The case for polygamy

[GodFearinGunTotin]

We have it now.


Don't you love YOUIR taxes going to support baby momas with 7 kids from seven different sperm donors milking the system dry now?

This is the catch-22 we're in with many of these topics. As long as the taxpayer is going to be saddled with the burdens of your personal life, they're going to want to have a say in what you do. You can't have it both ways. You want people to butt out? Take care of your own messes.

 

[hornadylnl]

We have it now.


Don't you love YOUIR taxes going to support baby momas with 7 kids from seven different sperm donors milking the system dry now?

Yes, we have it now. Which is what makes the hysterical comments about gay marriage, polygamy, etc destroying the country so laughable.

 

[Razorback]

Yes, we'll evolve right back into something as immoral as slavery someday and it will all be okay.

Relative morality is no morality at all.

We just have to make certain that our morality is not based on anything that has condoned such horrible things as slavery, child killing, second-class status for women, murder and genocide. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[88GT]

I can think of a few members here that this would suit just fine....

Great! So what? By your own words you think that's just hunky dory. You sort of lose the logical high road to condemn one man's morality when you simultaneously argue that no absolute morality exists.

We just have to make certain that our morality is not based on anything that has condoned such horrible things as slavery, child killing, second-class status for women, murder and genocide. Wouldn't you agree?

(I know he's already gone, but I'm going to address this anyway since he's probably not the only one to miss the forest for the trees.)

The problem with basing laws on any morality is that at some point the ones in control might have a different morality.

And frankly, even those of us who find the items in your list to be morally repugnant, there will be disagreement on other areas. For example, I don't believe parents should be morally required to treat their ill children in any circumstance. Some people on here think that failure to try is the moral equivalent of murder. Who gets to decide?

 

[hrearden]

Great! So what? By your own words you think that's just hunky dory. You sort of lose the logical high road to condemn one man's morality when you simultaneously argue that no absolute morality exists.



(I know he's already gone, but I'm going to address this anyway since he's probably not the only one to miss the forest for the trees.)

The problem with basing laws on any morality is that at some point the ones in control might have a different morality.

And frankly, even those of us who find the items in your list to be morally repugnant, there will be disagreement on other areas. For example, I don't believe parents should be morally required to treat their ill children in any circumstance. Some people on here think that failure to try is the moral equivalent of murder. Who gets to decide?

Statement and question of the week. It seems Im confronted with this basic issue nonstop.

 

[Birds Away]

(I know he's already gone, but I'm going to address this anyway since he's probably not the only one to miss the forest for the trees.)

The problem with basing laws on any morality is that at some point the ones in control might have a different morality.

And frankly, even those of us who find the items in your list to be morally repugnant, there will be disagreement on other areas. For example, I don't believe parents should be morally required to treat their ill children in any circumstance. Some people on here think that failure to try is the moral equivalent of murder. Who gets to decide?
My husband's wife is AWESOME! (Oh, he's already practicing polygamy?)

He was trying to bait those of faith. He likes to throw grenades and then run.

 

[IndyDave1776]

He was trying to bait those of faith. He likes to throw grenades and then run.

It looks like the grenade got him this time!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It looks like the grenade got him this time!

Zowieeee....the ban hammer certainly has been rockin' and rollin' recently.

 

[ViperJock]

One man's morality is another mans tyranny... Morality is evolving as it should.

Morality cannot evolve. That's what makes it morality. Some people think that that they can make up their own morality bit they are wrong because that contradicts what morality is in the first place. You can choose to act however you want, that doesn't make it moral.

 

[mrjarrell]

Morality does evolve. It used to be moral to commit genocide against non-believers and native populations. Now it is not. It used to be moral to take and keep slaves. Now it is not. Morality does evolve as societies evolve. If it didn't we'd still be enslaving our neighbours and marrying off our children for political and economic gains. Of course that doesn't mean some people aren't still stuck in a place that's centuries out of date.

 

[ViperJock]

Morality does evolve. It used to be moral to commit genocide against non-believers and native populations. Now it is not. It used to be moral to take and keep slaves. Now it is not. Morality does evolve as societies evolve. If it didn't we'd still be enslaving our neighbours and marrying off our children for political and economic gains. Of course that doesn't mean some people aren't still stuck in a place that's centuries out of date.

Morality is absolute. The tendency to think morality evolves to suit our current needs is as responsible for genocide then as it is now. Just because someone plays the religion card does not make what they do moral. Morality has to be religious in nature though because if there is no God, there is no sin. In which case, "morality" would be a human construct and not valid as a higher guiding principle. That being said, many people claim to do things in the name of God which are likely not to His liking and thus immoral.

 

[Sfrandolph]

Morality does evolve. It used to be moral to commit genocide against non-believers and native populations. Now it is not. It used to be moral to take and keep slaves. Now it is not. Morality does evolve as societies evolve. If it didn't we'd still be enslaving our neighbours and marrying off our children for political and economic gains. Of course that doesn't mean some people aren't still stuck in a place that's centuries out of date.

Wow. The muslims still commit genocide against non-believers and native populations. Slaves were not a moral issue. Slaves were an economic issue. There are countries that still utilize slaves today, mainly in Africa. Imagine that.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Wow. The muslims still commit genocide against non-believers and native populations. Slaves were not a moral issue. Slaves were an economic issue. There are countries that still utilize slaves today, mainly in Africa. Imagine that.

Slavery still happens in the US too.

 

[mk2ja]

Slavery still happens in the US too.

Just ask all the guys who got stuck married to multiple women at once, amirite?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Morality does evolve. It used to be moral to commit genocide against non-believers and native populations. Now it is not. It used to be moral to take and keep slaves. Now it is not. Morality does evolve as societies evolve. If it didn't we'd still be enslaving our neighbours and marrying off our children for political and economic gains. Of course that doesn't mean some people aren't still stuck in a place that's centuries out of date.

I would respectfully disagree - right and wrong are absolute. _Religion_ and other codes of conduct (of whatever type) have often been twisted in amoral ways. Perhaps this is semantics - but it is an important distinction. Right is Right and Wrong is Wrong - whether backed by the law of the land, or sanctioned by Buddha, done in the name of God, smiled upon by the Great Pumpkin, or whatever the justification might be.

 

[CarmelHP]

Perhaps you should read your words?

"Unfortunately, we're devolving to the licentiousness of our barbarous descendents. "

This is what you said in Post#43.

He still can't get it even after it was explained.

 

[CarmelHP]

I've lived in countries were it was legal. In fact it was what they considered "traditional marriage". My marriage remained what it was, even though I could legally marry up to three more as long as none of them were sisters. Somehow what others were doing in their bedroom or on their marriage certificates failed to impact me in the slightest.

Yet, apparently we are morally superior because we believe in traditional marriage. Except, of course, we don't as a nation. High divorce rates, plenty of folks 'living in sin' to the point it doesn't even occasion comment any longer, the very concept of unwed teen mothers is no longer odd, etc. etc.

I wonder which does more damage to society on average, gays getting married, or children growing up with uninterested too-young mothers and absentee deadbeat fathers?

Same sex marriage are unlikely to be more stable. Those other problems you point out are due to the decline in moral standards, which doesn't prove that moral standards should be further debased.

 

[lucky4034]

What is immoral about gay marriage?
What is immoral about polygamy?


(Serious questions)

 

[BigMatt]

What is immoral about gay marriage?
What is immoral about polygamy?


(Serious questions)

Nothing. Everyone wants everyone else to be like them.

Let's just get government out of marriage altogether and let the churches handle what they think is right.

 

[Hotdoger]

What is immoral about gay marriage?
What is immoral about polygamy?


(Serious questions)

First define "immoral".