The case for polygamy

[lucky4034]

BTW It was in response to Lucky4043's definition. Why don't you respond ?

Respond to what? Religion doesn't own a monopoly on what encompasses morality.

Immoral is the opposite of moral and there should be little reason that we base all societal morality around only religious principles. Very large parts of our society don't follow the bible so it makes sense that their definitions of morality get to meld into what becomes socially acceptable.

I've asked a many times why its absolutely necessary for government to regulate marriage at all and have yet to get an answer. There doesn't seem to be a single problem that can't be solutioned privately without government intervention and IMO therein lies the answer. Conservative Christians don't want to see gays enjoy marriage for religious reasons... yet being conservative by nature should also promote small government right? So why not make everyone happy by just getting the government the hell out of marriage all together?

Then... private churches/ministers can decide whether or not they want to marry two men or two goats and it won't affect anyone.

Marriage is something that doesn't need to be regulated by the government. Its that simple, and yet... we instead get a bunch of people pissed off fighting for rights that shouldn't be regulated anyway.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Morality is the glue that keeps the façade of modern civilization from sliding off to reveal the horrors of human nature lurking beneath.

 

[Hotdoger]

Respond to what? Religion doesn't own a monopoly on what encompasses morality.

Immoral is the opposite of moral and there should be little reason that we base all societal morality around only religious principles. Very large parts of our society don't follow the bible so it makes sense that their definitions of morality get to meld into what becomes socially acceptable.

.

I will go with Kant's practical reasoning and understand that there is a definer of moral standards and they are not subjective to societal whims.

 

[lucky4034]

I will go with Kant's practical reasoning and understand that there is a definer of moral standards and they are not subjective to societal whims.

Even if you adhere dearly to the word of the Bible... can't this fight be fought outside of government battlegrounds and still be every bit as important?

If government removed itself from marriage... you can still disagree with Gay Marriage. You just wouldn't have to use government enforcement as a tool to suppress those who disagree with you.

The debate could be fought in churches and in the minds of the ministers who would perform the ceremony rather than muddying up an already over burdened (and overgrown) judicial system. That way... people who don't give a crap (like myself) wouldn't be affected by the debate at all.

Its a win, win, win!

-Win for Christian Conservatives in that it is a small government solution.
-Win for Gays/Polygamists who are being told they can't experience the same freedoms as others
-Win for people who don't care in that we don't have to hear about it or pay for it.

 

[Hotdoger]

Even if you adhere dearly to the word of the Bible... can't this fight be fought outside of government battlegrounds and still be every bit as important?

.

No, understanding just governments followed those given moral standards.
Those that did not were doomed to failure.
Our government has doomed us to failure with the many immoral decisions they have supported and rendered. Pervert marriage is just another nail in the coffin for this nation and its people.

 

[Racechase1]

Not conforming to accepted standards of morality


So.... again, why is Gay Marriage or Polygamy immoral?

How have you or the population in general come to the conclusion that Gay Marriage or Polygamy are immoral?

The real question is , at the present time , what is moral, and what's immoral? Also who decides? As time goes by morality seems less and less relevant. It is truly coming to the point that if it feels good do it. Worked great for Roman Empire, didn't it.

 

[lucky4034]

The real question is , at the present time , what is moral, and what's immoral? Also who decides? As time goes by morality seems less and less relevant. It is truly coming to the point that if it feels good do it. Worked great for Roman Empire, didn't it.

The Roman Empire fell because of Gay Marriage and Polygamy?

 

[IndyDave1776]

The Roman Empire fell because of Gay Marriage and Polygamy?

You are having too much fun with that! Seriously, moral decay was a major contributor to the fall of Rome which could not stand as a republic with the requisite level of responsibility in the average citizen insufficient for existence in the concept of relative liberty, and later as an empire when the decay reached a point at which even an authoritarian state became too corrupt to function properly. Throw in some barbarians, and the end is at hand.

 

[BigMatt]

The real question is , at the present time , what is moral, and what's immoral? Also who decides?

As time goes by morality seems less and less relevant. It is truly coming to the point that if it feels good do it. Worked great for Roman Empire, didn't it.

I agree with the first half of your statement but please let me interject. Morality is for the person to decide for themselves and if there is no victim in a circumstance (polygamy, prostitution, drug use) there should be no law against it.

The second part is one way to look at things. I just think people are deciding for themselves more and more what is acceptable.

 

[Racechase1]

I agree with the first half of your statement but please let me interject. Morality is for the person to decide for themselves and if there is no victim in a circumstance (polygamy, prostitution, drug use) there should be no law against it.

The second part is one way to look at things. I just think people are deciding for themselves more and more what is acceptable.

I have to kindly disagree with your victimless view. Prostitution maybe be victimless between the two doing the transaction, but if someone brings home an STD to their spouse it no longer is. Drug use, meth has done a great job for society by being victimless.

The truth is , when all things are considered, there are very few truly victimless circumstances. A lot of the time someone outside the people doing the transaction gets burned. There is a lot more to what goes on than what we see from the outside.

 

[BigMatt]

I have to kindly disagree with your victimless view. Prostitution maybe be victimless between the two doing the transaction, but if someone brings home an STD to their spouse it no longer is. Drug use, meth has done a great job for society by being victimless.

The truth is , when all things are considered, there are very few truly victimless circumstances. A lot of the time someone outside the people doing the transaction gets burned. There is a lot more to what goes on than what we see from the outside.

You can play what if's all day long, but in the end, everything could have bad consequences.

What if I spend too much money on QVC and my family can't eat? There should be limits on how much you can spend on QVC.

What if I eat too much at McDonalds, have a heart attack and can't provide for my family? They should limit the size od the drink I can purchase.

As far as your meth comment, I would bet that alcohol has ruined a lot more families than meth has, but we tolerate that as a society.

Simply put, you can't commit a crime against yourself.

 

[KLB]

I have to kindly disagree with your victimless view. Prostitution maybe be victimless between the two doing the transaction, but if someone brings home an STD to their spouse it no longer is. Drug use, meth has done a great job for society by being victimless.

The truth is , when all things are considered, there are very few truly victimless circumstances. A lot of the time someone outside the people doing the transaction gets burned. There is a lot more to what goes on than what we see from the outside.

Please explain why paying for sex makes your example different than the same scenario without the exchange of money.

 

[lucky4034]

Seriously, moral decay was a major contributor to the fall of Rome which could not stand as a republic with the requisite level of responsibility in the average citizen insufficient for existence in the concept of relative liberty, and later as an empire when the decay reached a point at which even an authoritarian state became too corrupt to function properly.

Some of us (many of us... maybe even a majority of us) don't see gay marriage or polygamy as moral decay, but rather an alternative lifestyle to the norm. Instead, we see the out of date morality that was chosen to govern marriage as unnecessary and restrictive shackles that imprison liberty.

You make a complex sentence that sounds good, but isn't fluent in meaning and even lends itself to making my point.

You start by saying that moral decay (for example gay sex and polygamy) was a MAJOR contributor to the fall of Rome... but in the same breath attribute Romes fall to citizens not taking responsibility for their nation and allowing the state decline into authoritarian rule that crippled liberty and caused so much corruption that it became dysfunctional and was easily overrun by barbarians.

There is a distinct difference between citizens allowing gay sex/polygamy and citizens passively allowing authority rule and cripple society. They are separate.

Authoritarian rule will destroy liberty and I agree that citizens are ultimately the ones who passively allow it. We see that now in the USA (which I know you are well aware of).... However, banning alternative lifestyles because they don't fit in with Religious morality is by definition AUTHORITARIAN RULE. It is removing liberty from those who wish it.

So while your sentence is really a very well written statement, it seems to be in conflict with itself, (with no disrespect)... to me it is word play that twists reality for the purpose of creating an argument that doesn't exist. With a strong grasp on the English Language, you are playing connect the dots with apples and oranges. (unless I'm not understanding correctly)

 

[steveh_131]

Even if you adhere dearly to the word of the Bible... can't this fight be fought outside of government battlegrounds and still be every bit as important?

This is exactly it.

The morality of our society will never be changed by legislation. Even the bible doesn't advocate this tactic. Legislating marriage has had zero effect on morality. Polygamy? Good grief, look around. People are doing this constantly, it just doesn't have a government piece of paper attached to it. There are baby daddies and baby mamas all over the place. Homosexuals? Again, already happening, just no piece of paper.

Government should be about practicality, not morality. What principles result in the least intrusive and most practically useful government? Personal liberty and personal responsibility. That is where the responsibility of the government should begin and end.

I am a firm believer in objective morality and I a firm believer in its source. I also see the folly in attempting to legislation to enforce it. Morality begins in the heart. The only way we change our society is to start there, as we have been instructed by the very source of that morality.

 

[TEK]

Authoritarian rule is not what caused the fall of Rome in the slightest bit. Rome started under kings, the republican culture was suffused with authority, and the imperial system endured for centuries.

Auctoritas is a key concept of Roman civic culture across its entire existence, and it is a word that Rome defined for all ages.

Edward Gibbon made a pretty good stab at a historical analysis of the fall of Rome. I dont hold with all his views but from wiki here is the foremost:

Gibbon offers an explanation for why the Roman Empire fell, a task made difficult by a lack of comprehensive written sources, though he was not the only historian to tackle the subject.[8]
According to Gibbon, the Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions in large part due to the gradual loss of civic virtue among its citizens.[9] They had become weak, outsourcing their duties to defend their Empire to barbarian mercenaries, who then became so numerous and ingrained that they were able to take over the Empire. Romans, he believed, had become effeminate, unwilling to live a tougher, "manly" military lifestyle.

An interesting view, true no doubt, but incomplete. Obviously, considering that the Empire in the east survived for another thousand years, under the same or similar Imperial arrangements as those which existed for at least two hundred years in the west before Constantine moved the capital to Constantinople, "authoritarianism" is not what fell Rome.

Nor was it what opened the gates in 1453.

I have also been intrigued by what historian Hillaire Belloc said gave the Muslims the edge over the Orthodox Byzantines in the eastern Empire, it was the tolerance of usury in the east, long a part of the cosmopolitan arrangements of the eastern empire. The population of the large cities of the levant and Asia minor fell to Islam, by the population's voluntary and rapid religious conversion, motivated by the economic relief offered by the cancellation of interest on loans that ensued when an Islamic power took control and reformed usurious contracts owed by Muslims.

Now in America you're not going to hear much about that since everybody seems to think "usury" is nonsense and perfectly all right since it was more or less legalized in the 80s. Everybody except people who can't emerge from under ill considered credit card debt running at 24% that is.

But the liberterians were all in favor of that too. Just as they prattle on today about how the state ought to get out of the marriage business, etc, that the apologists of unfettered capitalism like Friedman, or Ayn Rand's acolyte Greenspan as chair of the fed, specifically, helped dismantle the legal restrictions against usury that existed in America too. State out of judging the virtues of contracts was the idea, etc etc. This issue had religious undertones too, that I will not elaborate upon here.

 

[MisterChester]

I was under the impression that polygamy was illegal mostly because of property and benefits issues, not just the morality side of it. Polygamy is in the bible, and as far as I know it's not really a punishable offense in it. If it is banned because of its morality issue from Christians, then they really need to read the bible again. Not saying I am for polygamy, because there are issues with property and benefits like I said before.

 

[chraland51]

I thought that a couple of major factors in the fall of Rome was the high lead content in the cooking utensils causing birth defects and sterility and the fact that Roman women did not want to produce the children necessary to maintain armies who had some skin in the game, which made Rome ultimately have to rely on rented armies and mercenaries who ran for the hills when things got rough. When the news got around that real Romans were not defending the territories, the Goth, Visgoths, Vandals and several others who had an axe to grind decided that the time was right for them to attack the rented defenders. When things got good in the upper and ruling class, they were no longer interested in leading the hard life of the millitary man. They became more interested in enjoying the fruits of the labors of those that came before them. All of the sudden when it was too late, they realized that no one was guarding the gates. Just my two cents. I do not think that lesbians and gays and polygomists were the major cause of the downfall of Rome. It kinda all came down to crappy, uninterested leadership and weak defenses. Uh, oh, sounds like the USA of today to me.

 

[kludge]

I was under the impression that polygamy was illegal mostly because of property and benefits issues, not just the morality side of it. Polygamy is in the bible, and as far as I know it's not really a punishable offense in it. If it is banned because of its morality issue from Christians, then they really need to read the bible again. Not saying I am for polygamy, because there are issues with property and benefits like I said before.

No, the anti-bigamy laws were upheld by a morality slippery slope argument.

 

[armedindy]

i dont care about either gay marriage or polygamy....mary whoever you want and how much you want......ive thought about why gay men cant just write up a contract between eachother, get it notarized and have it essentially be a marriage contract....hell they can even call it "merrage" if they want...doesnt the govt help uphold contract between consenting adults???

 

[CathyInBlue]

i dont care about either gay marriage or polygamy....mary whoever you want and how much you want......ive thought about why gay men cant just write up a contract between eachother, get it notarized and have it essentially be a marriage contract....hell they can even call it "merrage" if they want...doesnt the govt help uphold contract between consenting adults???

My understanding is that it costs tens of thousands of dollars to file all of the paperwork with the government for a gay couple to even get near to all of the rights and privileges a hetero couple gets with a $25 marriage license. That right there is a huge kernel for an equal treatment under the law argument. Even when a gay couple does it all right, they still have bureaucrats and functionaries substituting their own judgement for that of the concrete facts the gay couple paid so much money for and refusing them services, like hospital visitation and inheritance rights.

The only cure for all of that is to make gay marriage absolutely equal in every legal way to heterosexual marriage within the government with all agents thereof sworn to uphold that law, thus making such bureaucrats and functionaries wary, of substituting their own judgement for married gay peoples' rights, for fear of real legal ramifications.