Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: Polygamy vs having multiple girlfriends

  1. Top | #31
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,208
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,421
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    But who determines the best interest of the child? I think the government needs to have that responsibility.
    Although church teaches morality and responsibility, they also teach such were laid down by an imaginary faerie. So I agree that the government which sets rules for limits on behavior determined by consent of the governed within a society does have that responsibility.

  2. Top | #32
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    West Hollywood
    Posts
    3,816
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    The state shouldn't be discriminating against polygamists, gay people, or single people who don't want to marry at all.
    "The state" doesn't discriminate per se. The state (or rather society) recognizes/acknowledges marriage as beings a specific thing/function. If you marry your dog or cat in some weird sect, you have no right to expect society/state to recognize this arrangement as a marriage.

  3. Top | #33
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    USA, California
    Posts
    2,867
    Archived
    5,710
    Total Posts
    8,577
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by TSwizzle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    The state shouldn't be discriminating against polygamists, gay people, or single people who don't want to marry at all.
    "The state" doesn't discriminate per se. The state (or rather society) recognizes/acknowledges marriage as beings a specific thing/function. If you marry your dog or cat in some weird sect, you have no right to expect society/state to recognize this arrangement as a marriage.
    This is sort of a weird semantic quibble, though. Using this sort of logic, the state did not discriminate against Black people during slavery, society merely didn't consider Black people as persons.

  4. Top | #34
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    West Hollywood
    Posts
    3,816
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by J842P View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TSwizzle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    The state shouldn't be discriminating against polygamists, gay people, or single people who don't want to marry at all.
    "The state" doesn't discriminate per se. The state (or rather society) recognizes/acknowledges marriage as beings a specific thing/function. If you marry your dog or cat in some weird sect, you have no right to expect society/state to recognize this arrangement as a marriage.
    This is sort of a weird semantic quibble, though. Using this sort of logic, the state did not discriminate against Black people during slavery, society merely didn't consider Black people as persons.
    Yes but clearly they were persons. Marriage is a social construct.

  5. Top | #35
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    USA, California
    Posts
    2,867
    Archived
    5,710
    Total Posts
    8,577
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by TSwizzle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by J842P View Post

    This is sort of a weird semantic quibble, though. Using this sort of logic, the state did not discriminate against Black people during slavery, society merely didn't consider Black people as persons.
    Yes but clearly they were persons. Marriage is a social construct.
    "Personhood" is a social construct as well. A "person" is merely a human (or other entity in some cultures) that is given moral consideration.

  6. Top | #36
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    West Hollywood
    Posts
    3,816
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by J842P View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TSwizzle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by J842P View Post

    This is sort of a weird semantic quibble, though. Using this sort of logic, the state did not discriminate against Black people during slavery, society merely didn't consider Black people as persons.
    Yes but clearly they were persons. Marriage is a social construct.
    "Personhood" is a social construct as well. A "person" is merely a human (or other entity in some cultures) that is given moral consideration.
    A person/human/object exists. Marriage does not, it is a social construct.

  7. Top | #37
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    1,442
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by TSwizzle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by J842P View Post

    "Personhood" is a social construct as well. A "person" is merely a human (or other entity in some cultures) that is given moral consideration.
    A person/human/object exists. Marriage does not, it is a social construct.
    A person/human/object exists with regard to how it interacts with or is related to other persons/humans/objects. Which is exactly what marriage defines.

  8. Top | #38
    Super Moderator Bronzeage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    6,745
    Archived
    7,568
    Total Posts
    14,313
    Rep Power
    40
    Marriage is a special form of legally sanctioned corporation, in which the principal shareholders are expected to have sex with one another.

    People have been forming pair bonds since we learned to stand up straight and maybe before. Most religions have always recognized some kind of pair bond and whatever political powers that existed weren't all that concerned with it.

    Marriage was formalized into law when society felt it was important to strictly define who owned what property and who was entitled to your property after you die. There are some other complicated issues, but that's the core of it.

  9. Top | #39
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,208
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,421
    Rep Power
    54
    Guess we need to modify human rights in all constitutions to read "All persons are created equal" so this property shiet goes away.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •