|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 12/17/2013 : 16:26:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
See folks here is the kicker. Based on kil's logic for allowing same sex marriage he would also have to grant marriage status to bisexual polygamist and bowling teams or he would be a hypocritical close minded polygaphope. But in his mind he knows how silly and destructive to society it would be to actually grant marriage status to these people. So that is what is known as being stuck between a rock and a hard place. |
Please provide evidence that polygamy is "destructive to society."| And why limit this to only consenting adults and not consenting children or consenting farm animals? |
You know full well that children (and farm animals) cannot legally give consent.| Yes it is the current law but there were also laws against sodomy but those old archaic ideas were pushed to the wayside. I am sure there are many adults, children and farm animals who fully believe they should have the right to consent and who are you to push your morals and self-righteous judgment on them? Someday these archaic laws will be pushed to the wayside just like sodomy was whether you morally object to this or not. Keep your judgments to yourself thank you very much. |
This rhetoric is silly and counterproductive, if you are seeking honest discourse. Are you a Poe or a troll? |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2013 : 20:18:59 [Permalink]
|
Bill. You are using the slippery slope argument. Don't even try to deny it. The things you think will become legal because gay marriage is becoming legal isn't on anyones radar but yours and the people who believe as you do. So let's cut to the chase. What is the real reason behind your opposition to gay marriage? I mean, really. Gay marriage is not something that will change your marriage, invade your privacy, change the tax code for you or hinder you in any other way. So what is the bug that has crawled so far up your ass that you would deny a substantial minority in this country the right to marry someone of the same sex?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2013 : 22:00:46 [Permalink]
|
| polygamy is only bad when Mormons do it. </board logic> |
 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2013 : 22:05:59 [Permalink]
|
This idiotic stuff again. How many wives did Solomon have, Bill? So-called "traditional" marriage has only been "traditional" for a few hundred years, and then only in Western countries. So Bill, your screeching about "bedrock" anything is anti-biblical and thus hypocritical. The idea that you'd argue against polygamy while idolizing a book which blatantly condones it is ridiculous, and I herewith ridicule you for it.
And the last time I asked you questions about the bowling team, you vanished. Probably because your argument was based upon the idea of the harm a five-way divorce would cause to children and you couldn't cough up a reason why that'd be worse than the harm of a run-of-the-mill two-way heterosexual divorce (which you didn't argue against). Your arguments against same-sex marriage should embarrass you into hiding, Bill.
If you had any honesty, Bill, you'd admit that you don't want to see same-sex marriage because you think gay sex is icky and that you're afraid of change. But no, you trot out bad arguments, bad science and demagoguery instead. You're a coward and a hypocrite, utterly lacking in conviction yet looking for an online fight that you can convince yourself you've won because your opponents live in a "bizarro world" that's actually just a projection of your own irrational fears. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2013 : 23:14:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
polygamy is only bad when Mormons do it. </board logic> |
Try a more accurate representation of board logic:
Polygamy is very bad when it involves statutory rape. Sadly, this seems to be what a certain fundamentalist sect of Mormonism practices. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2013 : 07:30:06 [Permalink]
|
Emphasis added.
Originally posted by Bill scott
The slippery slope is no fallacy. We first had the homosexual couples demanding marital status. Now we are reading about a bisexual polygamist who is seeking material status, just as I said would happen That's real life, kil.
|
No what your link offered was 3 questions as a thought experiment and the conclusion is that it would be legal for a man to marry a woman in ND even if that man was married to another man in another state. If there were anything to the vague claim at the end of the article I would expect that claim, had it had any substance, to have had greater prominence throughout the article. No without something a bit more substantive than a vague claim in an article on Breitbart I consider it to be little more than dross. And since polygamy is illegal in all 50 states and bigamy is a crime in all 50 states your repeating some vague Brietbart claim makes you appear to be a little silly in you willingness to wet yourself over this.
You need a better source/ |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2013 : 14:02:53 [Permalink]
|
What's funniest of all is that North Dakotans' bigotry led to the situation in the OP. If they'd voted to recognize same-sex marriage, the the answer to the hypothetical wanna-be bisexual polygamist would be a flat-out "no" because polygamy is illegal. But because ND laws refuse to recognize same-sex marriage, ND law would think the guy isn't married at all.
In other words, it's an own goal. By outlawing same-sex marriage to such an extreme degree, they've opened the door to bisexual polygamy.
Ha! Say there's a group of four North Dakotans: Alice, Bob, Cheryl and Doug. They all take a trip to Maryland together, during which Alice legally marries Cheryl and Bob legally marries Doug. Then they go home, and then Alice legally marries Bob, while Cheryl legally marries Doug. What a nightmare for the IRS!
And all because their fellow North Dakotans couldn't tolerate the idea of two guys kissing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 06:04:58 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Boron10 |
| Please provide evidence that polygamy is "destructive to society." |
Well I thought I said giving marriage privileges to bisexual polygamists. For starters what a mess it will be for the IRS, divorce court etc... divvying up work benefits and deciding who is an eligible spouse as well as any benefits from the government and and who gets what, who gets what when someone in the union dies or when someone wants divorced from from the union who gets child support, who pays child support, who is the primary parent(s), who gets visitation rights etc... etc.... etc.... This just the tip of the iceberg. That fact that you would even ask what destructive result it would have on society demonstrates that you are not even qualified to have this discussion.
| You know full well that children (and farm animals) cannot legally give consent. |
Yes I do. But just as laws banning sodomy were pushed to the wayside by progressive social evolving so one day will these equally discriminating and archaic laws be pushed to the wayside through progressive social evolution.
| This rhetoric is silly and counterproductive, if you are seeking honest discourse. Are you a Poe or a troll? |
The same thing was said 20 years ago about gay marriage becoming legal. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 06:06:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Bill. You are using the slippery slope argument. Don't even try to deny it. The things you think will become legal because gay marriage is becoming legal isn't on anyones radar but yours and the people who believe as you do. So let's cut to the chase. What is the real reason behind your opposition to gay marriage? I mean, really. Gay marriage is not something that will change your marriage, invade your privacy, change the tax code for you or hinder you in any other way. So what is the bug that has crawled so far up your ass that you would deny a substantial minority in this country the right to marry someone of the same sex?
|
Based on your logic for granting marriage status to gay couples one could make the same argument for granting it to bisexual polygamists and bowling teams. Are you ready to grant marriage status to these groups of people, kil? Yes or no... And if no than why not? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 06:09:38 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| This idiotic stuff again. How many wives did Solomon have, Bill? So-called "traditional" marriage has only been "traditional" for a few hundred years, and then only in Western countries. So Bill, your screeching about "bedrock" anything is anti-biblical and thus hypocritical. The idea that you'd argue against polygamy while idolizing a book which blatantly condones it is ridiculous, and I herewith ridicule you for it. |
Where is it in the bible that God condones polygamy?
And the last time I asked you questions about the bowling team, you vanished. Probably because your argument was based upon the idea of the harm a five-way divorce would cause to children and you couldn't cough up a reason why that'd be worse than the harm of a run-of-the-mill two-way heterosexual divorce (which you didn't argue against). Your arguments against same-sex marriage should embarrass you into hiding, Bill.
If you had any honesty, Bill, you'd admit that you don't want to see same-sex marriage because you think gay sex is icky and that you're afraid of change. But no, you trot out bad arguments, bad science and demagoguery instead. You're a coward and a hypocrite, utterly lacking in conviction yet looking for an online fight that you can convince yourself you've won because your opponents live in a "bizarro world" that's actually just a projection of your own irrational fears. |
So are you ready to give marital status to bisexual polygamists and/or bowling teams? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 06:55:02 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
And the last time I asked you questions about the bowling team, you vanished
Your arguments against same-sex marriage should embarrass you into hiding, Bill. |
Never afraid to jump to conclusions is Dave. I get to this website when I can and that's about it. It's simple not a top priority of mine. At times I am away for weeks or months and that is simple because I am busy. But on an occasion and when I get a chance I will visit from time to time. Please don't correlate "low priority" with "vanished and hiding." |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 07:36:06 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Probably because your argument was based upon the idea of the harm a five-way divorce would cause to children and you couldn't cough up a reason why that'd be worse than the harm of a run-of-the-mill two-way heterosexual divorce... |
But that is exactly my point. Look how clogged up and chaotic divorce court is now. Look how complex and chaotic it gets when trying to settle spousal support, child support, child custody etc... etc... now. Are employers and the government obligated to give the same benefits they give to the spouse in a couples marriage to all the spouses in a polygamist marriage? etc... etc... etc... This new dynamic just complicates and confuses things on an exponential level. I find it hard to believe that you cannot comprehend this. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 09:52:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott| Originally posted by Boron10 |
| Please provide evidence that polygamy is "destructive to society." |
Well I thought I said giving marriage privileges to bisexual polygamists. |
Is this supposed to be a correction? Are you actually implying that bisexual polygamists are somehow more destructive to your delicate social construct than ordinary, run-of-the-mill polygamists?| For starters what a mess it will be for the IRS, divorce court etc... divvying up work benefits and deciding who is an eligible spouse as well as any benefits from the government and and who gets what, who gets what when someone in the union dies or when someone wants divorced from from the union who gets child support, who pays child support, who is the primary parent(s), who gets visitation rights etc... etc.... etc.... This just the tip of the iceberg. |
These are all legal problems, not necessarily elements of social destruction. This is why we pay lawyers, to handle this stuff and figure it out.
My request remains: Please provide evidence that polygamy is "destructive to society."| That fact that you would even ask what destructive result it would have on society demonstrates that you are not even qualified to have this discussion. |
Aww, how cute: an arrogant dismissal of my request for evidence!
Please allow me to use your words in a more coherent manner:
The fact that you would not even provide a scrap of evidence for your assertion demonstrates that you are not even qualified to have a rational discussion.
Kind of sounds dickish, doesn't it?
Here's a crazy suggestion: we can both stop being dicks and start engaging in a productive discussion, employing things like facts and evidence.| You know full well that children (and farm animals) cannot legally give consent. |
Yes I do. But just as laws banning sodomy were pushed to the wayside by progressive social evolving so one day will these equally discriminating and archaic laws be pushed to the wayside through progressive social evolution. |
Are you honestly comparing sodomy to statutory rape?
There are two problems with your "argument" here:
1) Sodomy occurs between consenting adults.
2) Your slippery slope from repealing sodomy laws to repealing statutory rape laws is, quite frankly, ridiculous. I believe Kil already pointed out slippery slope fallacy anyway.| This rhetoric is silly and counterproductive, if you are seeking honest discourse. Are you a Poe or a troll? |
The same thing was said 20 years ago about gay marriage becoming legal. |
Huh? To which "same thing" are you referring? That people who used rhetoric comparing homosexuality to pedophilia were being silly and counterproductive? That's very true. Unsurprisingly, that slippery slope still doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 10:08:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Kil
Bill. You are using the slippery slope argument. Don't even try to deny it. The things you think will become legal because gay marriage is becoming legal isn't on anyones radar but yours and the people who believe as you do. So let's cut to the chase. What is the real reason behind your opposition to gay marriage? I mean, really. Gay marriage is not something that will change your marriage, invade your privacy, change the tax code for you or hinder you in any other way. So what is the bug that has crawled so far up your ass that you would deny a substantial minority in this country the right to marry someone of the same sex?
|
Based on your logic for granting marriage status to gay couples one could make the same argument for granting it to bisexual polygamists and bowling teams. Are you ready to grant marriage status to these groups of people, kil? Yes or no... And if no than why not?
|
So you're not going to answer my question. Got it.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 11:33:15 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Boron10 |
| Is this supposed to be a correction? |
It is a correction of you.
| Are you actually implying that bisexual polygamists are somehow more destructive to your delicate social construct than ordinary, run-of-the-mill polygamists? |
What I actually said was that giving marriage status to bisexual polygamists would be destructive to society, no?
| These are all legal problems, not necessarily elements of social destruction. This is why we pay lawyers, to handle this stuff and figure it out. |
Murder, rape, robbery etc.... etc.... are all legal problems where lawyers are hired and they contribute to the destruction of society. Just like giving marriage status to bisexual polygamist would be.
| My request remains: Please provide evidence that polygamy is "destructive to society." |
I did but you dismissed that with a hand wave saying legal problems are not destructive to society and that lawyers will save us all.
| Aww, how cute: an arrogant dismissal of my request for evidence! |
There is nothing cute about you failing to comprehend how granting marriage status to bisexual polygamist would be destructive to our society.
Please allow me to use your words in a more coherent manner:
The fact that you would not even provide a scrap of evidence for your assertion demonstrates that you are not even qualified to have a rational discussion. |
The fact that you fail to recognize how granting marriage status to bisexual polygamists would have a negative effect on our society demonstrates that you are not even qualified to discuss how our society works.
| Are you honestly comparing sodomy to statutory rape? |
Yes.
There are two problems with your "argument" here:
1) Sodomy occurs between consenting adults. |
Not always.
| 2) Your slippery slope from repealing sodomy laws to repealing statutory rape laws is, quite frankly, ridiculous. |
20 years ago it was said that gay marriage every being legal in the US was, quite frankly, ridiculous. So to say that granting marriage status to bisexual polygamists in the US is ridiculous is not based on any merit.
| I believe Kil already pointed out slippery slope fallacy anyway. |
His slippery slope fallacy is nothing but a fallacy in and of itself.
| Huh? To which "same thing" are you referring? That people who used rhetoric comparing homosexuality to pedophilia were being silly and counterproductive? That's very true. Unsurprisingly, that slippery slope still doesn't exist. |
Again, 20 years ago or less it was considered ridiculous to think that gay marriage would ever be legal in the US. So for you to say that it is ridiculous to believe bisexual polygamists will ever be given martial status in the US is, quite frankly, ridiculous. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I told you so.....
