Ohio Chatter DEV

NNN

GeneralsIcer89 wrote:
NNN wrote: Should marriage to multiple spouses be allowed as well?
Different issue entirely, as this can have the connotation of multiple partners being forced into a situation (and as far as the history of it in the United States is concerned, it seems religious extremism is in the forefront of the known examples), such as the girls in the polygamist sect of Mormons.

So because of the possibility of abuse, which (according to our pot-smoking friends) only exists because of laws that currently outlaw it, plural marriage should remain illegal?

Based on that, any marriage should be illegal because the possibility of abuse exists, and if kids are in the picture as well then it's even worse.

derek bomar

NNN wrote:
derek bomar wrote: I just don't see how people could be against it. It has no impact on your life at all other than maybe providing some income to the government in the form of taxes...I just don't get the hypocrisy some people have when it comes to wanting the government to have nothing to do with their lives, but have no problem telling other people how they should behave. Live and let live man.
Should marriage to multiple spouses be allowed as well?

obviously, marriage is between one consenting adult and another...i don't see where you can get more than one spouse from that. And this is a pretty weak attempt to divert the topic from one of whether gay men and women should be able to marry each other and shift it to a lovely hypothetical of multiple marriages with one person...

NNN

derek bomar wrote:
NNN wrote:
derek bomar wrote: I just don't see how people could be against it. It has no impact on your life at all other than maybe providing some income to the government in the form of taxes...I just don't get the hypocrisy some people have when it comes to wanting the government to have nothing to do with their lives, but have no problem telling other people how they should behave. Live and let live man.
Should marriage to multiple spouses be allowed as well?
obviously, marriage is between one consenting adult and another...i don't see where you can get more than one spouse from that.

Because if two people love each other and are able to consent to marriage, isn't it only right that they should be allowed to? That includes if either person is married to someone else at the same time.

Otherwise you're just discriminating in an arbitrary manner. Why should "two people" be the limit for marriage?

derek bomar

and I love the ad for the all gay exotic cruise at the top of the page

GeneralsIcer89

Not the possibility of abuse, but the *remarkably high number of examples of it*. I personally don't care much about the issue, but when it is safe to say that the majority of known cases of polygamy in the U.S. were not consensual or with underaged girls, I'd say it's a bit tougher to let that become legal.

derek bomar

NNN wrote:
derek bomar wrote:
NNN wrote:
derek bomar wrote: I just don't see how people could be against it. It has no impact on your life at all other than maybe providing some income to the government in the form of taxes...I just don't get the hypocrisy some people have when it comes to wanting the government to have nothing to do with their lives, but have no problem telling other people how they should behave. Live and let live man.
Should marriage to multiple spouses be allowed as well?
obviously, marriage is between one consenting adult and another...i don't see where you can get more than one spouse from that.
Because if two people love each other and are able to consent to marriage, isn't it only right that they should be allowed to? That includes if either person is married to someone else at the same time.

Otherwise you're just discriminating in an arbitrary manner. Why should "two people" be the limit for marriage?

because it's basically a legal contract and if you want out of it and want to enter into another one with someone you have to cancel the previous one first

NNN

GeneralsIcer89 wrote: Not the possibility of abuse, but the *remarkably high number of examples of it*. I personally don't care much about the issue, but when it is safe to say that the majority of known cases of polygamy in the U.S. were not consensual or with underaged girls, I'd say it's a bit tougher to let that become legal.

Who said anything about legalizing seizure and nailing of underage girls?

I'm saying that if I'm married and wish to take another wife who I'd otherwise be able to marry if I were single (old enough, not closely related, good mental condition), then why shouldn't I be able to share the love?

zhon44622

believer wrote:
CenterBHSFan wrote:Forgivness is Divine, isn't it? NOT that I think that other peoples' marriages need to be forgiven by me, or you or anybody else... but isn't that Gods job? Forgiveness?
Like I suggested to Cats above it's probably best to put this topic in God's capable hands.

However, it doesn't mean we must be silent or give up our our free speech right to call a spade and spade.

Heretic wrote: Don't worry. Considering your only "proof" is lines from a book where you have nothing besides personal faith to say those words are anything more than the moral code of HUMAN writers, it's not worth my time to "disprove" you.

If, due to your religious beliefs, you feel homosexuality is immoral, a sin, etc., that's your right. But it doesn't make you automatically correct. And just because your Bible has lines against it doesn't mean it's automatically immoral.
Frankly I could give a rat's rear what consenting adults choose to do in private. Just don't force me or other persons of faith to recognize same sex partnerships as marriages.

And just because your secularism thinks homosexuality is okee dokee, doesn't mean it's automatically moral. Fair enough?

enigmaax wrote:For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Matthew 6:14-15)

Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. (Mark 11:25)

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Matthew 7:1-2)
Not up to me to judge. You are right about that.

Still while it's perfectly fine to quote Scripture to back-up your arguments, the inherent danger in doing so is there are other Scriptures that also make it perfectly clear what our moral position ought to be:

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 20:22

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Romans 1 26-27

Just sayin'..........

NNN wrote:
derek bomar wrote:
NNN wrote:
derek bomar wrote: I just don't see how people could be against it. It has no impact on your life at all other than maybe providing some income to the government in the form of taxes...I just don't get the hypocrisy some people have when it comes to wanting the government to have nothing to do with their lives, but have no problem telling other people how they should behave. Live and let live man.
Should marriage to multiple spouses be allowed as well?
obviously, marriage is between one consenting adult and another...i don't see where you can get more than one spouse from that.
Because if two people love each other and are able to consent to marriage, isn't it only right that they should be allowed to? That includes if either person is married to someone else at the same time.

Otherwise you're just discriminating in an arbitrary manner. Why should "two people" be the limit for marriage?

You seem to be the one with a problem with it so perhaps you can answer your own question....

Why should "two people" be the limit for marriage?

NNN

derek bomar wrote:
NNN wrote:
derek bomar wrote:
NNN wrote:
derek bomar wrote: I just don't see how people could be against it. It has no impact on your life at all other than maybe providing some income to the government in the form of taxes...I just don't get the hypocrisy some people have when it comes to wanting the government to have nothing to do with their lives, but have no problem telling other people how they should behave. Live and let live man.
Should marriage to multiple spouses be allowed as well?
obviously, marriage is between one consenting adult and another...i don't see where you can get more than one spouse from that.
Because if two people love each other and are able to consent to marriage, isn't it only right that they should be allowed to? That includes if either person is married to someone else at the same time.

Otherwise you're just discriminating in an arbitrary manner. Why should "two people" be the limit for marriage?
because it's basically a legal contract and if you want out of it and want to enter into another one with someone you have to cancel the previous one first

Contracts are adjusted and amended thousands of times a day. I don't see how that's any real obstacle.

GeneralsIcer89

How do we handle divorces with it? Or the tax issues? Or any of the other 1000+ benefits of marriage? Not saying triad relationships don't work (I know some that work well), but the trust required in that type of relationship, among other things that could constitute abuse (neglect when there's a new toy - mind you, that's how it can often be seen - , anyone?), makes that such a huge pot of uncertainty that it's probably better left alone. Nobody's gonna hunt you down for having a triad relationship if everyone is there consensually, but putting any govt. involvement in that would honestly just lead to unnecessary difficulty.

derek bomar

NNN wrote:
derek bomar wrote:
NNN wrote:
derek bomar wrote:
NNN wrote:
derek bomar wrote: I just don't see how people could be against it. It has no impact on your life at all other than maybe providing some income to the government in the form of taxes...I just don't get the hypocrisy some people have when it comes to wanting the government to have nothing to do with their lives, but have no problem telling other people how they should behave. Live and let live man.
Should marriage to multiple spouses be allowed as well?
obviously, marriage is between one consenting adult and another...i don't see where you can get more than one spouse from that.
Because if two people love each other and are able to consent to marriage, isn't it only right that they should be allowed to? That includes if either person is married to someone else at the same time.

Otherwise you're just discriminating in an arbitrary manner. Why should "two people" be the limit for marriage?
because it's basically a legal contract and if you want out of it and want to enter into another one with someone you have to cancel the previous one first
Contracts are adjusted and amended thousands of times a day. I don't see how that's any real obstacle.

you can't amend a contract to include something illegal, which polygamy is

GeneralsIcer89

Before this goes too far, can a mod split this off? The polygamy discussion has nothing to do with gay marriage in Ohio.

derek bomar

GeneralsIcer89 wrote: Before this goes too far, can a mod split this off? The polygamy discussion has nothing to do with gay marriage in Ohio.

I agree. He's trying to divert it away. It's a pretty weak argument when you have to use hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the point you're arguing.

NNN

GeneralsIcer89 wrote: How do we handle divorces with it? Or the tax issues? Or any of the other 1000+ benefits of marriage? Not saying triad relationships don't work (I know some that work well), but the trust required in that type of relationship, among other things that could constitute abuse (neglect when there's a new toy - mind you, that's how it can often be seen - , anyone?), makes that such a huge pot of uncertainty that it's probably better left alone. Nobody's gonna hunt you down for having a triad relationship if everyone is there consensually, but putting any govt. involvement in that would honestly just lead to unnecessary difficulty.

Obviously there would have to be adjustments made to marriage and divorce laws; this is a greater benefit than the current anti-polygamy discrimination that exists.

derek bomar wrote:
NNN wrote: Contracts are adjusted and amended thousands of times a day. I don't see how that's any real obstacle.
you can't amend a contract to include something illegal, which polygamy is

Don't skirt the issue. The question is "why is polygamy illegal?"

If we assume that it's possible for a man and woman to enter into a contract for whatever reason that they may want and call it "marriage", there's no reason that they shouldn't be allowed to add another man or another woman (or both) into that as well.

GeneralsIcer89

Here's a thought. Perhaps polygamy would make it too easy for a family to become powerful. Islam limits the number of wives a man can take for that very reason.

NNN

GeneralsIcer89 wrote: Here's a thought. Perhaps polygamy would make it too easy for a family to become powerful. Islam limits the number of wives a man can take for that very reason.

There's also no limit to how many children a couple can have and/or later adopt.

Should the law then be altered if sterility exists? If six people all want to marry each other and there's no possibility of kids, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

GeneralsIcer89

NNN wrote:
GeneralsIcer89 wrote: Here's a thought. Perhaps polygamy would make it too easy for a family to become powerful. Islam limits the number of wives a man can take for that very reason.
There's also no limit to how many children a couple can have and/or later adopt.

Should the law then be altered if sterility exists? If six people all want to marry each other and there's no possibility of kids, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

Go have 30 kids and prove you can take care of them. If it's polygamy, you might have that many mothers. If ALL of those kids grow up and become successful, you now have one of the most powerful families in the nation. If polygamy isn't legal, then you have you and your wife to feed 30 kids, raise 30 kids, etc. Good luck staying out of the red.

NNN

derek bomar wrote:
GeneralsIcer89 wrote: Before this goes too far, can a mod split this off? The polygamy discussion has nothing to do with gay marriage in Ohio.
I agree. He's trying to divert it away. It's a pretty weak argument when you have to use hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the point you're arguing.

Don't be ridiculous. The point is that there is no argument that can be made in favor of gay marriage that cannot also be made in favor of polygamy. Therefore, if arguing against gay marriage is promoting discrimination, arguing against polygamy is doing the same.

GeneralsIcer89

NNN wrote:
derek bomar wrote:
GeneralsIcer89 wrote: Before this goes too far, can a mod split this off? The polygamy discussion has nothing to do with gay marriage in Ohio.
I agree. He's trying to divert it away. It's a pretty weak argument when you have to use hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the point you're arguing.
Don't be ridiculous. The point is that there is no argument that can be made in favor of gay marriage that cannot also be made in favor of polygamy. Therefore, if arguing against gay marriage is promoting discrimination, arguing against polygamy is doing the same.

Bullshit. What about gay marriage involves multiple partners and the issues that arise from that both legally and ethically? These topics are alike in a single sense, and that being that neither is legal nationwide (though in the case of polygamy, it isn't legal at all). Other than that, there is NOTHING in common.

NNN

GeneralsIcer89 wrote:
NNN wrote:
GeneralsIcer89 wrote: Here's a thought. Perhaps polygamy would make it too easy for a family to become powerful. Islam limits the number of wives a man can take for that very reason.
There's also no limit to how many children a couple can have and/or later adopt.

Should the law then be altered if sterility exists? If six people all want to marry each other and there's no possibility of kids, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
Go have 30 kids and prove you can take care of them. If it's polygamy, you might have that many mothers. If ALL of those kids grow up and become successful, you now have one of the most powerful families in the nation. If polygamy isn't legal, then you have you and your wife to feed 30 kids, raise 30 kids, etc. Good luck staying out of the red.

So? I grew up Catholic and am quite familar with families that had 10+ children and yet were able to make ends meet.

If you're suggesting that a couple should be limited to only having kids that they can financially support, I can probably find a few million people to have sterilized pretty quickly. We can start with those on welfare.

As for "powerful families", who cares? Are you promoting discrimination as a way of keeping down those who can succeed?

NNN

GeneralsIcer89 wrote:
NNN wrote: Don't be ridiculous. The point is that there is no argument that can be made in favor of gay marriage that cannot also be made in favor of polygamy. Therefore, if arguing against gay marriage is promoting discrimination, arguing against polygamy is doing the same.
Bullshit. What about gay marriage involves multiple partners and the issues that arise from that both legally and ethically? These topics are alike in a single sense, and that being that neither is legal nationwide (though in the case of polygamy, it isn't legal at all). Other than that, there is NOTHING in common.

Why? Because the number of partners differs between gay marriage and polygamy?

The positive arguments in favor of gay marriage tend to run as follows.
1) "If two people love each other, they should be allowed to get married"
2) "What goes on behind closed doors is no one else's business"
3) "They're not hurting anyone or anything"
4) "It's legal elsewhere in the world"

ALL of that can be used to apply to polygamy. There's also a substantially greater historical precedent for polygamy versus gay marriage. And if you want to fight the battle of "let's find some minor point from Leviticus to emphasize how ridiculous I believe the whole thing to be", there are clear specifications all through the Old Testament of how to handle multiple wives.

GeneralsIcer89

NNN wrote:
GeneralsIcer89 wrote:
NNN wrote:
GeneralsIcer89 wrote: Here's a thought. Perhaps polygamy would make it too easy for a family to become powerful. Islam limits the number of wives a man can take for that very reason.
There's also no limit to how many children a couple can have and/or later adopt.

Should the law then be altered if sterility exists? If six people all want to marry each other and there's no possibility of kids, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
Go have 30 kids and prove you can take care of them. If it's polygamy, you might have that many mothers. If ALL of those kids grow up and become successful, you now have one of the most powerful families in the nation. If polygamy isn't legal, then you have you and your wife to feed 30 kids, raise 30 kids, etc. Good luck staying out of the red.
So? I grew up Catholic and am quite familar with families that had 10+ children and yet were able to make ends meet.

If you're suggesting that a couple should be limited to only having kids that they can financially support, I can probably find a few million people to have sterilized pretty quickly. We can start with those on welfare.

As for "powerful families", who cares? Are you promoting discrimination as a way of keeping down those who can succeed?

No, I'm suggesting that were polygamy legal, the imbalance in socioeconomic status would become even more ridiculous than it currently is. You might try looking at some things in which polygamy could yield similar results. Look at things like the issues with dowry in India. The issue itself may not be the same, but I could see the results being rather similar, in which every family wants to have baby boys to head a rich household. Again, this discussion has nothing to do with gay marriage, and frankly, if you can't see what some of the issues with legalizing polygamy are, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

GeneralsIcer89

NNN wrote:
GeneralsIcer89 wrote:
NNN wrote: Don't be ridiculous. The point is that there is no argument that can be made in favor of gay marriage that cannot also be made in favor of polygamy. Therefore, if arguing against gay marriage is promoting discrimination, arguing against polygamy is doing the same.
Bullshit. What about gay marriage involves multiple partners and the issues that arise from that both legally and ethically? These topics are alike in a single sense, and that being that neither is legal nationwide (though in the case of polygamy, it isn't legal at all). Other than that, there is NOTHING in common.
Why? Because the number of partners differs between gay marriage and polygamy?

The positive arguments in favor of gay marriage tend to run as follows.
1) "If two people love each other, they should be allowed to get married"
2) "What goes on behind closed doors is no one else's business"
3) "They're not hurting anyone or anything"
4) "It's legal elsewhere in the world"

ALL of that can be used to apply to polygamy. There's also a substantially greater historical precedent for polygamy versus gay marriage. And if you want to fight the battle of "let's find some minor point from Leviticus to emphasize how ridiculous I believe the whole thing to be", there are clear specifications all through the Old Testament of how to handle multiple wives.

And what has to change in order for one to become legal as opposed to the other? What could be the societal implications of one becoming legal versus the other? In biblical times, the number of wives taken was a STATUS SYMBOL, AS IT REMAINS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD TODAY. In fact, the *only* region in the world in which it is a necessity rather than a status symbol is in a region of NE India, in which the land is not easily farmed due to it being mountainous, and the women are outnumbered by the men to such a ratio that multiple husbands being taken is the only way in which enough of a workforce within the family can sustain life.

derek bomar

NNN wrote:
GeneralsIcer89 wrote:
NNN wrote: Don't be ridiculous. The point is that there is no argument that can be made in favor of gay marriage that cannot also be made in favor of polygamy. Therefore, if arguing against gay marriage is promoting discrimination, arguing against polygamy is doing the same.
Bullshit. What about gay marriage involves multiple partners and the issues that arise from that both legally and ethically? These topics are alike in a single sense, and that being that neither is legal nationwide (though in the case of polygamy, it isn't legal at all). Other than that, there is NOTHING in common.
Why? Because the number of partners differs between gay marriage and polygamy?

The positive arguments in favor of gay marriage tend to run as follows.
1) "If two people love each other, they should be allowed to get married"
2) "What goes on behind closed doors is no one else's business"
3) "They're not hurting anyone or anything"
4) "It's legal elsewhere in the world"

ALL of that can be used to apply to polygamy. There's also a substantially greater historical precedent for polygamy versus gay marriage. And if you want to fight the battle of "let's find some minor point from Leviticus to emphasize how ridiculous I believe the whole thing to be", there are clear specifications all through the Old Testament of how to handle multiple wives.

Dude, the topic of conversation is gays marrying, not polygamy. The two aren't the same thing. It'd be like saying I feel that the speed limit should be changed to 70, and you saying, well if that is passed, should we also pass a law saying it's ok to get road head? The two have nothing in common. Marriage is between two people. Not a person and an animal, and not between more than two people. Your argument could be flipped around and used against straight people getting married as well. So I assume you're against marriage in general.

jmog

GeneralsIcer89 wrote: Not the possibility of abuse, but the *remarkably high number of examples of it*. I personally don't care much about the issue, but when it is safe to say that the majority of known cases of polygamy in the U.S. were not consensual or with underaged girls, I'd say it's a bit tougher to let that become legal.

Have proof or statistics its "remarkably high number of examples of it"?

Archive

Should gay/lesbian cpls legally marry in Ohio?