# Polygamy



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

By and large Canada, the UK and the US are the most represented nations on the forum. Each prohibits polygamy. Defined here as the denial of the right to marry solely based on previous marital status.

What (or is there) makes a reasonable case for this shared prohibition?


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Reasonable? Nothing.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Are you asking for the historical basis or a rational justification?

If the latter, it is because of the fact that polygamous societies create a surplus of oppressed, rejected, and horny young men whose prospective mates are all occupied with a very small group of powerful and rich older men. Since that is the group (young, disaffected men) that is most prone to violence, this is a very bad result for everyone.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> Are you asking for the historical basis or a rational justification?
> 
> If the latter, it is because of the fact that polygamous societies create a surplus of oppressed, rejected, and horny young men whose prospective mates are all occupied with a very small group of powerful and rich older men. Since that is the group (young, disaffected men) that is most prone to violence, this is a very bad result for everyone.


I agree with this justification, but have my doubt that it will prove sufficiently compelling to survive legal challenge, at least eventually. Western society is increasingly viewing marriage as simply a voluntary social contract over which society should present few encumbrances. I hope I'm wrong (and take some comfort from the knowledge that I often am), but I suspect that eventually our Muslim friends will secure what our Mormon friends could not.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Legal challenges to marriage - at least the successful ones - have all been related to the ability/right of homosexuals to marry. At its most basic level, this presents a very simple equal protection challenge: If a woman has the right to marry a man, how can a man be deprived of that right? If a man can marry a woman, how can a woman be deprived of that same right? It's very straightforward gender discrimination. Polygamy doesn't pose that problem. Neither men nor women are allowed to marry multiple people. If you're worried about a slippery slope, relax; the grade is level, and it's coated in skateboard tape.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Legal challenges to marriage - at least the successful ones - have all been related to the ability/right of homosexuals to marry. At its most basic level, this presents a very simple equal protection challenge: If a woman has the right to marry a man, how can a man be deprived of that right? If a man can marry a woman, how can a woman be deprived of that same right? It's very straightforward gender discrimination. Polygamy doesn't pose that problem. Neither men nor women are allowed to marry multiple people. If you're worried about a slippery slope, relax; the grade is level, and it's coated in skateboard tape.


Polygamy doesn't pose that problem. Neither men nor women are allowed to marry multiple people.

The question here is why or more specifically what is the government's rationale for this prohibition?

Currently Mr Adams can marry Mr. Black or Miss Deeds. Why should Mr Adams' marriage to Mr Black affect Miss Deeds rights? As already mentioned, it is very straight forward discrimination based solely on marital status.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Hitch said:


> Currently Mr Adams can marry Mr. Black or Miss Deeds. Why should Mr Adams' marriage to Mr Black affect Miss Deeds rights? As already mentioned, it is very straight forward discrimination based solely on marital status.


Uh, marriage necessarily is "discrimination based solely on marital status." If you don't "discriminate" between married and unmarried people, then marriage does not legally exist.

As for the rationale, I gave it already. Life is worse for substantially everyone if we allow polygamy.

Quit trolling on this topic.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Uh, marriage necessarily is "discrimination based solely on marital status." If you don't "discriminate" between married and unmarried people, then marriage does not legally exist.
> 
> As for the rationale, I gave it already. Life is worse for substantially everyone if we allow polygamy.
> 
> Quit trolling on this topic.


 The rationale you provided is the equal of your advice.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> ...it is because of the fact that polygamous societies create a surplus of oppressed, rejected, and horny young men whose prospective mates are all occupied with a very small group of powerful and rich older men. Since that is the group (young, disaffected men) that is most prone to violence, this is a very bad result for everyone.


That damn 1% sucking up all the do-able women??

Curses!!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Hitch said:


> By and large Canada, the UK and the US are the most represented nations on the forum. Each prohibits polygamy. Defined here as the denial of the right to marry solely based on previous marital status.
> 
> What (or is there) makes a reasonable case for this shared prohibition?


Polygamy is also prohibited elsewhere, Hitch. While not necessarily seeking to cast myself as an arch-advocate of strict monogamy, I would contend that even were it legal and freely available, relatively few men would find the reality of polygamy a truly happy state of affairs - just imagine the complications, the awkward explanations, the endless demands on one's time (and the expense...) - it might be fun for a while, but afterwards...eh?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Another thing, Hitch - who wants eunuchs hanging around the place?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Langham said:


> Polygamy is also prohibited elsewhere, Hitch.


True, still most of the members are closely connected to the three countries mentioned.


> While not necessarily seeking to cast myself as an arch-advocate of strict monogamy, I would contend that even were it legal and freely available, relatively few men would find the reality of polygamy a truly happy state of affairs - just imagine the complications, the awkward explanations, the endless demands on one's time (and the expense...) - it might be fun for a while, but afterwards...eh?


Agreed. However that does not address the question.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Langham said:


> Another thing, Hitch - who wants eunuchs hanging around the place?


Perhaps it could be sold as a new avenue of employment ?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Hitch said:


> Perhaps it could be sold as a new avenue of employment ?


The conditions of being employed are not very appealing...


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

Polygamy? No thank you. One is enough and I could not imagine two ganging up on you for the slightest indiscretion. And god forbid the nagging. What was it Conrad wrote 'the horror, the horror'


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

If a fellow remains, as I, unmarried then you may have as many lady 'friends' on the go at any one time as you can manage.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> If a fellow remains, as I, unmarried then you may have as many lady 'friends' on the go at any one time as you can manage.


I tried that once - in my single wild oats days - and it was simply too much trouble! Even today, one is more than enough!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Perhaps our respective governments are trying to protect us from ourselves. The ever increasing divorce rates would seem to indicate that most husbands/wives have more than they can handle with the single spouse presently allowed by law. LOL. It would seem to me that multiple spouses would add exponentially to the challenge/risk of divorce!  As for me, I'll hang on to the one I've got and continue to count my blessings! :thumbs-up:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

VictorRomeo said:


> I tried that once - in my single wild oats days - and it was simply too much trouble! Even today, one is more than enough!


It can be troublesome. Constant deep cleaning of one's apartment to remove traces of other females (I soon learnt that ladies are not keen on discovering such evidence) is frankly wearying - especially with only a very small window of opportunity from one guest to the next. Thankfully those days are behind me now. And furthermore... oh excuse me one moment.....

"What's that darling? What am I up to? Oh, you know, just typing about clothes".

Sorry guys - must dash. :redface:


----------



## Flairball (Dec 9, 2012)

Shaver said:


> If a fellow remains, as I, unmarried then you may have as many lady 'friends' on the go at any one time as you can manage.


There also exists the possibility that one's wife understands she has married a wild nomadic stallion, and only expects a little discretion. And that's the last I'll say on the subject.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^LOL.
What you say, Flairball, is so true...and it is possible that there really is a Santa Clause...and an Easter Bunny ...and...!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

THE BIBLE


----------



## calfnkip (Mar 21, 2011)

No man can serve two masters.

- - Comment on polygamy attributed to Mark Twain


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Legal challenges to marriage - at least the successful ones - have all been related to the ability/right of homosexuals to marry. At its most basic level, this presents a very simple equal protection challenge: If a woman has the right to marry a man, how can a man be deprived of that right? If a man can marry a woman, how can a woman be deprived of that same right? It's very straightforward gender discrimination. Polygamy doesn't pose that problem. Neither men nor women are allowed to marry multiple people. If you're worried about a slippery slope, relax; the grade is level, and it's coated in skateboard tape.


WRT the Slope.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...st-another-sexual-orientation-wesley-j-smith#


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hitch said:


> WRT the Slope.
> 
> https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...st-another-sexual-orientation-wesley-j-smith#


What's your point, with the linked article, Hitch?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> What's your point, with the linked article, Hitch?


Dialogue requires earnestness.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Dialogue requires earnestness.


Ahh, you are teasing old Shaver. :icon_smile:

Dialogue requires nothing of the sort. The etymology is_ dia logos_ "through meaning."

At any rate their is a dearth of earnestness abroad upon this Earth. It often is counterfeited by passionate nescience, but that is not the same thing at all.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Hitch, so what? If you think that article supports some position you've taken, go ahead and explain your argument. Show your work, please.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Hitch, so what? If you think that article supports some position you've taken, go ahead and explain your argument. Show your work, please.


CD I am minded to consider it is potentially an attempt by Hitch to encourage a blazing row about that most sensitive of subjects...?

Now I'm all for passionate exchange but that particular topic will be poorly served in discussion here. Furthermore I doubt that any sensible perspective beyond a invective of hatred would be allowed to flourish.

If the thread goes that way I only hope I can excercise my feeble powers of restraint and stay well out of it......


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Oh, I have a guess as to the argument he's trying to make. Bu it's just a guess. If he wants to make the argument, then he needs to actually make it. Then anyone so inclined can respond.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Shaver said:


> What's your point, with the linked article, Hitch?


hmmm I copied CD's entire post I cant imagine how you missed it but I'll repeat the specific line;



> _If you're worried about a slippery slope, relax; the grade is level, and it's coated in_skateboard_ tape.
> 
> _


Really Shaver I've read enough of your posts that I dont believe you are so dense perhaps you lack the necessary earnestness


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Hitch, so what? If you think that article supports some position you've taken, go ahead and explain your argument. Show your work, please.


 Interesting comment CD . I invite you to lead the way and 'show your work' , but I'm getting the feeling that is a requirement you only expect of others.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Alright, let me see if I understand this. Your argument is that an article referencing another article is evidence that adoption of laws allowing pedophilic marriage are inevitable?

As for showing my work, I believe I have shared my logic on each of my points, usually with simple declarative sentences. If you disagree with it, that's fine. You seem to prefer dropping arch comments, hints, etc., and counting on others to connect the dots in the same way that you do. This is not conducive to clear discourse.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

I think Hitch makes a fair observation, which is of course easy to understand from his post. Basically, the modern disentanglement of marriage, sex and children is a recent innovation the social and legal consequences of which are still being played out. Many of the consequences we are currently experiencing were not predicted, including 40% illegitimacy and divorce rates. Similarly, the idea of abortion being a right of constitutional dimension was unthinkable even during my lifetime, as was the social normalization of homosexual behavior and now (apparently) marriage. These social phenomenon were rather recently considered abhorrent. Today we accept them and in some quarters embrace them. Cuff is correct that the gay marriage argument has some equal protection grounding, but only in part; I believe that its real impulse is more libertarian than anything else. Yet even Cuff's sanguine equal protection analysis is hardly reliable. One can easily assert that the benefits of marriage cannot be limited to those whose appetites happen to favor one adult human of the opposite sex (admittedly there are quarters where the term "opposite sex" would be unwelcome, which actually reinforces the point), but that others whose appetites differ must be treated equally under the law absent a compelling reason to the contrary. Yes, one can dully (and I mean dully not duly) take note that since most such folks would not fall into a suspect class, the discriminatory laws to which they object must only have a rational basis; but the classes that qualify as "suspect" are whatever the courts say they are, since we have long ago lost any pretense of securing 14th Amendment jurisprudence to either its language or its intent as revealed by history. Yes, there is widespread consensus today (at least in much of the West) that marriage is for two people and only two people, but other nations achieve different consensuses; and our social order is fluid. The same goes for the treatment of children, who as a class are currently subject to grotesque sexual exploitation and premature sexualization for both commercial as well as more malignant reasons. We have seen social consensuses erode and even reverse (of course one man’s erosion is another man’s progress) in ways that are not predictable, and it is precisely this unpredictability that causes me (and I suspect Hitch) to be concerned. Remember, children have rights too, and those rights have been found by some courts to include the right to consensual sex with an adult. Even in the conservative state of GA, a Supreme Court justice has questioned the constitutional validity of statutory rape laws by suggesting that the extension of abortion rights to minors (something that appears well-settled) implicitly pre-supposes a constitutional right to voluntary sex (Cuff, I don't recall the case but you can find it -- it was Justice Sears-Collins). While such speculation was admittedly expressed in a dissent, today's dissents are often tomorrow's majority opinions, which I think is Hitch's point.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Alright, let me see if I understand this. Your argument is that an article referencing another article is evidence that adoption of laws allowing pedophilic marriage are inevitable?
> 
> As for showing my work, I believe I have shared my logic on each of my points,


 skateboard tape?


> usually with simple declarative sentences. If you disagree with it, that's fine. You seem to prefer dropping arch comments, hints, etc., and counting on others to connect the dots in the same way that you do.


 see above


> This is not conducive to clear discourse.


 You have left no indication that 'clear discourse' is of much interest to you, even a hint of disagreement throws you off, maybe its something in the skateboard tape.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Thanx Mike, well said.

It was, in reality, fairly obvious yes?

And this one is a gem;

Even in the conservative state of GA, a Supreme Court justice has questioned the constitutional validity of statutory rape laws by suggesting that the extension of abortion rights to minors (something that appears well-settled) implicitly pre-supposes a constitutional right to voluntary sex


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> ...The same goes for the treatment of children, who as a class are currently subject to grotesque sexual exploitation and premature sexualization for both commercial as well as more malignant reasons. We have seen social consensuses erode and even reverse (of course one man's erosion is another man's progress) in ways that are not predictable, and it is precisely this unpredictability that causes me (and I suspect Hitch) to be concerned. Remember, children have rights too, and those rights have been found by some courts to include the right to consensual sex with an adult. Even in the conservative state of GA, a Supreme Court justice has questioned the constitutional validity of statutory rape laws by suggesting that the extension of abortion rights to minors (something that appears well-settled) implicitly pre-supposes a constitutional right to voluntary sex (Cuff, I don't recall the case but you can find it -- it was Justice Sears-Collins). While such speculation was admittedly expressed in a dissent, today's dissents are often tomorrow's majority opinions, which I think is Hitch's point.


Our side needs more guys like you and Krauthammer and fewer like Hitch and me!!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Mike,

A thoughtful post, as usual. I'll try to begin with a meta-point, which is this: arguments for (or against) a change in the law must be taken on their own merits. We change laws all the time, and consider and reject other changes even more frequently. The fact that some other person may suggest some other change is not a reason to reject a change that is beneficial or constitutionally-required. If that second request is ill-founded, reject it. Only those cases where there is no rational ground of distinction between the changes pose any kind of problem to a question-by-question analysis (and then only to the extent they suggest that the first query was ill-considered to begin with). And I have no problem seeing a clear distinction between homosexual marriage and polygamy, or homosexual marriage and paedophelia.

Social conservatives have taken to pointing to procreation as the distinction between illegitimate and legitimate uses of marriage. It supposes that there can only be one "true" purpose of marriage. This is obviously false, and always has been. Childless couples, and couples who are known (by virtue of the age of the woman) to be incapable of bearing children, have always been allowed to be married. Even the theoretical possibility of children has not been required, as marriage-dependent inheritance laws apply to the widow or widower in a childless marriage.*

I like marriage as an institution for raising children, but I like it as an institution for other purposes, too. I like cars for hauling groceries, but I also like cars for other purposes. I'm not bothered by the idea of someone getting married for a reason other than children, nor am I bothered by someone getting a car that they will only commute to work in. I am bothered by someone using a car, however, to run down unconsenting others, or to run down children whose own lack of judgment and development lead them to think that the collision will be some sort of cartoon-like event. I am equally bothered by someone using, or claiming to use, the guise of marriage to molest unconsenting children, or those incapable of giving consent.

If you want to have a discussion about ages of consent, that's fine. But that's another discussion.

Regarding the alleged fluidity of protected classes: So what's your proposed solution, no more equal protection jurisprudence? Men and women get some kind of EP protection. That's hardly radical or new. And that's all the EP analysis required to make homosexual marriage a mandated right. That same analysis does nothing for polygamy, nor for paedophelia. If polygamists or paedophiles want to argue for a change in EP law to make themselves a protected class, that's up to them. The mere theoretical possibility that some future moron in a robe will buy that argument exists regardless of how we view homosexuality. Only in the minds of those who already hate homosexuality is there any equivalance. And they're not going to act in favor of polygamy or paedophelia, so there's no problem.

I'll try to illustrate the dynamic with a hastily-contrived parable. Let's say we have a bunch of people who always order lunch together. The lunch order has always consisted of turkey sandwiches _only_. You either got a turkey sandwich or you got no lunch. Some of the people would prefer a ham sandwich, and ask that they be given the choice of ham sandwiches. Those who want turkey would be free to continue to get turkey, and those who want ham could get ham. Some who like turkey sandwiches are un-bothered by the preference of those who want ham, but some are deeply disturbed. To them, eating ham is anathema. They try to persuade the ham-likers and ham-liker-likers alike to share their view, but they cannot achieve a majority. As a last-ditch effort, they argue that if ham sandwiches are allowed, human-based sandwiches will be next. "Regardless of whether this is a contrived equivalence or not, the fear is baseless," reply the ham-likers and their allies. The ham likers do not condone cannibalism. The turkophiles who are OK with others eating ham do not like cannibalism. The turkey fundamentalists don't like the idea of anyone eating ham or people. A vote to allow ham sandwiches changes nothing in the vote about canibalism. The only people who see an equivalence are those who are opposed to both, or perhaps the small number of people who already favor cannibalism. Unless the hamophobes start supporting cannibalism solely out of spite, there's no slippery slope risk. In fact, the risk only arises if the hamophobes start convincing others that there IS an equivalence.

* Sex and procreation have also been partially disentangled for a long time. Technology for avoiding conception, or for aborting an unwanted pregnancy, has been known in western societies and others for thousands of years. In fairness, only recent technological advances have made procreation without sex possible.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

_Even in the conservative state of GA, a Supreme Court justice has questioned the constitutional validity of statutory rape laws by suggesting that the extension of abortion rights to minors (something that appears well-settled) implicitly pre-supposes a constitutional right to voluntary sex_

Currently in Oregon if 30 year old Mr Jones enticed 17 year old Mr Smith into sexual contact Mr Jones is guilty of a crime. In this case likely a felony,the law recognizes the age differential. . However the two can travel 10 miles north and marry. Washington has no residency requirement.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Hitch said:


> skateboard tape?


https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=3416161

The sandpaper-like stuff that goes on top of skateboards. Also quite popular, _inter alia_, for improving the grip on USPSA/IPSC open-class race guns.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=3416161
> 
> The sandpaper-like stuff that goes on top of skateboards. Also quite popular, _inter alia_, for improving the grip on USPSA/IPSC open-class race guns.


Does your use fit with this ?;

_ You seem to prefer dropping arch comments, hints, etc., and counting on others to connect the dots in the same way that you do.

_It take a special kind of self righteousness to accuse the OP of trolling, makes me glad the political discussions are restricted , because every forum has its empire builder.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Suffice it to say, Hitch, you seem to have trouble distinguishing between things that I have no trouble seeing a difference between.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Suffice it to say, Hitch, you seem to have trouble distinguishing between things that I have no trouble seeing a difference between.


 see post 41


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Exactly.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

There is but one member consistently making sense in this thread - and it isn't me. It is CuffDaddy.

I am deeply troubled by folks who percieve homosexuality and paedophilia as contiguous issues. Religious zealotry precipitated by belief in a construct deity, a conveniently ersatz edifice reflecting a merely temporary status of shared social mores, seems to be a key indicator for such beliefs. It would be beneficial to disentangle these issues if we were to proceed with meaningful debate.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Cuff, I look forward to continuing our conversation over cocktails at the Four Seasons next Wednesday.
Cheers,
Mike


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Agreed, should be fun and enlightening.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Either I'm in some form of shock reading this thread or I'm just not smart enough to understand it but probably both.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Shaver said:


> There is but one member consistently making sense in this thread - and it isn't me. It is CuffDaddy.
> 
> I am deeply troubled by folks who percieve homosexuality and paedophilia as contiguous issues. Religious zealotry precipitated by belief in a construct deity, a conveniently ersatz edifice reflecting a merely temporary status of shared social mores, seems to be a key indicator for such beliefs. It would be beneficial to disentangle these issues if we were to proceed with meaningful debate.


So why not start a thread dedicated to these things you believe to be important?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hitch said:


> So why not start a thread dedicated to these things you believe to be important?


What? Do you mean start a thread dedicated to Cuffdaddy?

I tried that once - the moderators took it down. 

You know Hitch, I have absolutely no idea what you are about in this thread. Any chance of you spitting it out?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Shaver said:


> What? Do you mean start a thread dedicated to Cuffdaddy? (_LOL_)
> 
> I tried that once - the moderators took it down.
> 
> You know Hitch, I have absolutely no idea what you are about in this thread. Any chance of you spitting it out?


 Sure.

By and large Canada, the UK and the US are the most represented nations on the forum. Each prohibits polygamy. Defined here as the denial of the right to marry solely based on previous marital status.

What (or is there) makes a reasonable case for this shared prohibition?

I find it interesting that hasnt been a serious attempt to explain and defend the anti polygamy laws most of us live under. There were one or two flat rejections which addressed the question directly and they was much appreciated.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hitch said:


> Sure.
> 
> By and large Canada, the UK and the US are the most represented nations on the forum. Each prohibits polygamy. Defined here as the denial of the right to marry solely based on previous marital status.
> 
> ...


That much I understand. It was the subsequently linked article which I found a trifle more oblique. Could I trouble you to elaborate as to your reasons for introducing it?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Hitch said:


> Sure.
> 
> By and large Canada, the UK and the US are the most represented nations on the forum. Each prohibits polygamy. Defined here as the denial of the right to marry solely based on previous marital status.
> 
> ...


Even the most strident practitioners of Anything Goes have their limits!!

It is the limits of those with which they disagree they have problems with.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Woulda', the question usually comes down to whether those limits should be set by reference to tradition, aesthetics, or some religious view, or only on rational bases. If the latter, then there is sometimes disagreement about whether paternalistic protection-of-self is a valid basis for setting a limit. 

I think that a pluralistic democracy demands that we make the kind of arguments that those who do not share our particular religion can evaluate and perhaps be persuaded by. If no such arguments can be made in favor of a rights-limiting policy, then it's time for that policy to go. If such arguments can be made, then they should be weighed against the loss of freedom that the limit involves.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

That's why I cringe when my team makes faith-based arguments, when only the facts are necessary, even when I agree with them!!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

It has, unfortunately, been my experience that about half of the things said by other *on behalf of positions that I hold* are cringe-inducing to me.

There are lots of smart people in the world, and lots of dumb people. Smart people will occassionally say dumb things, but the converse is rarely true. Additionally, the intelligence of a view or argument seems wholly unrelated to the volume with which it is pronounced, and only correlated over years or decades with how often it is pronounced. Those factors combine to mean that we swim in a sea of stupid statements. I wish people of all views would try harder not to add to the problem.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Shaver said:


> That much I understand. It was the subsequently linked article which I found a trifle more oblique. Could I trouble you to elaborate as to your reasons for introducing it?


 Well I already have but one more time wont hurt.

It responds to CD's post especially the line quoted below;



> If you're worried about a slippery slope, relax; the grade is level, and it's coated in skateboard tape.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That's why I cringe when my team makes faith-based arguments, when only the facts are necessary, even when I agree with them!!


God forbid !

Im curious as to whether you would find that claiming our rights come from God is faith based or rationally based?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hitch said:


> Well I already have but one more time wont hurt.
> 
> It responds to CD's post especially the line quoted below;


You are leaving me with the unfortunate sensation that you are shy (or nervous or perhaps even afraid) to just come right out with it.

Go on, take a deep breath, and get straight to the point.

The suspense is killing me. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Flairball (Dec 9, 2012)

Is this thread some kind of an inside joke, or something? Really? Skateboard tape?

CD, thanks for trying to inject reason, and logic, but either the message isn't getting through, or more likely, there isn't a reasoned and logical response. 

Now, back to your regularly scheduled rediculous riddle of a thread.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Hitch said:


> God forbid !
> 
> Im curious as to whether you would find that claiming our rights come from God is faith based or rationally based?


I do not find the two of them exclusive.

It is rational to have faith in God.

To say that behaviors are unhealthy can be proved. To say behaviors are unhealthy because God says so makes me cringe!!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

The state has every right to pass laws intended to foster certain social and economic conditions. The tax code is a good example of this, since it favors somethings and punishes others. In the case of polygamy, I think most serious people recognize that polygamy comes with a host of attendant social and economic ills. The laws might reflect religious morality, but in this case they match good sense.

I thought it might be worth pointing out that Judaism historically allowed polygamy but discouraged it because it did bad things for women and only made sense if the husbands have a great deal of money. Just over 1,000 years ago the European rabbinate banned it altogether for a number of reasons, one of which include the recognition that it was abusive toward women. Jews who lived and who still live outside the jurisdiction of the European tradition might technically engage in polygamy, but it has always been extraordinarily rare, again in part because it was discouraged as not being a good idea. Basically, what might have been good for King Solomon is probably not a good idea for Mr. Cohen. In this case one can't argue that hostility toward polygamy is irrational, since here we have the doctors of religious law pushing back against what their faith says is ok on the grounds that it's monogamy is a better standard for society.

What I've read about some of the Mormon polygamist cults that pop up every now and then in the American West confirm the assessment that women--girls, really, suffer, as there's a lot of pressure for girls to marry, and husbands indulge in all sorts of terrible things. And then there's the problem of the 'lost boys' who surface in cities like Salt Lake City, the young cast-outs who can never find a place back home since the few men have grabbed all the girls with even a hint of pubic hair.

Anyway, it strikes me that state laws against polygamy make good sense.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I do not find the two of them exclusive.
> 
> It is rational to have faith in God.
> 
> To say that behaviors are unhealthy can be proved. To say behaviors are unhealthy because God says so makes me cringe!!


Fair enough but how is that different from claiming our rights and responsibilities are from the Heavenly except for style? This assumes the speaker is at least correct in his assessment.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> The state has every right to pass laws intended to foster certain social and economic conditions. The tax code is a good example of this, since it favors somethings and punishes others. In the case of polygamy, I think most serious people recognize that polygamy comes with a host of attendant social and economic ills. The laws might reflect religious morality, but in this case they match good sense.
> 
> I thought it might be worth pointing out that Judaism historically allowed polygamy but discouraged it because it did bad things for women and only made sense of the husbands and a great deal of money. Just over 1,000 years ago the European rabbinate banned it altogether for a number of reasons, one of which include the recognition that it was abusive toward women. Jews who lived and who still live outside the jurisdiction of the European tradition might technically engage in polygamy, but it has always been extraordinarily rare, again in part because it was discouraged as not being a good idea. Basically, what might have been good for King Solomon is probably not a good idea for Mr. Cohen. In this case one can't argue that hostility toward polygamy is irrational, since here we have the doctors of religious law pushing back against what their faith says is ok on the grounds that it's monogamy is a better standard for society.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

PS. By Mormon polygamist cults, I meant this sort of thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Hitch said:


> Fair enough but how is that different from claiming our rights and responsibilities are from the Heavenly except for style? This assumes the speaker is at least correct in his assessment.


It isn't at all that it's important because this is a men's clothing forum, but more often than not, style counts!!


----------

