Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 19, 2022, 5:34 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ohio School Takes Down Jesus Portrait
#51
RE: Ohio School Takes Down Jesus Portrait
(April 5, 2013 at 6:05 pm)Mr Infidel Wrote: Why did you lump them both together as though with the legalization of gay marriage also comes the legalization of polygamy? From my understanding of polygamy, it is a certain religious heterosexual sect that adheres to it.
Exactly my point, it will get lumped in eventually because people have started to mess around with the definitions of words. It's only a matter of time before you start hearing people saying that two-person marriage discriminates against polygamy-based relations between "multiple loving consenting adults." Making everything a civil union takes the whole love and discrimination issues out of the picture. I mean C'mon, just allow the word 'marriage' to mean what its commonly understood to mean. Now everything is going to get hyphenated. Next thing you know Evangelicals will start hyphenating too. They'll say stuff like, "Yeah but you're not married in the eyes of God, we have a biblical-marriage. Nana nana poo poo" Gays should have one-up, with a new superpositive term, something like "Ours is a Heart Merge" or something like that.
Reply
#52
RE: Ohio School Takes Down Jesus Portrait
From what I can understand, there is no valid reason for polygamy to be illegal, just as their is no valid reason for same-sex marriage to be illegal. Skimming some articles, polygamy is illegal simply because people don't like it.
[Image: mtfbwyf.jpg]
Reply
#53
RE: Ohio School Takes Down Jesus Portrait
(April 5, 2013 at 6:31 pm)Mr Infidel Wrote: From what I can understand, there is no valid reason for polygamy to be illegal, just as their is no valid reason for same-sex marriage to be illegal. Skimming some articles, polygamy is illegal simply because people don't like it.

No, it is illegal because it is religious and sexist. In a utopia which does not exist it "should be" legal. But because no one can agree on who the alpha male is in a given context, one on one seems to be the path of least conflict. You are not going to get religious men to agree to one woman having 5 husbands. If "polygamy" were secular and not religious based, it IN THEORY, should not be a problem because it would also apply to women, if they were treated equal, which they are not.

Even without the argument of equality, it is more manageable to deal with less than more. Ask any male or female who has had an affair outside the assumed one on one relationship how hard that is to manage, more people in a contract, or violate an assumed contract creates more problems because you have to deal with more people.

And from an evolutionary scale men have more they can waste as far as genetic resources, sperm, than women do, eggs. So polygamy appeals to our male evolution.

Now, don't get me wrong, when I say "should be" I am not dealing with religious context at all. Religious polygamy is vile and sexist and should be outlawed.

On average, even with our range of people who can deal with multiple partners sanely and on a secular basis, we did not evolve to deal well with competition to our potential creation of offspring, male or female.

So "should be" will never match the reality that we tend to want exclusivity in a relationship because becomes a sense of security of future in making offspring. Even in polygamy which is religious based, that still is an "exclusive" attitude, because the women are religiously obligated to be the resource to the men.

Bottom line, polygamy is a relic of the past and male insecurity. The societies that still partake in it, are stuck in an ignorant past. There is no way these same assholes would allow women to do the same.

So "should be" is mute and pointless.
Reply
#54
RE: Ohio School Takes Down Jesus Portrait
(April 4, 2013 at 10:37 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: To me it just shows how petty militant atheists are. They go out of their way to be offended.

To me it just shows how fucking cheap christians are. "We'd love to defend you Jesus, but if the insurance company isn't going to pay for the litigation, WE'RE gonna have to cough up the dough, and we ain't gonna do THAT!"
"If there are gaps they are in our knowledge, not in things themselves." Chapman Cohen

"Shit-apples don't fall far from the shit-tree, Randy." Mr. Lahey
Reply
#55
RE: Ohio School Takes Down Jesus Portrait
(April 5, 2013 at 6:58 pm)Brian37 Wrote: No, it is illegal because it is religious and sexist. In a utopia which does not exist it "should be" legal. But because no one can agree on who the alpha male is in a given context, one on one seems to be the path of least conflict. You are not going to get religious men to agree to one woman having 5 husbands. If "polygamy" were secular and not religious based, it IN THEORY, should not be a problem because it would also apply to women, if they were treated equal, which they are not.

Even without the argument of equality, it is more manageable to deal with less than more. Ask any male or female who has had an affair outside the assumed one on one relationship how hard that is to manage, more people in a contract, or violate an assumed contract creates more problems because you have to deal with more people.

And from an evolutionary scale men have more they can waste as far as genetic resources, sperm, than women do, eggs. So polygamy appeals to our male evolution.

Now, don't get me wrong, when I say "should be" I am not dealing with religious context at all. Religious polygamy is vile and sexist and should be outlawed.

On average, even with our range of people who can deal with multiple partners sanely and on a secular basis, we did not evolve to deal well with competition to our potential creation of offspring, male or female.

So "should be" will never match the reality that we tend to want exclusivity in a relationship because becomes a sense of security of future in making offspring. Even in polygamy which is religious based, that still is an "exclusive" attitude, because the women are religiously obligated to be the resource to the men.

Bottom line, polygamy is a relic of the past and male insecurity. The societies that still partake in it, are stuck in an ignorant past. There is no way these same assholes would allow women to do the same.

So "should be" is mute and pointless.

First of all, it is not illegal because it is sexist and religious. Neither of those qualifiers would have made a lawmaker bat an eye a hundred or more years ago.

Secondly, you are dismissing the entire notion of polygamy because it has been historically been sexist and religious. That it has been both does not mean it must be either. What is the problem with polygamy in a situation where all parties have the same legal rights and all parties involved consent to the arrangement? Polygamy doesn't have to be one man with many wives. It can be the reverse. It can be equal numbers of both. It could involve every gender or it could include only one.
Reply
#56
RE: Ohio School Takes Down Jesus Portrait
Did you read my post? I SAID IN A UTOPIA, but we don't live in that,

Polygamy in its current state is male driven and sexist. And even without religion like I said, it is biologically less complicated to keep track of mates and rivals with fewer partners although males have more sperm vs women having fewer eggs. Women have more incentive to be selective.

IN A UTOPIA which does not exist, religion would never play a role in sexual habits. If consent ruled and not dogma or politics we would not be having this debate at all.

But it does, so "lets pretend" doesn't wash. In the real world polygamy is not justified by consent of females not even by the closest measure. It is an antiquated tool of male insecurity.
Reply
#57
RE: Ohio School Takes Down Jesus Portrait
(April 5, 2013 at 9:56 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Did you read my post? I SAID IN A UTOPIA, but we don't live in that,

Polygamy in its current state is male driven and sexist. And even without religion like I said, it is biologically less complicated to keep track of mates and rivals with fewer partners although males have more sperm vs women having fewer eggs. Women have more incentive to be selective.

IN A UTOPIA which does not exist, religion would never play a role in sexual habits. If consent ruled and not dogma or politics we would not be having this debate at all.

But it does, so "lets pretend" doesn't wash. In the real world polygamy is not justified by consent of females not even by the closest measure. It is an antiquated tool of male insecurity.
I read the whole thing. It's a bad argument.
  • You can't deny marriage rights because of the existence of religion. That's only doing what the religious do.
  • Polygamy is, currently, not generally practiced in western nations and in nations steeped in western culture. You can't take an example of polygamy in Muslim or Hindu society and insist that it will play out exactly the same in the United States or Denmark. A woman living in Saudi Arabia is not much more likely to be happier or more fulfilled in life married monogamously than she would be if married polygamously. That culture has a vastly different attitude towards women than we do in the west, and that would certainly express itself through the legalization of open polygamy. You are blaming a marriage arrangement for the faults of the religions which currently allow that particular arrangement.
  • The rest just seems like what you personally find objectionable to it.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Mother: Children Bullied At School For Not Being Christian Fake Messiah 5 955 November 30, 2017 at 2:28 pm
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  Pakistan: a bill to ban child marriage shot down at 1st hurdle for being 'un-Islamic' Fake Messiah 8 1182 January 23, 2016 at 4:09 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Damned School Administrators athrock 5 1364 November 30, 2015 at 2:37 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Melbourne fund raising for secular school where a secular school is much needed. worldslaziestbusker 0 1024 May 17, 2014 at 8:40 am
Last Post: worldslaziestbusker
  The Secular Coalition of America calls for action against the Texas School Board Eilonnwy 3 1634 August 20, 2010 at 11:09 am
Last Post: leo-rcc
  School Board in LA. may OK teaching Creationisim in Science classes Jaysyn 16 4541 August 3, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Last Post: Thor
  Judge Strikes Down Minimalist 18 4284 July 30, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Last Post: Minimalist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)