SBC's Land: Polygamy Will Follow Gay Marriage

[loco]

fair enough

I see your point however the polls I posted include the presumption of "2 people" only but I see your point

There is a  poll that asks a number of questions one of which is whether polygamy is morally wrong.   Since the numbers show that 90% + of people that that polygamy is morally wrong do you think it's reasonable to infer that  "most people" think of marriage as between only two people?

LOL...you couldn't let it go, could you?  You had to go on a mad hunt for a poll that would support your original statement, even though you knew nothing of such a poll before you made the statement.    

Sure, I believe if you asked everyone in the west if polygamy is immoral, most people might say it is immoral.  If you asked the whole world, most people might say polygamy is not immoral.

[MCWAY]

LOL...you couldn't let it go, could you?  You had to go on a mad hunt for a poll that would support your original statement, even though you knew nothing of such a poll before you made the statement.    

Sure, I believe if you asked everyone in the west if polygamy is immoral, most people might say it is immoral.  If you asked the whole world, most people might say polygamy is not immoral.

More to the point, should such numbers start to switch, does that mean that polygamy is a "civil right"?

[Straw Man]

LOL...you couldn't let it go, could you?  You had to go on a mad hunt for a poll that would support your original statement, even though you knew nothing of such a poll before you made the statement.    

Sure, I believe if you asked everyone in the west if polygamy is immoral, most people might say it is immoral.  If you asked the whole world, most people might say polygamy is not immoral.

hardly a mad hunt - took about 2 seconds on google

I conceded your semantic point but I didn't need a poll to make my original statement and in fact wrote in that post  "that's just my opinion"

as it turns out the current polling data in the US confirms that most people are fine with gay marriage i.e. see marriage as between 2 people of either the same or opposite gender.  That is an indisputable fact.

polling data also supports my "two person" opinion by showing that over 90% of people polled believe that polygamy is morally wrong (fyi - I am personally NOT in that 90%)

[Straw Man]

More to the point, should such numbers start to switch, does that mean that polygamy is a "civil right"?

it very well could be though I doubt it

but give it 50+ years and check back

that's how these things work

[loco]

More to the point, should such numbers start to switch, does that mean that polygamy is a "civil right"?

Eggxactly!

[loco]

hardly a mad hunt - took about 2 seconds on google

2 seconds, uh?  Why did you not post the link?  Is it not legit?

[Straw Man]

2 seconds, uh?  Why did you not post the link?  Is it not legit?

here you go:  http://www.pollingreport.com/values.htm

let's do a quick review.

1.  my first statement was about whether most people would see marriage as between 2 people and I said it was my opinion that they would

2. your response to this was "Likewise, you could go anywhere and ask most people if they see marriage as involving two people of the same gender and they will tell you No"
 
3. I responded that this was not true and showed you recent polling data to support that statement.  Here is that link to the poll which I snipped and posted and it's also the source of the data about changing opinion in CA as well.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/how-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-is-changing-and-what-it-means/

[MCWAY]

it very well could be though I doubt it

but give it 50+ years and check back

that's how these things work

Not necessarily!! Polygamous civil unions started in the Netherlands in a fairly short time after gay "marriage" was legalized.

The Dutch have effectively legalized it, by allowing polygamy from other countries to stand in their borders.

And, as predicted......

A former Dutch MP has admitted that polygamous marriage is the "next logical step" following the introduction of same-sex marriages in the Netherlands.

Speaking to the French online magazine, Yagg, Boris Dittrich said there was now a movement in the Netherlands to introduce multi-partner marriages.

Campaign

Mr Dittrich, who led the campaign that resulted in the introduction of same-sex ‘marriages’ in the Netherlands in 2001, explained how he had pushed for a change in the law.

He admitted that he had started by campaigning for civil partnerships to get members of the public “used to the idea” that same-sex relationships were recognised by the law.

“We thought it might be psychologically better to first introduce registered partnerships”, he said.

“It appeared to be a good decision because people got used to the idea that two men or two women had their relationships recognised by the law and people called it a gay marriage”.

He said that the next logical step was to introduce full same-sex ‘marriages’, and that there was now a “discussion in the Netherlands that sometimes people want to marry with three people and maybe even more”.


http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/family/polygamy-is-next-logical-step-says-dutch-same-sex-marriage-campaigner

[doison]

If it feels good, do it.

[Straw Man]

Not necessarily!! Polygamous civil unions started in the Netherlands in a fairly short time after gay "marriage" was legalized.

The Dutch have effectively legalized it, by allowing polygamy from other countries to stand in their borders.

And, as predicted......

A former Dutch MP has admitted that polygamous marriage is the "next logical step" following the introduction of same-sex marriages in the Netherlands.

Speaking to the French online magazine, Yagg, Boris Dittrich said there was now a movement in the Netherlands to introduce multi-partner marriages.

Campaign

Mr Dittrich, who led the campaign that resulted in the introduction of same-sex ‘marriages’ in the Netherlands in 2001, explained how he had pushed for a change in the law.

He admitted that he had started by campaigning for civil partnerships to get members of the public “used to the idea” that same-sex relationships were recognised by the law.

“We thought it might be psychologically better to first introduce registered partnerships”, he said.

“It appeared to be a good decision because people got used to the idea that two men or two women had their relationships recognised by the law and people called it a gay marriage”.

He said that the next logical step was to introduce full same-sex ‘marriages’, and that there was now a “discussion in the Netherlands that sometimes people want to marry with three people and maybe even more”.


http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/family/polygamy-is-next-logical-step-says-dutch-same-sex-marriage-campaigner

fine by me

I might decide to go Old Testament someday

[MCWAY]

fine by me

I might decide to go Old Testament someday

You might want to hold up on that. You have to cough up a lot of dough or livestock. And you don't get to touch your future Mrs. for at least a year.

 

[Straw Man]

You might want to hold up on that. You have to cough up a lot of dough or livestock. And you don't get to touch your future Mrs. for at least a year.

 

are those the rules in your church?

[MCWAY]

are those the rules in your church?

Not the last time I checked. But, you're the one who mentioned the Old Testament. Those are among the Levitical laws, regarding marriage.

[Straw Man]

Not the last time I checked. But, you're the one who mentioned the Old Testament. Those are among the Levitical laws, regarding marriage.

only in reference to polygamy

not to the specific nutty rules of such in the book of ancient jewish fairy tales

[MCWAY]

only in reference to polygamy

not to the specific nutty rules of such in the book of ancient jewish fairy tales

Nutty!?

''Thou shalt not steal"

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"

"Thou shalt not murder"

"Honor thy father and thy mother"

"Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbor's"

[Soul Crusher]

only in reference to polygamy

not to the specific nutty rules of such in the book of ancient jewish fairy tales

Lol.    Rules for Radicals is a much better guidebook right?

[tu_holmes]

Nutty!?

''Thou shalt not steal"

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"

"Thou shalt not murder"

"Honor thy father and thy mother"

"Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbor's"

Actually it specifically says thy neighbor's wife... Doesn't say anything about his daughter or anything.

[MCWAY]

Actually it specifically says thy neighbor's wife... Doesn't say anything about his daughter or anything.

It says more than that. I just posted the tail end of the 10th commandment that sums it up.

And you shall not covet your neighbor's wife. And you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his male servant, or his female servant, his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.’

[Straw Man]

Nutty!?

''Thou shalt not steal"

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"

"Thou shalt not murder"

"Honor thy father and thy mother"

"Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbor's"

your forgot Graven Images and not working on the sabbath (Saturday)

you follow those two to the letter right?

[LurkerNoMore]

What's the Bible got to do with marriage?  Marriage isn't a religious right, it is a civil right.  Otherwise atheists or other non Christians wouldn't be able to get married.

[MCWAY]

your forgot Graven Images and not working on the sabbath (Saturday)

you follow those two to the letter right?

I didn't forget them. I made my list, to make the point about what you claim to be "nutty"

The Graven Images thing? No, falling prostrate towards any of those (unlike some Obama worshippers I know).

As for the Sabbath, while I am an SDA, I haven't always been meticulous about my Sabbath keeping.

What my keeping or not keeping those laws to the letter have to do with the laws being "nutty" I've love to know, aside from your usual deflection from the issue at hand.

[MCWAY]

What's the Bible got to do with marriage?  Marriage isn't a religious right, it is a civil right.  Otherwise atheists or other non Christians wouldn't be able to get married.

Who says it's a civil right? And, marriage has many components, among them a religious one.

[chadstallion]

Why shouldn't it?

Same deal right?

no its not.
marriage the institution is between two people.
it's not the same discussion as polygamy. That involves more than two.

[MCWAY]

no its not.
marriage the institution is between two people.
it's not the same discussion as polygamy. That involves more than two.

That's the point. Who decides that the limit is two? Why can't polygamist change the numbers laws, if gays can change the gender laws?

Both undermine the definition of marriage as ONE man and ONE woman.

[tu_holmes]

That's the point. Who decides that the limit is two? Why can't polygamist change the numbers laws, if gays can change the gender laws?

Both undermine the definition of marriage as ONE man and ONE woman.

That's a stupid definition anyway.

If 10 people want to get married, who gives a shit... Let them. As long as they are all adults and in sound mind, let it fucking go.

Why do people care?