Principal differences between gay marriages and polygamy?

[livi]

NICK!

Thanks for taking the time explaining that to me!

[Jim Richards]

one "manuscript" is the governing document for our country, the other is a collection of stories from the Middle East.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

IROC, then what you are saying is that society does not determine its morality, but rather it gives authority to certain manuscripts and the interpreters of those documents.

If morality is so arbitrary, then I do not understand why people get so worked up on either side of the issue. When the decision is removed from society, just consult the appropriate documents and accept their authority. Regardless of the authority: Constitution, Bible, Articles of Confederation, I never voted for any of them, and if the documents go against my own beliefs of morality, then no matter the source, it is oppressive, and either way I have an equal voice in the morality of society.

Morality is not arbitrary and this is something to get worked up about, Society does determine it's particular morality (after all, not all societies have the same morals). The point I was trying to make is that a group of people within the society cannot legally impose their particular morality upon others. Especially when imposing these morals legally infringes upon indvidual rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

This whole issue gets even more sticky when the morality being advocated by one group is based on their religious beliefs. I don't care who you are, that is going to start ruffling feathers. Just because one group within society doesn't agree with some type of behavior, that doesn't mean that they have a legal avenue to impose that belief on others.

In a way, you are right, though. If a large enough segment of the population wanted to outlaw gay marriage, then I'm sure (thru legislation and probably a Constutional amendment) it could become reality if someone could whip up enough of a frenzy. The real reality is that this whole thing is absolutely silly and and we've got far better things to worry about than whether two women want to get "married".

[kang]

Originally Posted by Rodsrsr

The old law is antiquated now. The new law is simply Love God with all your heart, mind and soul and love your neighbor. This pretty much sums it all up. This is one of the reasons that Christ came. You probably notice that we no longer sacrifice animals anymore. Christ was a sacrifice once and for all.

This whole “Christ was a sacrifice” thing seems so primitive to me. What’s the difference between ancient religions that offered human sacrifices to the gods (throwing virgins in volcanoes and such) and the human sacrifice that Christians believe in? You wouldn’t believe in any other religion that required a human sacrifice to appease a god, would you? So why is the human sacrifice of Christ OK?

Here’s a quote related to this topic:

The doctrine of the atonement—the claim that God killed his own son in order to satisfy his thirst for satisfaction—is subrational and subethical. This monstrous doctrine is the stepchild of a primitive sacrificial system in which the gods had to be appeased by offering them some special gift, such as a child or an animal.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by IROC

Richard is a "bull in a china shop" for sure, but he sure does rip you guys new *********s on a regular basis. I suppose I would resort to complaining about his tact, too, if I was taking such a beating and had no other response.

I must not be reading the same things as you are, I don't think I have ever read a persuasive argument by the man, almost 100% his opinion or a regurgitated opinion of someone else. For example, on healthcare, he is so far out there he does not even realize he does not know what he is talking about. On this subject, he is unaware of some basic facts that can't help but prevent forming an informed opinion.

He is unshakable in his certainty, even when he is mistaken. Somehow when it is the President, that makes you stupid, in his case it means you are ripping someone a new one or a master debater.

Neato

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Tobra

He is unshakable in his certainty, even when he is mistaken....

IMO, there's a few of them here! In my own defense..."I know I ain't right"

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by Tobra

I must not be reading the same things as you are, I don't think I have ever read a persuasive argument by the man, almost 100% his opinion or a regurgitated opinion of someone else. For example, on healthcare, he is so far out there he does not even realize he does not know what he is talking about. On this subject, he is unaware of some basic facts that can't help but prevent forming an informed opinion.

He is unshakable in his certainty, even when he is mistaken. Somehow when it is the President, that makes you stupid, in his case it means you are ripping someone a new one or a master debater.

Neato

Again with the lack of presented evidence!

Please enlighten me and others as to the opinions I have posted without supporting facts. You mentioned healthcare. I live here in the US and in France. I am totally familiar with both systems, having used them both numerous times for myself and my family. Your expertise on French healthcare was acquired how?

It is easy to say I'm wrong. Proving it will be much more difficult. you should quit making accusations you cannot support. But that seems to be your modus operandi.

Now if you have some rational aspect to discuss concerning this thread, please proceed. If not, stop whining.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Tobra

I must not be reading the same things as you are, I don't think I have ever read a persuasive argument by the man, almost 100% his opinion or a regurgitated opinion of someone else. For example, on healthcare, he is so far out there he does not even realize he does not know what he is talking about. On this subject, he is unaware of some basic facts that can't help but prevent forming an informed opinion.

He is unshakable in his certainty, even when he is mistaken. Somehow when it is the President, that makes you stupid, in his case it means you are ripping someone a new one or a master debater.

Neato

No, you are reading the same things we are all reading. The difference between you and Mike is that Mike agrees with him, and Mike is arguing from an even less informed position (on these issues) than our good friend RPKESQ. So Mike tends to ignore the vile blather and actually thinks there is some substance behind all of it. That is partly how these "intellectual shields" that RPKESQ employs are meant to work; they impress those who already agree with, but know less about a topic, than you do; those who don't realize you don't know what you are talking about. Or they are used to intimidate those who disagree, but don't know enough about it to know some one is full of *****.

At least Mike is a nice guy. Fairly smart, too (in other areas), and he doesn't have to tell us all the time.

[Tobra]

I have pointed out several times when your arguments are as substantial as smoke, fail to see the point of beating a dead horse, ca ne fait rien, mon ami.

[trekkor]

I appreciate hearing from the reasonable.

Compliments around!


KT

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by Tobra

I have pointed out several times when your arguments are as substantial as smoke, fail to see the point of beating a dead horse, ca ne fait rien, mon ami.

You have stated in your opinion that I was wrong, you have not presented any evidence for such claims. That is the difference. Again, do have evidence to prove me wrong? If not, admit it.

I am particularly waiting for your evidence showing my errors in statement concerning the French health care system...........................................: rolleyes:

Still waiting........................................... ........

Waiting still.............................................

What? Still no evidence? What a surprise!

You may think intelligent conversation consists of opinions offered and accepted politely. No, that is just small talk. Unsupported opinion is just that, nothing more.

If you wanted unsupported opinions and a lack of critical thinking, that can be found anywhere, it is not rare. Many of you show expertise in that line, everyday here.

When you can support your opinions, now that is an intelligent conversation! Most of you guys would fail miserably at a Parisian dinner party, but don't worry, you would never be invited again.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

Most of you guys would fail miserably at a Parisian dinner party, but don't worry, you would never be invited again.

Been to a few. All I really noticed was it gets harder to understand the French when they get drunk, but it gets easier again when I get drunk.

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

Most of you guys would fail miserably at a Parisian dinner party, but don't worry, you would never be invited again.

Damn, guess i have to cross that off my to do list.

[livi]

So, can someone please summarize the result of this thread for me. Its been straying in all directions. I have lost tab of the topic at hand.

[Rodsrsr]

It started drifting about 8 pages ago.

[the]

LOL, me too.

So, can someone summarize:

Is there any difference between allowing gay marriage, and allowing polygamy, and if so, what are they?

[the]

Or, to put it another way, is there any argument in support of gay marriage that would not apply equally (or more) to support marriage between, say, a man and 2 women.

[livi]

Well, if you put it that way. Personally I would rather be married to two women than one man. But thats me. Others on this board may be of a different opinion.

[berettafan]

me too. i'd rather have two pains in the ass than one pain in the ass if ya know what i mean!

[livi]

Lol :-)