Is Polygamy Next?

[frobert]

I don’t see how I’m trivializing anything: the approach really is like that, that if two adults love each other and consent, they should be allowed to enter a civil marriage, even as it is presented by the more educated, even someone as lofty as Justice Kenny. If I am wrong, why don’t you present the correct view, or point to somewhere or someone who does present it?

Christi pax.

You are right that part of Judge Kennedy’s decision pertained to love. What does not follow is that because two adults who love each can legally marry then a person should be allowed to marry more than one person.

The trivializing part is that you appear to assume that it is love and love alone that led to gay marriage being legalized. If you read Judge Kennedy’s decision you will learn that love was a primary factor but there was was much more at stake. In other words marriage does not depend on the presence or absence of love.

 

[Lucretius]

You are right thatpartof Judge Kennedy’s decision pertained to love. What does not follow is that because two adults who love each can legally marry then a person should be allowed to marry more than one person.

Unless you have another reason otherwise, it does follow that if two people who love each other have a right to get married, and a person has more than one person they love and are loved by, that he has a right to marry all of them.

For what reason would you limit someone to one marriage? It looks arbitrary -even bigoted-, just as much as the opposite sex requirement is proclaimed to be.

Christi pax.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The mongamist and the polygamist don’t disagree that marriage is between two people, what they disagree about is whether one person can have multiple marriages. Leah was not married to her sister Rachel, but both were married to Jacob.

In other words, gay marriage subtracts an fundamental element to marriage that polygamy does not. This is why we can say that even polygamist cultures recognize that marriage is between a husband and a wife.

I agree 100%, especially on your reference to polygamy = one man and one woman separate marriages!

The reasons that justify gay marriage also justify polygamy, and the reasons that once ruled out both gay marriage and polygamy have been declared obsolete. In other words, it’s not only that one logically leads to the other, but also that accepting gay marriage leaves us with no reason not accept polygamy.

Conservative and progressive are ways in which people relate to the status quo, and so neither are necessary integrated to truth: we can both progress in error and conserve a truth, or conserve an evil practice while progress towards the common good.

Christi pax.

Excellent point about “progression”. The legal argument tends to be that our laws don’t work for polygamy, therefore polygamy is wrong and should be banned… as if it is impossible or wrong for lawmakers to figure out new laws.

 

[frobert]

I do not believe that “Love trumps every social barrier.”

Excellent.

So let us have the same rights you claim for yourself: we get to say that some types of relationships should be barred.

WOW! First of all we are discussing marriage so are you really saying that because I believe that two adults, regardless of sex, have the right to marry I should also believe that anyone should have the right to their marry their dog? Or their father. Or a minor?

Think! Some social barriers are also legal barriers. Or don’t you agree?

Emmm…yes. You get to tell your wife that she doesn’t get to love the Mailman.
She gets to tell you that you don’t get to love the porn actress down the street.

You get to tell Trump that he doesn’t get to love a 4th wife.
I get to tell Bannon that he doesn’t get to love a 4th wife.

My bad! Certainly you can tell person they can not love someone but will the other person listen? I would hope so if that person were your spouse.

In fact, I get to tell you that there are billions of people you don’t get to love by virtue of the fact that you are married to one person.

Billions.

Not sure what your point is, if you are trying to say that love is not a necessary condition for marriage I agree, if you are saying because I am married I can not love I don’t see how being married negates my feelings for someone else but it would be immoral to nurture or act on those feelings.

(And here you is a hypothetical you. Not a personal you.)

Glad to hear that

 

[AgnosticBoy]

What is the referent for “it” here? Marriage?

As in “Marriage was clearly accepted by God”?

Or do you mean “Polygamy was clearly accepted by God”?

If it’s the latter, can you offer some evidence for this?

(And please note: we are looking for evidence that God accepted polygamy, not a description in Scripture of polygamy. That something is limned in Scripture is NOT to be interpreted as “therefore, God accepted it”)

I will post 2 lines of evidence later on. It’s pretty obvious to see if people take the time to study the practices and culture of the people that wrote the Bible.

Irrelevant.

Women’s rights were not always the norm, but we do know that it should have been.

 

[PRmerger]

Read Judge Kennedy’s decision and let me where it contains “Love trumps every social barrier. No one gets to tell me whom to love.” or anything close to that.

The above is a bit disjointed, so not sure what frobert is saying, but here’s some examples of advocates of Love Wins professing that “no one gets to tell me whom to love”

• “Love Wins” means that, literally, love has triumphed.
• It means that we can love freely, we can love whoever and whatever we want.
• can’t wait to tell my kids that they are allowed to fall in love with whoever they want and that their country thinks so as well
• I’m all for whatever or whoever you love, and you just boldly put it out there!

#lovewins
theprose.com/challenge/2351
etonline.com/news/166940_32_celebratory_tweets_about_marriage_equality_and_love_winning_that_will_make_you_cry/

 

[PRmerger]

My bad! Certainly you can tell person they can not love someone but will the other person listen?

Excellent.

So we are agreed that we can indeed tell other people whom they cannot love.

And it does appear that others will listen–that’s what stops a whole bunch of people from sleeping with the mailman, right?

 

[PRmerger]

I will post 2 lines of evidence later on. It’s pretty obvious to see if people take the time to study the practices and culture of the people that wrote the Bible.

You ought to be able to read the Bible and understand that something being mentioned in the Bible is not the same thing as God endorsing it.

When Adam and Eve eat from the Tree, disobeying God, only a fundamentalist reads that and says, “Here’s an example, straight from the Bible, of God endorsing disobedience to Him!”

And when Cain slays Abel, only a fundamentalist reads that and says, “Here’s an example, straight from the Bible, of God endorsing fratricide!”

And when Judas betrays Jesus for some silver coins, only a fundamentalist reads that and says, “Here’s an example, straight from the Bible, of God endorsing stabbing your buddy in the back!”

So if you’re going to provide Scriptural evidence of God endorsing polygamy, please make sure it’s an example of God commanding it, or blessing it, or saying, “Yes, this is what I desire for mankind!”

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t see how being married negates my feelings for someone else but it would be immoral to nurture or act on those feelings.

Excellent!

It certainly sounds like an endorsement for the Catholic view that just because someone feels a certain feeling, it doesn’t make it moral to act on those feelings!

So homosexual attraction ought not be nurtured or acted upon.
Polyamorous attractions ought not be nurtured or acted upon.

The Catholic position is the consistent one.

Your position is inconsistent.

“A person ought to be able to act upon his feelings”…if it’s homosexual attraction.
“A person ought NOT be able to act upon his feelings”…if he’s already married.

 

[Lion_IRC]

WOW! First of all we are discussing marriage so are you really saying that because I believe that two adults, regardless of sex, have the right to marry I should also believe that anyone should have the right to their marry their dog? Or their father. Or a minor?

(Gay) marriage equality advocates arent creating a ‘slippery slope’.
They are fighting the good fight for love and tolerance and acceptance.
They should be proud of the progress they are achieving for all other forms of love.

Love wins!

 

[frobert]

You didn’t answer my question.

WOW! First of all we are discussing marriage so are you really saying that because I believe that two adults, regardless of sex, have the right to marry I should also believe that anyone should have the right to their marry their dog? Or their father. Or a minor?

Should I take your not answering as a yes?
PRmerger;14661905:

Excellent!

It certainly sounds like an endorsement for the Catholic view that just because someone feels a certain feeling, it doesn’t make it moral to act on those feelings!

So homosexual attraction ought not be nurtured or acted upon.
Polyamorous attractions ought not be nurtured or acted upon.

The Catholic position is the consistent one.

Your position is inconsistent.

“A person ought to be able to act upon his feelings”…if it’s homosexual attraction.
“A person ought NOT be able to act upon his feelings”…if he’s already married.

Hmmmm, more faulty analogies.

But to answer your question, adultery is immoral. An Islamic would have a different definition for adultery and different belief of what is immoral.

Reminds me of a wise professor, I had a long time ago, who opened his course by saying “we are only limited by our beliefs.”

 

[PRmerger]

But to answer your question, adultery is immoral.

And so is engaging in homosexual acts.

See, we are asking for consistency here, frobert.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

What is the referent for “it” here? Marriage?

As in “Marriage was clearly accepted by God”?

Or do you mean “Polygamy was clearly accepted by God”?

If it’s the latter, can you offer some evidence for this?

(And please note: we are looking for evidence that God accepted polygamy, not a description in Scripture of polygamy. That something is limned in Scripture is NOT to be interpreted as “therefore, God accepted it”)

I make my logical points here. There are too many different topics going on here so I started another thread so we can focus just on the issue you asked me about. I await any responses for or against my position!

 

[frobert]

And so is engaging in homosexual acts.

See, we are asking for consistency here, frobert.

Do you read my posts? If you do you do fail to understand them but I will say you are consistent.

You consistently avoid my questions.
You consistently move the goal posts
You consistently put forth faulty analogies
You are consistent within your belief system.

But you have failed to make a case that polygamy and homosexuality are similar and that “polygamy is next.”

 

[PRmerger]

Do you read my posts? If you do you do fail to understand them but I will say you are consistent.

You consistently avoid my questions.
You consistently move the goal posts
You consistently put forth faulty analogies
You are consistent within your belief system.

But you have failed to make a case that polygamy and homosexuality are similar and that “polygamy is next.”

All I’m saying is that you’re inconsistent.

If you’re ok with that, keep on keeping on, bro!

“I think it’s fine to indulge in loving whom you want! Love wins!”
and
“Hell, no, you can’t indulge in loving whom you want! Love has some barriers, of course!”

#losinginthelogicdepartment

 

[frobert]

All I’m saying is that you’re inconsistent.

If you’re ok with that, keep on keeping on, bro

Hmmmm I guess your ok with not comprehending my posts, evading my questions and remaining off topic.

Since you are off topic, tell me again dear sis, how am I inconsistent if I don’t share your belief. If that question to difficult.

Consider if the following are inconsistent?:

an atheist who believes adultery is immoral while gay marriage is moral
a Moslem who believes polygamy is moral while gay marriage is immoral
a Christian who believes adultery is immoral while gay marriage is immoral
an Evangelist who believes adultery is immoral while gay marriage is moral
the UCC beliefs on gay marriage and adultry
are you #losinginthelogicdepartment?

 

[PRmerger]

Hmmmm I guess your ok with not comprehending my posts, evading my questions and remaining off topic.

Oh, I comprehend them quite well, despite your grammatical errors, fro.

You’re vs your.
Basic Grammar.

(My favorite thing in the world to do, when people are trying to be insulting by questioning someone’s intelligence, is to point out their spelling or grammatical errors.

Like when someone on the internet says, “Your an idoit!” Funny.)

 

[PRmerger]

If that question to difficult

To vs Too.
Basic 4th Grade Grammar.

 

[PRmerger]

Since you are off topic, tell me again dear sis, how am I inconsistent if I don’t share your belief.

Oh, I’m not saying you’re being inconsistent if you don’t share MY belief.

You are being inconsistent because you share 2 inconsistent beliefs yourself.

Your own views, frobert.
Not mine.

You say: Love wins! No one gets to tell someone else that they can’t love someone they’re attracted to!

And then turn around and say: I’m sorry, 5 people who want to be married, but I get to tell you that you can’t love those people you’re attracted to.

(And here, “love” of course is shorthand for “marry”).

 

[frobert]

Oh, I comprehend them quite well, despite your grammatical errors, fro.

You’re vs your.
Basic Grammar.

(My favorite thing in the world to do, when people are trying to be insulting by questioning someone’s intelligence, is to point out their spelling or grammatical errors.

Like when someone on the internet says, “Your an idoit!” Funny.)

Insulting? Projecting are we? (I know my grammar.)

Basic grammar? Is the your best defense for evading my questions, faulty analogies, moving the goal posts, etc?

As I said your, opps I mean, you’re consistent.

Time to go, family calls. .