'Sister Wives': Polygamy law challenge called demand for equality

reply to post by JohnnyElohim


Well, I disagree. It would be unconscionable for me not to speak my mind so bluntly, as the consequences of us all not doing so would seem to cause much more harm.

An (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.[1] The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

It's relevant.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by JohnnyElohim

 

Well, I disagree. It would be unconscionable for me not to speak my mind so bluntly, as the consequences of us all not doing so would seem to cause much more harm.

An (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.[1] The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

It's relevant.

edit on 13-7-2011 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)

Hardly. I'll say my bit here and then check out as I'm participating in derailing the thread.

You are essentially alleging with that her views are not worthy of consideration because she is not as intelligent as those who subscribe to and to some degree manufacture the status quo. The measurement of "absolute" intelligence is in fact a subjective matter. You can only effectively measure certain types of performance in certain contexts. The Stanford-Binet IQ test is rooted in cultural mores so deeply that it could not be administered with the expectation of accurate results to someone raised in a sufficiently dissimilar culture. But some people who weren't can expertly practice several trades, speak several languages, and clearly demonstrate a respectable and even remarkable capacity for what we call intelligence.

So 1.) you can't prove conclusively that her intelligence is less than another party, and 2.) even if it were, that doesn't prevent her from make salient points. Thus not relevant. Thus an attack on the character with no merit to the argument.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Annee

 

Obviously, it's the business of those with more intelligence than you.

Excuse me for being so blunt, but legalizing incestuous marriages is one of the worst things our species could do.

Put aside your high ideals, and use your intelligence.

Where is your head at?

Relatives can be several generations removed.

The poster did not specify immediate relatives.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

If one or more consenting adults want to enter into a Federal Legal Agreement (Marriage) then who are we to tell them they cannot.

The whole marriage debate is ridiculous. Government should simply stay out of it, and since they haven't, and decided to make marriage a legal institution, they must provide that "service" for every citizen of age who chooses to take advantage.

Equal under the law.

~Keeper

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Amen and Amen.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Annee

 

That's why nature makes two girls for every boy.

I take it you joke, for any (suspect there are many) that don't think so -

World 6,829,360,438 males3,442,850,573 females3,386,509,865 ratio102
source: UN Statistics Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. "World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision".
note: gender ratio = males per 100 females.
© GeoHive, 2000-2011

seems pretty even, though I suspect the estimated 1,000,000,000 offspring deaths by bloodshed just within the last 25 years, (more than double all wars combined in 2000 years) has thrown it off a bit

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And the TWO shall be One flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
www.biblegateway.com...

reply to post by Rustami


Uh, of course it was a joke!

I was making a point...

reply to post by JohnnyElohim


You're so far off the mark, that it's not worth a full reply, LOL!

I'll give you this much: I never mentioned IQ... you did.

The rest, I'll leave up to you to ponder where the fallacies lie.

Originally posted by Annee

Where is your head at?

Relatives can be several generations removed.

The poster did not specify immediate relatives.

Just above my neck, and yours?

You didn't specify anything of the sort, which implies you're okay with all forms of marriages between relatives.

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by getreadyalready

I agree. Animal species that are monogamous are naturally monogamous. There is no command structure demanding they be monogamous, they are just naturally that way. Humans are obviously not genetically designed to be monogamous.

I fail to see this reasoning you say is "obvious".

There isn't merely a commanding structure that demands we be monogamous, it's the will of the majority by choice.

Some are monogamous, and some are not. And no matter the structure, or the so called majority, people will still do what they want.

So really it is a moot point, its like trying to stop people from #ing, or the whole prohibition thing on alcohol, or the war on drugs. None of that has yet made a dent in what they tried to stop people from doing.

So why would banning polygamous relationships be any different, all you have to do is look around and you can see that its really not a majority will to be monogamous like you said. Its like everything else, you either are or you aren't.

And I have not counted them all, but I have probably seen more relationships were there were multiple partners involved, then monogamous relationships. All you have to do is look around and you will see. Though they will call there relationships all kids of names and different things, but at the end its still the same thing under different names.

If you want you can paint stripes on a horse and call it a zebra, but in the end its still a horse.

It's pretty dam obvious dude, those who would want any kind of lifestyle or whatever gets them off, will justify its cause and anything can be rationalized and categorized if anybody wanted to. No matter if there for monogamy or polygamy or whatever else, everybody will rationalize what they want. So banning anything is an exercise in futility.

End of story.

reply to post by galadofwarthethird


Thank you for showing that we've degenerated into hedonism.

It wasn't always so....

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by Annee

Where is your head at?

Relatives can be several generations removed.

The poster did not specify immediate relatives.

Just above my neck, and yours?

You didn't specify anything of the sort, which implies you're okay with all forms of marriages between relatives.

Whatever - - you and your brilliance Assumed.

A bit facetious on my part - - as I noticed the poster simply said "relatives".

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Rustami

 

Uh, of course it was a joke!

I was making a point...

Which I ignored.

reply to post by unityemissions


I think it might have been, but the restrictions were less.

When divorces were unheard of, there were still men cheating with prostitutes, or slaves, or nieces. Men were taking multiple wives. Wine and beer have been around for millenia. Ancient Greece had the Bacchic festivals and frenzies. Intoxication, dancing, and orgies were common.

Our current civilization has been misled into thinking our natural urges are wrong. We are severely repressed. I think you are right. It hasn't always been this way. There was a time when people embraced their biological urges, and they dealt with them instead of repressing them.

Even the Puritan settlers in our New World allowed young teens to sleep in a bed together and "court." They made use of bundling boards just for a little extra insurance, but they were not the prudes we have been led to believe.

It seems so odd to me that in the days of internet porn, and bikini models on billboards for everything from beer to real estate, we have actually devolved into such a repressed view of sexuality? I really just don't understand it.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by galadofwarthethird

 

Thank you for showing that we've degenerated into hedonism.

It wasn't always so....

edit on 13-7-2011 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)

Obviously you don't know history, or the true history and nature of humanity.

You all have not degenerated into hedonism, in fact compared to what it used to be like what it is right now is very saintly.

But you right it wasn't always so, it was a lot more hanky panky going on back in the day, even in the puritan days, they just liked to look the other way when it happened and pretend that it did not happen. And there cover-up methods were more brutal, and there systems for keeping themselves in check were more stringent then today. But there will and deed of the acts were the same.

Lets just say! That if I said that most humans are descendants of pimps and whores. I wouldn't be lying. And so the question is not what was in the past. But what do you want to see when you look in the past.

Everybody likes to see the pretty pictures of the past and the roses, but nobody wants to see the whole picture and filth that comes along with seeing the whole picture that is the past. And so it was not always so.

See what you want to see, it does not matter.

reply to post by SirMike

While supporters of gay marriage once scoffed at the the idea that their efforts would become the legal spearhead for polygamists, it now appears very likely that with the Brown's leading the way polygamy will become the law of the land someday fairly soon.

The two issues are not the same. The main reason why gay marriage proponents want to keep the two issues separate is because they are two separate issues. However both issues do go down similar lines. IMO whatever consenting adults want to do in regards to marriage is their business, it doesn't become the government's business unless abuse is going on (such as in polygamist cults).

reply to post by getreadyalready


I do find this all interesting, what you mention.

In my case, I've always had to reason things through before accepting them.

I never did things...just because society or my family said so.

I always asked, "why", and it got me in a lot of trouble.

Still, I just can't understand polygamy. It doesn't seem to be logical for our current state of civilization.

I can't fully reason it all in one go. It's more of an intuitive feeling than any one solid point, but I wish I could assure you that it's not mere social mores which are leading me to towards this.

I feel that we ARE repressed, but for our own good. I'm not into hedonism. I'm into long-term, wise decisions. I can repress my lower instincts, and supersede them with more evolved instincts, or perhaps some would consider these intuitions, or the result of intelligence. Not sure.

Does this make me a freak of nature, or something?

Listen, I just don't match up to most social norms, but this one I stick strong to...even though you seem to claim that the majority don't currently follow this path. It's still considered a social, or at least political norm. I think it's best, overall. It's the "lesser of two evils", in that...yes, we may seem to be repressed, but it still seems best.

I have no problem, whatsoever, remaining loyal to my one lover. She is amazing, and I would feel incredibly bad if I cheated on her. I really don't think society programmed this into me. I'm considered to be on the autistic spectrum by many, and we usually tend to follow our own paths...

reply to post by unityemissions


I think that is extremely commendable!

If that is your "norm" and it is comfortable to you, and it also happens to match up well with accepted norms, and it makes your significant other happy, then I'd say it is the ideal situation. I admire anyone that can live in those ideal circumstances, and I pray it stays that way for you and your partner.

I look around at the infidelity, and the divorce rates, and the cliches that abound in our language and culture, and I truly believe that your relationship is in a narrow minority. I believe most people are promiscuous if they have the opportunity, whether they admit it or not. The "sexretary" and "no-tell motel" didn't enter our language for no reason. There isn't a 50% divorce rate for no reason. And most conversations that occur amongst all women, or all men are pretty revealing! It is the worst-kept secret ever.

****Here is where I deleted far too much information about my personal experiences, LOL! Ya'll didn't need to hear that.

Originally posted by unityemissions
Still, I just can't understand polygamy. It doesn't seem to be logical for our current state of civilization.

For me - - it seems very logical - - and maybe just exactly what we need.

In thinking group marriage - - remove the Sex. Think more of the dynamics and need of individuals coming together with personal needs.

Say you have a young couple to start. Then maybe you have a more mature single mother - - who could join the union - - have a safe place for her daughter and help with housework/cooking. Maybe she can be the one who stays home and takes care of the child the young couple have - - so they can go to school - - work on their careers. Maybe one of them is bi-sexual - - and you bring in a gay couple - - one of which is also bi.

Seriously - - - you could "build" a group family by need.

Laws are just weird about having multiple people in a home. There have been couples that bought homes together with another couple. But some laws prevent this - - because you can't have an unrelated adult in a home with a minor child.

I see no reason a group of compatible people can not live naturally together in one home.

Originally posted by unityemissions
I have no problem, whatsoever, remaining loyal to my one lover. She is amazing, and I would feel incredibly bad if I cheated on her. I really don't think society programmed this into me. I'm considered to be on the autistic spectrum by many, and we usually tend to follow our own paths...

Me too.

And I had similar thinking when I was younger.

reply to post by unityemissions

Still, I just can't understand polygamy. It doesn't seem to be logical for our current state of civilization.

I think this is one of the issues. Most people don't understand it.

Do you think if polygamy became legal a large portion of men would go out of their way to have multiple wives? More than likely...no.

First of all if a man (and his wife) wanted another women (or many other women) for sexual gratification, they could have it as long as they don't call it marriage. Its perfectly legal as long as they are consenting adults.

But the principle of polygamy is wholly a religious practice. It is spiritual marriage based upon love, and that is whats illegal. Not being with multiple women or having children with multiple women, which may be looked down upon but are not illegal.

If polygamy became legal nothing would have to change on a dramatic scale. The government allows only one legally recognizable spouse. The other wives still would be equal by granting them power of attorney which is perfectly legal. It would be better on so many levels to let those who want to peacefully and "righteously" practice the principle to live in peace. Instead of forcing them into compounds, where their faith and children will be taken advantage of.

Its unconstitutional to not allow them to openly practice their religion, and I refuse to accept that they are all deviants who are wearing the mask of faith.

I feel that we ARE repressed, but for our own good. I'm not into hedonism. I'm into long-term, wise decisions. I can repress my lower instincts, and supersede them with more evolved instincts, or perhaps some would consider these intuitions, or the result of intelligence. Not sure.

IMO we are transcendental beings. We have the ability to defy our instincts, our nature. And we have the ability to improve ourselves by denying our nature; the ability to do what we "WILL". This is sacred intelligence, the only thing that makes me speculate upon God. Love, peace, tolerance and compassion are the only way our species can evolve. Not by separating those who think differently then the majority, or those who are thought as less intelligent by men of great ego.

I am all for intelligence, but knowledge is gray and can be interpreted and used in many ways. We have to seek light, not cold calculated oppression.

I have no problem, whatsoever, remaining loyal to my one lover. She is amazing, and I would feel incredibly bad if I cheated on her.

No you haven't been programmed by society, you just understand love.

Since you understand love you must understand what it is like to be refused it.