#282568 - 12/06/2006 22:37
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
How do you feel about mormons having multiple wives? Do you think it should be allowed and recognized by the state, or should it remain illegal?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282569 - 12/06/2006 22:44
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: wfaulk]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
After all, it's my constitutional right!
You really need to decide if you're a student at UTwente in the Netherlands or a gun-toting redneck from Louisiana. For example.
Gun-toting is also protected by the US constitution BTW.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282570 - 12/06/2006 23:12
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
It only protects gun-toting by US citizens on US soil. You meet neither qualification, right?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282571 - 13/06/2006 00:54
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
How do you feel about mormons having multiple wives? Do you think it should be allowed and recognized by the state, or should it remain illegal?
Bill Bennett tried that argument, and Jon Stewart ate his lunch. Please come up with something new.
BENNETT: What do you say to the polygamists? What do you say to the polygamists?
STEWART: You don’t say anything to the polygamists. That is a choice to get three or four wives. That is not a biological condition that I gots to get laid by three or 4 women that I’m married to. That’s a choice. Being gay is part of the human condition. There’s a huge difference.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282572 - 13/06/2006 02:10
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: ]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Quote:
How do you feel about mormons having multiple wives? Do you think it should be allowed and recognized by the state, or should it remain illegal?
I don't care if it's mormons. I think any combination of human beings should be allowed to be "married." It's a contract between between the people involved. Everyone else (gorvernment / church / etc.) should just stay the hell out of it. And polygamy is not just multiple wives. It includes multiple husbands as well.
Edited by webroach (13/06/2006 02:12)
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282573 - 13/06/2006 03:58
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: webroach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
It includes multiple husbands as well.
As an illustration of how many nested levels of hypocrisy there are... Mormons (the only measurable polygamist subculture in the U.S.) would not agree with that statement, and would shun any marriage involving more than one man. So, the counterexample used by mental giants like Bill Bennett and our own Billy is, in fact, demonstrative of the underlying problem -- intolerance of marriages which don't conform to your preconceived notions of what a marriage should be.
That said, I do believe polygamy (specifically polygyny, but go ahead and throw polyandry and group marriage in there if you like) is one concept of marriage that ought not to be sanctioned by the state, and I'm pretty strongly in the anti-polygamy camp.
Does this make me a hypocrite? No. Because, despite my belief that polygamy is not a marriage states ought to endorse, I also would be very much opposed to a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT that prohibits states from making this decision for themselves (and to think, the Republicans used to be the States' rights party.) Utah's state constitution specifically prohibits polygamy, but we all know they're very soft on enforcement in predominantly Mormon areas. Were Utah to suddenly change this position and openly sanction polygamy, I would be fine with that. Were any other state (even my own) to decide that any combination of men and women could legally form a "marriage" that would not bother me in the least. Because, while I personally find these marriages distasteful and bad for society, I think those decisions are best made in state capitals and not Capitol Hill.
Really though, the gay marriage issue is over. While the polls suggest a slim majority of the country is against same sex marriages, they also show that a very large majority are against the federal government making this decision.
Furthermore, I would say that the reign of "social conservatives" in America is nearing its end as well. At some point, social conservatives are going to have to understand that the only reason they've had this country by the balls for 6+ years is because of the fragile union they formed with "paleoconservatives" (the small government, low taxes, Reaganomics types) and the "neoconservatives" (the bomb Iraq, bomb Iran, pump lots of cheap oil types) during the Clinton years. Tthat fragile union is already disintegrating, and without the other factions of the party, social conservatives are going to suddenly realize that the "God, Gays, and Guns" platform was just a Karl Rove bait-and-switch, and that hatred and intolerance have no place in the Constitution of the United States of America.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282574 - 13/06/2006 06:26
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tonyc]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Quote:
Because, while I personally find these marriages distasteful and bad for society, I think those decisions are best made in state capitals and not Capitol Hill.
I'll accept your "distasteful" comment, but is your baseless claim that these marriages are "bad for society" any different that the so-called "arguments" that the religious right uses against gay marriage? What research have you done to determine their negative effect on society?
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282575 - 13/06/2006 11:04
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
How does that differ from your beliefs?
Well, my beliefs are that marriage is between a man and a woman only, so in that way.
Quote:
Quote:
In a country like the US, where the state is not supposed to interfere with religion, we value our beliefs and rightly consider it our right not to have the state define our doctrines.
I agree completely. No-one is trying to change your doctrine.
Small word difference here, but I didn't say the state would "change" my beliefs, but "define" them. If I believe marriage is between a man and a woman only, and the state defines marriage as "any two persons", then the state has defined something differently that what I believe. In fact, if I believed marriage were between any two persons and the state defined it as between a man and a woman (the current situation for homosexuals), then the state would also be defining a belief different from my own. No, the state isn't changing my belief, but for the state to have a standard on an matter that really should be up to personal decision is, in my opinion, in violation of the spirit of freedom upon which the US was founded.
Quote:
Suppose you were Canadian -- can you point out in this bill how the state has defined your doctrine?
I have a dotrine of marriage that says one thing, and the state has a different definition. I realize that the state hasn't forced me to believe something, but when the state defines something like this where people have different, very strong beliefs, it violates the spirit of freedom of belief.
Quote:
Quote:
and while we are all free to behave as we wish with regards to marriage,
You keep saying this, but it's still patently false. We are not all free to behave as we wish with regards to marriage. If we were, then gay people would be free to get married.
Aren't they? It isn't against the law for gay people to get married is it? No one is fined; no one goes to jail. The question is whether the state recognizes the marriage, and whether the gay couple can receive the social benifits of a married couple, right? Which are important issues, I agree, and the reason that whole quote is "and while we are all free to behave as we wish with regards to marriage, those who have differening beliefs than those recognized by the state are going to feel that their fundamental right to define their own beliefs is being trampled". Certainly many gay people feel that their right to define their own belief about marriage is being trampled under the current laws, even if they were allowed the social benifits of being married without the title.
Quote:
Quote:
those who have differening beliefs than those recognized by the state are going to feel that their fundamental right to define their own beliefs is being trampled.
I keep waiting to hear how your rights and beliefs are being trampled. So far, I have heard none. Not a single shred of evidence that the state is trying to force you, or any church, to hold gay weddings against your desires, or beliefs.
I'm really not trying to be nitpicky here, but the important word here is "feel", and I meant it on either side of the issue. People are going to "feel" that their right to define their own belief about marriage is being trampled whenever it differs from what the state establishes. You are right that in truth, no one would have to agree with the state definied definition of marriage in practice (which is what I said in the first part of the quote, and the reason I said it), but once again, in a country where freedom of belief is not only recognized but held up is one of its greatest strengths, for the state to so blatently condratict a persons deeply felt belief is going to violate the spirit that important freedom. From what I understand, some homosexuals would be fine with having civil unions so they can have the social rights, but many also feel that this would create a second class, not equal to the married folks. Understandable, because we ALL should have the right to define marriage and what that means according to our own beleifs without interference from the state. What the state says or doesn't say about marriage is hugly important, and when it contradicts people then it disenfranchises them.
Which is why I come back to the only solution being silence on the part of the state. To not define marriage as only this or including that, but to have legal ways to establish relationships to handle issues like adoption, inheritence, insurance, etc.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282576 - 13/06/2006 11:19
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
How does that differ from your beliefs?
And my beliefs aren't the only ones that differ from that definition. The following definitions are different from the one stated:
-Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others.
-Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of persons to the exclusion of all others.
-Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of persons.
Which one of these is correct? Why should the state be putting stipulations on marriage at all (the sex, the number, the exclusivity)? Which aspects should be legislated, and why those?
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282577 - 13/06/2006 13:42
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: webroach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
What research have you done to determine their negative effect on society?
This, for starters. The key graph:
''It's a mathematical thing. If you are marrying all these girls to one man, what do you do with all the boys?" said Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who has had boys in his office crying to see their mothers. ''People have said to me: 'Why don't you prosecute the parents?' But the kids don't want their parents prosecuted; they want us to get the number one bad guy -- Warren Jeffs. He is chiefly responsible for kicking out these boys."
Aside from the "mathematical thing" where men cannot marry because there are no available wives, polygyny elevates the role of one of the married individuals (the man) and diminishes the role of the rest of them (the women.) The man is ALWAYS the center of the family unit and the final decision-maker, the wives are just accessories. In documentaries I've watched on polygamy among Mormons, I've never seen it exist without some obvious form of misogyny. (Fundamentalist Islam, which allows 4 wives per husband IIRC, is full of misogyny, and presumably suffers from the same "mathematical problem.")
Same-sex relationships involving two individuals suffer from neither the "mathematical problem" of skewing the marriage number, nor the problem where a subset of the individuals is relegated to second-class citizen status because of their gender.
You can argue that the factors I've mentinoed are all "implementation details" specific to one type of polygamist, and I'll grant you that maybe it's wrong of me to conclude that "polygamy is bad for society" based on this one example. But in American society, in 2006, I don't think there's any appreciable trend towards either polyandry or group marriage, so it's silly to talk about those, IMHO.
I hope I've explained both the source of my aversion to polygamy, and why holding that view is not inconsistent with my support of rights for same-sex couples. (A point which was made simply to debunk the "slippery slope" argument that gay marriage will lead to polygamy will lead to men marrying sheep.) If not, let me know what's unclear and I'll try to clarify.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282578 - 13/06/2006 14:19
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tonyc]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 27/02/2004
Posts: 1919
Loc: London
|
Just lost a huge post that I'd written in reply, bugger.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282579 - 13/06/2006 15:02
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tahir]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 27/02/2004
Posts: 1919
Loc: London
|
This is the gist of the post I lost:
ALL Islam allows polygamy under a strict set of circumstances that include:
Agreement of existing partner(s)
Guaranteed equality of treatment of wives
Ability to support additional cost burden
Of course in general those that practise polygamy take very little notice of the rules, but then in a free society they'd probably be the ones that have mistresses, having a mistress in an Islamic society is not tolerated in the way it is in the West, social standing would plummet.
My parents families who are largely small scale farmers in rural Pakistan do not practise polygamy, within their communities it's an extremely rare (and declining) occurrence, I believe this to be the case in Islamic societies worldwide (even in ultra conservative countries like Saudi).
Whether multi partner relationships should be afforded the same rights as single partner ones is a huge question but to my mind it's difficult to see why the state should be involved in a group of individuals family structure. I also can't see why being brought up in a multi partner relationship vs an unfaithful one should impact children more, I've known friends whose parents were having affairs, which is worse? Which impacts society in a more negative way?
As regards misogyny there's plenty of that and other ills in the Islamic world, to a greater extent than the rest of the developing world? I don't think so, remember that Sati (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_%28practice%29) is still practised to some extent in India, I'm sure there are plenty of examples of oppression and discrimination that could be brought up from around the world. The sad fact is that even allegedly civilised countries didn't see the need to treat genders or races equally till relatively recently.
I'm not trying to defend polygamy, just saying I can't see a case for government involvement in interpersonal relationships.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282580 - 13/06/2006 15:48
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tahir]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
ALL Islam allows polygamy under a strict set of circumstances that include:
Agreement of existing partner(s)
Guaranteed equality of treatment of wives
Ability to support additional cost burden
It'd be more precise to say that ALL Islam allows polygyny under those circumstances, yes? Multiple husbands to one wife is, IIRC, strictly forbidden. That in and of itself smacks of misogyny to me, and though I'm sure Muslims have an explanation as to why it's not (such as "Muslim women would never want such a relationship because of X Y Z in the Qu'ran") I think there's an inherent inequality there that can't be justified by religious doctrine.
Quote:
My parents families who are largely small scale farmers in rural Pakistan do not practise polygamy, within their communities it's an extremely rare (and declining) occurrence, I believe this to be the case in Islamic societies worldwide (even in ultra conservative countries like Saudi).
To be clear, I brought Islam into the mix simply because I needed another widely known example of polygamy. I didn't say that polygamy was the normal state of Islamic countries, just as it is not the normal state of today's Mormon church. But it is accepted to an extent, and I needed examples of that in order to form the rest of my argument.
Quote:
As regards misogyny there's plenty of that and other ills in the Islamic world, to a greater extent than the rest of the developing world?
You've completely misappropriated my words. I said that fundamentalist Islam is full of misogyny, not that there's more misogyny in Muslim countries than there is in the west. Certainly, the misogyny in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. are much more overt (clothing, womens' access to education, etc.) but I made no comparison between cultures. Again, my statement on Islam was just one parenthetical phrase, cited as an example of polygamy, and not any attempt to criticize the religion or the cultures which practice it.
Quote:
I'm not trying to defend polygamy, just saying I can't see a case for government involvement in interpersonal relationships.
You and I are in total agreement that "the state" shouldn't be involved in these things, but they are. In the U.S., "the state" can refer to actual states, or the federal government, which in the case of a Constitutional amendment, would supersede the states. My argument, put simply, is that states ought to have a right to regulate marriage however they see fit, and while I don't agree with polygamy as an acceptable practice, I would not want the federal government legislating that. I would have no problem, however, allowing certain states to do that, and that's probably the one detail where you and I differ.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282581 - 13/06/2006 15:56
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tahir]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4181
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
Whether multi partner relationships should be afforded the same rights as single partner ones is a huge question but to my mind it's difficult to see why the state should be involved in a group of individuals family structure. [...] I'm not trying to defend polygamy, just saying I can't see a case for government involvement in interpersonal relationships.
I suspect originally it was to encourage population growth, but nowadays it's probably more to do with relationships as support structures: in a marriage, if illness or unemployment or whatever strikes one partner, the other partner will do all they can to shoulder the burden. An unmarried person would end up being more of a burden to the state instead. So it's in the state's advantage to encourage these little support networks; IIRC, in the UK at least, members of religious orders enjoy some of the same tax breaks as married couples, probably because again the religious order is taking some of the support burden away from the state.
Which would tend to imply that, at least where the multi-partner relationship isn't more socially dysfunctional than it's worth (no constant stream of discarded wives), the state probably should promote it.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282582 - 13/06/2006 16:14
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tonyc]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 27/02/2004
Posts: 1919
Loc: London
|
Quote:
That in and of itself smacks of misogyny to me, and though I'm sure Muslims have an explanation as to why it's not (such as "Muslim women would never want such a relationship because of X Y Z in the Qu'ran") I think there's an inherent inequality there that can't be justified by religious doctrine.
You're right, it's polygyny, I don't think anyone would argue that Muslim women would never want multiple partners.
As I understand it polygyny has existed in all of the Abrahamic religions. The Islamic justification (I'm no scholar so this isn't 100% certainty) is that male mortality used to be greater due to the more direct methods of justice administered as well as the greater loss in inter tribal/national wars etc in the times of the day. The intent was to provide welfare for women that were perhaps widows or otherwise left uncared for. Over the centuries since this facility has been abused to the max, even now there are brothels in the muslim world (I've been told) where you may be married prior to your "appointment" and divorced straight after.
Quote:
You've completely misappropriated my words. I said that fundamentalist Islam is full of misogyny, not that there's more misogyny in Muslim countries than there is in the west.
You seemed to be implying that Islam was peculiarly susceptible to misogyny, I didn't intend to misappropriate your words.
Quote:
My argument, put simply, is that states ought to have a right to regulate marriage however they see fit, and while I don't agree with polygamy as an acceptable practice, I would not want the federal government legislating that. I would have no problem, however, allowing certain states to do that, and that's probably the one detail where you and I differ.
Probably, why is there such a distinction between state legislation and federal regulation for you?
Just seen Peter's post, I'm sure there was an element of that too.
Edited by tahir (13/06/2006 16:16)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282583 - 13/06/2006 16:45
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tahir]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14496
Loc: Canada
|
Quote:
misogyny
From the FireFox dictionary tooltip extension (link):
Hatred of women: "Every organized patriarchal religion works overtime to contribute its own brand of misogyny" Robin Morgan.
-ml
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282584 - 13/06/2006 16:55
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tahir]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
Probably, why is there such a distinction between state legislation and federal regulation for you?
I'll try to answer your question by example.
Until the mid-1990s, 55 miles per hour was the federally-mandated maximum speed limit states could allow on highways. These days, states are free to set their own speed limits. In fact, Texas was recently considering raising some Interstate speed limits to 80mph (they may have already done so.) Some would say this is too fast, and will cost lives. But there are a lot of different viewpoints, and those viewpoints vary greatly throughout the country.
So, do speed limits belong at the federal or state level? Let's look at the Texas situation. Here's a matrix of how Texas raising the speed limit to 80mph affects various groups of people:
Code:
Live outside Texas Live in Texas
Support 80mph+ A B
Oppose 80mph+ C D
Group A (live outside Texas, support 80mph) and Group B (Live in Texas, support 80mph) are both happy. Group B is more directly affected, but Group A is also happy, because there's now a state where someone is trying out the higher speed limits they support, and maybe if it goes well, momentum will build for higher limits in their own state.
Groups C and D are less happy. Group D is the most unhappy, because they may have to travel the Interstate roads where the limits are higher. Group C is unhappy about Texas allowing the higher speeds, but isn't as directly affected by it.
Though these groups are both unhappy, I think they are both better off than if the decision had been made at the federal level. Group D can challenge the state law they disagree with, and they have a much better chance to succeed than if they chose to fight a federal law (state governments move much faster than the feds, and are more responsive to local needs.) Group C, on the other hand, is also well served, because their state is not subject to the law they consider unjust, and they can work to effect change in their state to make sure no such law comes about in the future.
The speed limit example is a bit contrived, but illustrates the type of laws that I think are best left to the states. These are laws where there is no national concensus, and where state and local officials have a better handle on what's good for the greatest number of their constituents. I feel marriage falls into this category, as do other things decided at the state level, such as restrictions on liquor sales, gambling, prostitution, etc.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282585 - 13/06/2006 17:03
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4181
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
So, do speed limits belong at the federal or state level?
In the light of which argumentation, it's probably worth mentioning that in my post above (and actually almost always in my posts), when I say "the state" I mean it in the general sense of "the government", not intending to specify to Americans whether I'm talking about State or Federal government...
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282586 - 13/06/2006 17:12
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tonyc]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Tony, thanks for such a clear reply. Pehaps I should have been a little more clear; I'm not talking about mormon-style polygyny. That is a religious issue and is aimed at glorifying the male. Not cool.
But can you explain to me how different combinations of consenting adults being comitted to each other (as in one male and two females, one female and two males, two males and two females, etc.) are harmful to society? When everyone is there by choice, and lives as an equal?
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282587 - 13/06/2006 23:44
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tahir]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 11/06/2003
Posts: 384
|
Quote:
Probably, why is there such a distinction between state legislation and federal regulation for you?
I'm not sure if some of the specific details and evolution of the United States federal goverment get lost overseas or with people who don't particularly care, so Iet me throw out a response to this.
The U.S. Constitution specifies the powers of Congress, the limits on Congress, the limits on the States, and in Amendment 10 says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The importance of the state goverments is easily missed, especially when they are very much overshadowed by the size of the federal goverment.
Personally, I think that many of us (Americans) kick tough issues to the state level as a way of dodging the issue or at least pretending/hoping that by dealing with it at the state level there might be a way for most people to accept the results.
On the other hand, I think there's an arguement to be made that after many years of increasing federal power the pendulum might be slowing down and power of the individual states might be beginning to increase.
--Nathan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282588 - 14/06/2006 00:08
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: JeffS]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 11/06/2003
Posts: 384
|
Quote:
...it violates the spirit of freedom of belief.
Hey Jeff,
You mentioned the "freedom of belief" a lot in one of your posts. The words "belief" and "believe" aren't in the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution, or any of the Amendments including the Bill of Rights. (rebellion and belong are as close as it gets.) So what do you mean by it?
--Nathan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282589 - 14/06/2006 01:59
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: Mataglap]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
The words "belief" and "believe" aren't in the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution, or any of the Amendments including the Bill of Rights.
Are you arguing that the government has the right to tell people what to believe? That's pretty hard to reconcile with the spirit of the first ammendment, which guarantees us the rights to communicate what we want, petition for what we want, and practice religion the way we want without government interference. All of that freedom would be fairly wasted if the government were aloud to establish what we believe. "Yes, you have the freedom to say what you want, but you are not aloud to believe the things you are saying, so you're in trouble now . . ."
In fact, if we don't have the freedom to believe what we will, why doesn't the government just tell us all to agree that the war in Iraq is good and throw anyone in jail who believes differently?
Quote:
So what do you mean by it?
What I mean by it is simply that we all have the right to think whatever we want and that it is not the governments job to correct our mis-beliefs. The government should reflect the beliefs of the people, not impose beliefs upon them.
Edit: Also, "Life liberty and the persuit of hapiness" also strongly suggests the freedom to believe what we want.
Edited by JeffS (14/06/2006 02:06)
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282590 - 14/06/2006 06:15
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: JeffS]
|
veteran
Registered: 01/10/2001
Posts: 1307
Loc: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
|
Quote:
What I mean by it is simply that we all have the right to think whatever we want and that it is not the governments job to correct our mis-beliefs.
Ahh. So government-funded education is bad? I know Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) would agree with that, but...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282592 - 14/06/2006 12:16
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: JeffS]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 11/06/2003
Posts: 384
|
So what about the people who believe the Earth is flat? Should we crash every satellite out there and shutdown NASA because orbital mechanics support the belief that the Earth is spherish?
Beliefs can't enter into the conversation. Not if it's going to be civilized debate. Not if it's about laws in America. When any side makes it about belief, everyone is suddenly forced into a corner with no where to go. Once they do, it almost always ends in repression or violence.
--Nathan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282593 - 14/06/2006 13:03
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: Mataglap]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
So what about the people who believe the Earth is flat?
That have the right to that belief. Why wouldn't they?
Quote:
Should we crash every satellite out there and shutdown NASA because orbital mechanics support the belief that the Earth is spherish?
Of course not. Sure we have public funding going toward an organization that not everyone believes in- that's nothing new. The flat earth society still has a right to its beliefs, but the fact remains that society benifits from having those satellites in orbit.
Quote:
Beliefs can't enter into the conversation. Not if it's going to be civilized debate. Not if it's about laws in America. When any side makes it about belief, everyone is suddenly forced into a corner with no where to go. Once they do, it almost always ends in repression or violence.
Beliefs MUST enter into the conversation. If it were not for belief, we'd have very few laws.
Murder is illegal because we believe it to be wrong.
Stealing is illegal because we believe it to be wrong.
Almost everything against the law is there because we as a society BELIEVE it to be wrong.
How can someone's rights be abridged unless we have some belief about what those rights are?
Edited by JeffS (14/06/2006 13:08)
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282594 - 14/06/2006 15:16
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: webroach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
But can you explain to me how different combinations of consenting adults being comitted to each other (as in one male and two females, one female and two males, two males and two females, etc.) are harmful to society? When everyone is there by choice, and lives as an equal?
To be honest, I probably can't come up with a satisfactory explanation for that. I have a "hunch" that these kinds of relationships wouldn't really be beneficial for society, but I can't explain why, as I'm not an expert on psychology or sociology or whatever field of study would deal with this kind of thing. It seems to me that getting two parents to agree on how to raise a child is hard enough, so adding more would confound things even worse, but of course I can't prove that notion.
So, my "personally distasteful" statement stands, but the "bad for society" part just applies to the real-world examples of polygamy I'm familiar with.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282595 - 14/06/2006 16:30
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tonyc]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Quote:
But can you explain to me how different combinations of consenting adults being comitted to each other (as in one male and two females, one female and two males, two males and two females, etc.) are harmful to society? When everyone is there by choice, and lives as an equal?
Quote:
To be honest, I probably can't come up with a satisfactory explanation for that. I have a "hunch" that these kinds of relationships wouldn't really be beneficial for society, but I can't explain why, as I'm not an expert on psychology or sociology or whatever field of study would deal with this kind of thing.
I appreciate your honesty, but don't you see that this is a huge part of the problem with the issue of gay marriage? That people are against it without really understanding why? Without really knowing the realities of it?
Quote:
It seems to me that getting two parents to agree on how to raise a child is hard enough, so adding more would confound things even worse, but of course I can't prove that notion.
Please remember that not everybody views bearing and rasing children as a goal to be accomplished. Some of us never want children.
Quote:
So, my "personally distasteful" statement stands, but the "bad for society" part just applies to the real-world examples of polygamy I'm familiar with.
Well, being a strong athiest, I can't say I have anything to do with your "real-world examples" that you're familiar with, but I'm sure TWMBO will be pleased to know that they (we?) are merely "distasteful" and not necessarily "bad for society". 
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282596 - 14/06/2006 17:14
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: webroach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
I appreciate your honesty, but don't you see that this is a huge part of the problem with the issue of gay marriage? That people are against it without really understanding why? Without really knowing the realities of it?
Sure, but I don't want to ban anyone from doing anything, whereas those pushing this amendment do. My personal aversion towards polygamy is tempered by my fondness for civil liberties.
Quote:
Please remember that not everybody views bearing and rasing children as a goal to be accomplished. Some of us never want children.
Yeah, in the part you quoted I'm obviously speaking of just those who've decided they do want kids.
Quote:
Well, being a strong athiest, I can't say I have anything to do with your "real-world examples" that you're familiar with, but I'm sure TWMBO will be pleased to know that they (we?) are merely "distasteful" and not necessarily "bad for society".
Hey, you asked for my opinions and I gave them to you. It's not like you average American has a lot of exposure to polygamy outside of the well-known examples I've cited, whereas most people have at some point come into contact with a homosexual friend or family member. If one of my childhood friends had two moms and three dads around the house, maybe my opinions would be different, but that's not how things worked out.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282597 - 14/06/2006 17:23
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tonyc]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Don't misunderstand, Tony. I think you're putting forth a very honest point of view, and I respect that. And I just realized that my "wink" accidentally became a "smile". While nothing I said was untrue, the intent was as good-natured ribbing, nothing more.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index