such marriages before.

 

[Commodore]

Don't get me started on BAQ BAH. It's the primary reason I got out of the military. Married guys got special treatment as far as I'm concerned, and the military treats single guys as second class citizens. Not only do they get paid more, but they work less hours, because the supervisors let them off whenever the wife has a problem at home. Which means the single guys are working even more hours.

I friggin' hated the military for that reason. The only reason to stay in until retirement is if you are married. It's a married man's society. I've only seen a couple single guys stick it out for 20 years.

The civilian world is much better where I get equal pay for equal work.

I apologize for getting off topic. As for the topic, things like this would be a mess to figure out with a large polygamist family. I can't figure out how child support and alimony would go. So I don't think it's fair to compare it to gay marriage. Gay marriage doesn't have those issues.

So you think the military actually caring about a soldier's family needs is unfair? Oh I'm sorry got to leave work early to see the birth of my child or because my wife had to go to the hospital because she had some medical problems. I think one of the best qualities of the military is that it does actually care about a soldier's family. Try finding that kind of care in the corporate world and you will be sorely disappointed.

Married soldiers also get paid more because they actually have to go out and find a place to live that is adequate for their family. They also have to pay utilities and buy food for their families as well. Single soldiers don't have to pay for any of that. The military gives single soldiers a place to live, running water, electricity, and food for free. Oh and married soldiers don't get BAH if they use on-post housing, but most bases don't have sufficient housing for all the married soldiers, so they have to go off-post to get housing. There is nothing unfair about BAH.

And the reason single soldiers get called in for all the extra duties is because you are right there at the barracks, as opposed to married soldiers who would have to drive in from off-post. Considering that some married soldiers could be as much as an hour away from post, it would be completely unfair to ask them to come in for extra duties when you have an entire barracks full of single soldiers just sitting around playing Xbox (And don't tell me that's not what happens in the barracks becasue I lived in the barracks before I got married and that's exactly what a vast majority of the soldiers in the barracks would do when they got off work).

 

[GhostWriter16]

Contraception isn't a part of natural biological form of sex, but I don't think you're against it?

I'm actually not sure what my opinion is on contraception, but in any case, it does not fundamentally change the sex act. Gay sex does.

In any case, "Contraceptive Marriage" is not a redefiining of how marriage works, and indeed does not exist as a concept.

And what about hermaphrodites, are they the only ones who can marry whoever they want (and please, don't say that "they're just a very small minority", if your God is so omnipotent he must be able to solve these kind of things).

My God absolutely knows. I myself do not.

 

[timtofly]

Thank you, gentlemen

Just a little clarification, the final sentence of that analogy could even read "good is to good what bad is to good".

So there are good eggs and bad eggs, but where do eggs come from?

 

[Hitti-Litti]

I'm actually not sure what my opinion is on contraception, but in any case, it does not fundamentally change the sex act. Gay sex does.

One could argue that it does, pull-out method doesn't seem like the most natural way to end sex. Even the fact that the concept of natural sex can be argued this much means that it really shouldn't be used as an argument in a debate.

In any case, "Contraceptive Marriage" is not a redefiining of how marriage works, and indeed does not exist as a concept.

Didn't this discussion between us two begin when I questioned the "fact" that gay marriage is a redefining of how marriage works? Do you have any argument to back your "same sex marriage is a redefinition of marriage" claim except that extremely flimsy "their sexy time is unnatural?"

My God absolutely knows. I myself do not.

So should hermaphrodites be able to marry members of both genders? The Bible doesn't explain everything, could one extrapolate from this that maybe people should stop using the Bible as some kind of an authority above all others, as this case proves that the Bible doesn't explain everything?

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't see how child support would be that difficult to figure out, really. And issues like alimony can be sorted out with a prenup or whatever.

Very true. What's mostly required is clear and fair legislation prepared ahead of time. After the head-scratching is done, the concepts of child support and alimony are rather easy to enunciate

 

[GhostWriter16]

So you think the military actually caring about a soldier's family needs is unfair? Oh I'm sorry got to leave work early to see the birth of my child or because my wife had to go to the hospital because she had some medical problems. I think one of the best qualities of the military is that it does actually care about a soldier's family. Try finding that kind of care in the corporate world and you will be sorely disappointed.

Married soldiers also get paid more because they actually have to go out and find a place to live that is adequate for their family. They also have to pay utilities and buy food for their families as well. Single soldiers don't have to pay for any of that. The military gives single soldiers a place to live, running water, electricity, and food for free. Oh and married soldiers don't get BAH if they use on-post housing, but most bases don't have sufficient housing for all the married soldiers, so they have to go off-post to get housing. There is nothing unfair about BAH.

And the reason single soldiers get called in for all the extra duties is because you are right there at the barracks, as opposed to married soldiers who would have to drive in from off-post. Considering that some married soldiers could be as much as an hour away from post, it would be completely unfair to ask them to come in for extra duties when you have an entire barracks full of single soldiers just sitting around playing Xbox (And don't tell me that's not what happens in the barracks becasue I lived in the barracks before I got married and that's exactly what a vast majority of the soldiers in the barracks would do when they got off work).

I would really like to see this one debated more thoughly in another thread, as its a topic I'd genuinely like to read.

I don't know. On the one hand, of course family needs should be important. On the other hand, if you're getting called in for extra duties, you should be compensated for those duties, regardless of whether you were wasting your time when not in work

One could argue that it does, pull-out method doesn't seem like the most natural way to end sex. Even the fact that the concept of natural sex can be argued this much means that it really shouldn't be used as an argument in a debate.

Not really. If you'd like to argue against contraception, that's a different argument. That doesn't change the fact that gay sex does not make biological sense.

And I know people are going to say "But the animals do it!" Who cares? Animals are not the highest form of life, and animals do not have a moral conscience. This does not change the very real fact that gay marriage is fundamentally disordered because it comes from disordered desires that do not make biological sense and CANNOT be used for procreation.

So should hermaphrodites be able to marry members of both genders? The Bible doesn't explain everything, could one extrapolate from this that maybe people should stop using the Bible as some kind of an authority above all others, as this case proves that the Bible doesn't explain everything?

That the Bible is an infallible authority does not mean that literally everything is contained wherein.

My personal opinion is that if you are truly not one sex or the other (And by that I mean PHYSICALLY being both; "I feel like God created me in the wrong body" isn't working for me, and obviously those who don't acknowledge God won't care what I think anyway) it is morally acceptable to get surgery to become one or the other. I mean, what else are you going to do?

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Not really. If you'd like to argue against contraception, that's a different argument. That doesn't change the fact that gay sex does not make biological sense.

And I know people are going to say "But the animals do it!" Who cares? Animals are not the highest form of life, and animals do not have a moral conscience. This does not change the very real fact that gay marriage is fundamentally disordered because it comes from disordered desires that do not make biological sense and CANNOT be used for procreation.

You seriously posted this and didn't realize that sex with contraceptives doesn't make biological sense as it prevents procreation (if you argue that the enjoyment is also important then you are admitting that gay sex is a-okay) and thus is "unnatural?"

That the Bible is an infallible authority does not mean that literally everything is contained wherein.

So why use the Bible as an authority in a subject where it doesn't explain everything?

My personal opinion is that if you are truly not one sex or the other (And by that I mean PHYSICALLY being both; "I feel like God created me in the wrong body" isn't working for me, and obviously those who don't acknowledge God won't care what I think anyway) it is morally acceptable to get surgery to become one or the other. I mean, what else are you going to do?

But how can you hold this opinion if you don't know God's opinion about it, what if God doesn't want people to get surgeries?