User Tag List

First 182627282930 Last

Results 271 to 280 of 319

  1. #271
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    You still need to respond to my proposition.

  2. #272
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fan of Devin View Post
    I'd like to know exactly what negative utilitarian consequences are invoked by legalized group marriage that are absent from casual cohabitation of multiple sexual partners (which, I'm pretty damn sure, is legal almost everywhere in the US)?
    The professor in this article summarizes some of the negative utilitarian consequences of polygamy: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1832235/

    The 'casual cohabitation of multiple sexual partners' typically involves childless, economically independent adults of equivalent age; this is unlikely to produce results such as legions of unmarried, frustrated and effectively socially exiled young men. Its also less likely to result in abuse against dependent young women and children for the same reasons.

  3. #273
    Another awesome member. Curator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    eNFP
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    901

    Default

    @ peguy, thanks for your response, my curiosity is fully sated now

    @Nicodemus, I think there was a mix up with the waiter, I got the ring in my champagne glass,lol... he probably didn't think you where serious since he didn't see a ring...

    @lowtech redneck, I see nothing in that article or videos than a person stating something is fact, without actually citing any real studies... most of the negative things listed are handled by our current laws, where as societies where they are a problem, do not have similar laws to protect people (such as age of consent, laws against spousal abuse... and so on...)

    Can you direct me to any actual studies done on this subject? as ive not been able to find a single scientific study myself in years of researching this and similar subjects, I do have to state however that I don't believe most polygamous relationships ive seen where very healthy, but most monogamous relationships aren't either, so thats not a reason for it to be illegal...

  4. #274
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Curator View Post
    @Nicodemus, I think there was a mix up with the waiter, I got the ring in my champagne glass,lol... he probably didn't think you where serious since he didn't see a ring...
    I imagine that he saw the trap but no way out of it. I will register that as a victory.

  5. #275
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LunaLuminosity View Post
    Indeed, the Vulcans have good advice =)

    This is the logic used when there is something that the many need that they cannot get if the few get what they need to get. But this isn't the situation. I do not see how you are unable to meet your needs over there.

    But it is good that you are looking to the logical side. Live long and prosper.
    That quote is the essence of democracy.. Which I still feel has been violated.. However, in regard to how you phrase your question.
    I am cornered.. My needs are "essentially" being met.

    However the feelings of others.. are being giving preference over mine.
    Do my emotional needs and sense of feeling offended not count?? Seems if they are not in line with the prescribed program. Not only are they discounted, but labels are also attached to add further indignity for simply having a different belief or need.

    This is no different that the treatment we are apparently protecting homosexuals from. It's just one extreme to the other, two sides of the same coin.
    If all we are doing is moving the shit from one room to another.. is this really progress?

    EDIT: I almost went looking for a hammer and a Nine Inch Nail.. I am out of here ..

  6. #276
    Senior Member Fan.of.Devin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    INT-
    Posts
    294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    The professor in this article summarizes some of the negative utilitarian consequences of polygamy: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1832235/

    The 'casual cohabitation of multiple sexual partners' typically involves childless, economically independent adults of equivalent age; this is unlikely to produce results such as legions of unmarried, frustrated and effectively socially exiled young men. Its also less likely to result in abuse against dependent young women and children for the same reasons.
    This article addresses, obviously, isolated and eccentric religious communities and movements that happen to be associated peripherally with polygamy; don't get the cart before the horse.

    So, if you want to go about decreasing "negative utilitarian consequences" through restrictions on personal liberty, I'd suggest you skip polygamy and go straight to banning religion!
    INTP 4w5 SX/SP
    Tritype 4/5/8

  7. #277
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    That quote is the essence of democracy.. Which I still feel has been violated.. However, in regard to how you phrase your question.
    I am cornered.. My needs are "essentially" being met.

    However the feelings of others.. are being giving preference over mine.
    Do my emotional needs and sense of feeling offended not count?? Seems if they are not in line with the prescribed program. Not only are they discounted, but labels are also attached to add further indignity for simply having a different belief or need.

    This is no different that the treatment we are apparently protecting homosexuals from. It's just one extreme to the other, two sides of the same coin.
    If all we are doing is moving the shit from one room to another.. is this really progress?
    The people want what is morally right; they vote for what they deem morally right. This discussion here is an ethical one in which we try to determine what is morally right. We use persuasion for that, because once you have learned that gay marriage is good, it will also become your wish to make it a reality.

    The majority of the people will decide what is legal. But what is right will not be determined by a majority vote.

    Hear John Quincy Adams: "I cannot ask of heaven success, even for my country, in a cause where she should be in the wrong. Fiat justitia, pereat coelum. My toast would be, may our country always be successful, but whether successful or otherwise, always right."

  8. #278
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fan of Devin View Post
    This article addresses, obviously, isolated and eccentric religious communities and movements that happen to be associated peripherally with polygamy; don't get the cart before the horse.
    The article addresses the impact of polygamy on societies throughout history, as well as the impact of polygamy on those who live in communities which practise it.

    As for outlawing religion, that would lead to even greater negative utilitarian consequences and effectively eliminate personal freedom altogether; its best to concentrate on specific practices where an objective case can be made that individual liberty is substantially decreased by the legal protection thereof. That's why I compared the issue with personal machine guns and crack cocaine: I lean strongly toward libertarianism in general, but sometimes practicality demands limitations on the margins (such as no yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater).

  9. #279
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim View Post
    Uhho; I'm not disagreeing with your point, but how would you work out a fair distribution for that system and is it really right to stigmatize heterosexuals as being wrong just for being heterosexual? I'm not sure if you've fully thought through the consequences of positive discrimination.
    I should state that I do believe in gay/lesbian/alien+human marriage and support it fully but I'm just not a fan of positive discrimination.

  10. #280
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Me neither.

Similar Threads

  1. [ENTP] The Limits of Awesomeness (alternatively, Common ENTP Issues)
    By Qre:us in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-09-2011, 10:23 AM
  2. The issues of fatherlessness.
    By guesswho in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-02-2011, 12:40 AM
  3. The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
    By teslashock in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 04-12-2010, 02:51 PM
  4. So what's really the big deal about Gay marriage?
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 222
    Last Post: 12-19-2008, 12:06 PM
  5. Gay marriage, adoption, related issues -- Take 2
    By Zergling in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 01:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO