User Tag List

First 91011

Results 101 to 104 of 104

Thread: Polygamy

  1. #101
    Junior Member Mesma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hmm View Post
    This was touched on in another thread but I thought I'd start another thread about it.

    I saw some interviews with some polygamists not long ago. The people who I saw were not were forced into polygamy, they had made a conscious choice to be part of this practice. They were not part of a religious sect when they made the choice but later joined one just for the comraderie. It's not uncommon for one man to have 10 or 12 wives, ranging in ages from 18 and up. It made me wonder what motivated both the men and the women but that is a whole other topic.

    Anyways, as I mentioned in the other thread, polygamists are first in line to use the same arguments and precedents set if gay marriage is legalized. They say, it is consentual and done out of love. They say, if one alternate form of relationships is legalized, then why shouldn't other forms of relationships be legalized too?

    So what are your thoughts on this matter?
    People should be free to do whatever they want as long it and does not intrude on the basic rights of others. All types of consensual social relationships should be legalized.

  2. #102
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Hi. I am God. I created you all. I now declare that I want to find 20 naked virgins in my bed tonight.
    Careful what you wish for...


  3. #103
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Note that I had no problem with the concept that everything comes from the first mover. I do, however, question your ability to deduce "rights" from such an event. I believe all that is being done is a secular analysis of human nature and then saying "well, we are human, therefore God gave us these rights, because we are human". Thus it is suppose to be self-evident as to what "human rights are". They aren't.

    Every right that we give ourselves must come from the maker because the maker made us, and therefore gave us the rights. There is no meaning to it. You can remove the concept of God entirely and just stick with what we define as Human rights, and it has been signed off by the first maker. It is easy to argue that, for example, since we all die, life is not a human right and it can be freely taken. That actually makes sense, as lives are taken from "the maker" all the time, and given that he created all things - including humans - he logically wouldn't of given such a right. That's a lot stronger deduction than "humans are special, and therefore deserve life, while animals are not quite special enough, and so we can kill them".


    In that context:

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    This theme has been articulated and meditated upon for 2000 years by Christian thinkers. St. Augustine famously described this as the contrast between the City of Man and the City of God.
    Interesting, but simply states that no rule has meaning unless it is God's will. A state, therefore, has no moral authority unless it is line with God's will, thus any non-religious state therefore has no moral value.

    Yeah it does. If our rights derive from an eternal being who is the first cause, then essentially the state can't violate his will - for the very existence of the state is derived from that first cause.
    In a predetermined world, we cannot violate his will. Rights have no meaning here.

    In a world of choice, his rights give meaning. The assumption that he has given us certain rights does not come from him. It requires us extrapolate from our human nature and assume them from that.

    If so, then one cannot argue anything about rights. You're essentially a nothing in the grand scheme of things. That's why many theistic Existentialists argued against the predominace of the laws of necessity in regards to human affairs.
    That is not an argument that it is true or false. It simply means we don't know and thus rights we create are localised.

    Man was created in the image of God, so by such that mean that man is endowed with many special qualities which also means man must be given certain rights. Without this basic concept, you cannot argue jackshit about rights.
    Any right we assign to the human special condition is subjective at best. You assume rights based on the human condition here. That doesn't require any reference to God.

    Rights are not a biological concept, but a social-ethical one. So you're out of your league here.
    Pssh. Replace biological with "human" and that stops making sense. Humans are an evolved biological creature. If we are "special", it is because we are "more" due to our biology. If you do not assign rights to animals, only to humans, then biology becomes a critical defining component of how the maker defined us.

    It would seem the Maker's method would be biological, as would his metric - seems silly to throw that away when trying to determine his hand in our rights.

    It seems you're arguing from a socio-biological perspective, which still in the end does not actually show that the concept of rights even exists or is true, but rather is an attempt to naturally explain them(or explain them away).

    You're falling into scientism here.
    That is not my argument. It was to point out that the historical nature of religion is no more meaningful in proving the association to God as a first maker than evolution would be. It is irrelevent what liberals believe, or where the beliefs came from.

  4. #104
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Zzzz. I've seen you making this point too many times. It's not true. Utility functions are purely subjective, so marriage can be perfectly optimal for the subjective perferences of the two people choosing it (indeed, if we follow a revealed preferences structure, then whatever we choose is what we deem as optimal at a given time).
    Taken out of context. It was attached to evolution, not the happiness of two people.

    I also stated that I preferred marriage and that it is was out of self interest that I support marriage. We share a similar utility function.

Similar Threads

  1. Polygamy
    By themightyfetus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-28-2016, 12:01 AM
  2. Polygamy: Do You Support It?
    By Passacaglia in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 08-18-2015, 02:32 AM
  3. Polygamy and Gay Marriage
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-03-2014, 08:59 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