polygamy on its way?

[Didacus]

Not sure where to post this, I figured it might spark debate so I put it here. Feel free to move it if deemed appropriate.


Has anyone here heard of 'the slippery slope' fallacy? It is a fallacy where you draw distant conclusions from current situations.

Homosexual protesters and gay rights activists claim a slippery slope fallacy when we say the marriage will lead to other forms of degeneration and perversions of the family unit. They claim that gay marriage will not lead to such things as polygamy or legalizing pedophilia.

Well, for every one familiar with this line of argumentation, you will find this article most interesting;

[url="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0%2C6903%2C1641431%2C00.html"]http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internation...41431%2C00.html[/url]

A few highlights;

[quote]Many polyamorous people, who call themselves 'polys', liken their emergence to the struggle by gays and lesbians for equal rights, 'coming out' as poly in a society prejudiced against their lifestyle.[/quote]

See the link with my post?






[quote]But being a poly can be tough. Brigitte Philippides, an artist in Greenwich Village, has a primary relationship with a boyfriend, a serious relationship with a secondary girlfriend and several secondary relationships with other men.[/quote]

The only thing I can say is WOW! I am spending my entire life with my wife, just one person, and getting to know her deeply and spiritually will be a life long experience. How can someone have that many relationships equal to that level? One has to wonder just how 'deep' and 'emotional' those relationships really are?

Just --- WOW!





[quote]For polys, relationships are like a consuming hobby: they take up a tremendous amount of time,' she said.[/quote]

So its a passtime or a deep seeded relationship? Wish they would settle on a single angle. LOL






[quote]Polys say that for many people, monogamy is unnatural. They point to spiralling divorce rates and widespread infidelity among monogamous couples. Polys, they say, are honest about the human condition. It is monogamists, they say, who live in a fantasy land.[/quote]

Of course the common call to nature and its all important reversal. We're not the ones living in a fantasy world, you monogomous people are. If only you would stop being such closed minded people you would see this is better!

Hey, guess we can't blame them. It worked very well for homosexuals in Canada! (we won the bronze in the moron's Olympics you know! whoo-hooo! )

(I've been secretly crying ever since... )



And I really must compliment them on the start of their polys dictionary. the first part of changing social reality is to control language. Tehy've learned well from their brethens the homosexuals and what not, and it shows.

Redefine language, and you redefine reality.




This is one of the most sickening articles i have seen in recent months. Blatant, un-repentant, un-ashamed perversion of the family in its full hipocrisy. God help us all!!!

[Sojourner]

Certain cultures have accepted polygamy for years.

I'm not saying I support that, but I have a hard time seeing this as being a necessary corollary to gay rights activism. Ask the Mormons if they want polygamy linked with gay rights.

[Didacus]

The mormons belive in polygamy?

*slaps his head* well shave me bald and call me Harry!

[Paphnutius]

Polys say that for many people, monogamy is unnatural. They point to spiralling divorce rates and widespread infidelity among monogamous couples. Polys, they say, are honest about the human condition. It is monogamists, they say, who live in a fantasy land.


Yeah okay. Just cast aside how contraception and abortion has devestated the family unit and increased divorces.

[tojo]

I just learned about this recently, I found out that a "friend" of mine from high school (who was alwasy disgustingly immoral) is "polyamorous."

[Semalsia]

[quote]This is one of the most sickening articles i have seen in recent months. Blatant, un-repentant, un-ashamed perversion of the family in its full hipocrisy. God help us all!!![/quote]

Right...
But can you actually say what's wrong with polygamy? And "God forbids it" is not an adequate answer. You'll have to explain why God forbids it.

[MC Just]

polygamy=hellygamy

[zunshynn]

[quote]But can you actually say what's wrong with polygamy? And "God forbids it" is not an adequate answer. You'll have to explain why God forbids it. [/quote]

Because God knows marriage to one person is pushing it... and we'd all go mad if it was more than that.

No, because it's a reflection of His love for his Church. There is one Church, so there is one wife. There is one God, so there is one man. It's interesting that the religions that allow or encourage polygamy are polytheistic isn't it?

God doesn't have a bunch of brides, so neither do we! He is faithful, and gives himself entirely to us, so we must give ourselves entirely to our spouse. Didacus, I agree. There's just no way that you could give of yourself entirely like that if you had to do so with several people.

Edited November 21, 2005 by zunshynn

[Semalsia]

[quote]No, because it's a reflection of His love for his Church. There is one Church, so there is one wife. There is one God, so there is one man.[/quote]

That's pretty much the same as "God forbids it". You forgot to explain why..

[zunshynn]

[quote]There is one Church, so there is one wife. There is one God, so there is one man... God doesn't have a bunch of brides, so neither do we! He is faithful, and gives himself entirely to us, so we must give ourselves entirely to our spouse... There's just no way that you could give of yourself entirely like that if you had to do so with several people.[/quote]

That [i]is[/i] why. I mean, we could get into the social reasons... that children don't function as well... instability, etc, etc. but I don't really think that's all necessary. Those are consequences, not reasons. The only reason that we need is that God has given us a gift of marriage as a sacramental sign of his life for his Church, and therefore, must reflect that same fidelity.

[Socrates]

Here we go again.
A fellow who sleeps around with a bunch of women used to be called a womanizer or philanderer.

Now we give this old vice a pretty new name, "polyamory," and it becomes a beautiful "alternative lifestyle" which demands acceptance, and, no doubt, lots of special legal "rights" and privileges to go with it.

The "slippery slope" argument can hardly be considered a fallacy.
There is now a movement to legitimize pedophilia (now "man-boy love" or "intergenerational love"), and Princeton bioethics head and animal-rights activist Peter Singer has written in favor of bestiality (now "interspecies relationships").
While many may consider these movements too disgusting or bizarre and "fringe" to be taken seriously, let us not forget that 35 years ago, the "gay rights" movement was considered a fringe movement too bizarre and disgusting to be taken seriously by the mainstream.

Once we break down the barriers of traditional morality, there are really no limits to depravity (and its push for public acceptance).

Edited November 22, 2005 by Socrates

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 21 2005, 06:53 PM']The "slippery slope" argument can hardly be considered a fallacy.
There is now a movement to legitimize pedophilia (now "man-boy love" or "intergenerational love"), and Princeton bioethics head and animal-rights activist Peter Singer has written in favor of bestiality (now "interspecies relationships").
[right][snapback]797169[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Semalsia]

[quote]A fellow who sleeps around with a bunch of women used to be called a womanizer or philanderer.
Now we give this old vice a pretty new name, "polyamory," and it becomes a beautiful "alternative lifestyle" which demands acceptance, and no doubt, lots of special legal "rights" and privileges to go with it[/quote]

Cheating will still be cheating. Jerks will still be jerks. Polyamory is no excuse.

[quote]The "slippery slope" argument can hardly be considered a fallacy.[/quote]

Well, I think that's probably right when speaking about homosexuality and polygamy. The reasons behind banning those are pretty much the same. Normalizing polygamy seems like the logical next step after gay unions.

Legalizing pedophilia on the other hand is just crazy. That's not going to happen. No way. Polygamy and gay marriage are not going to effect that. There's a clear difference.

[Semalsia]

[url="http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/threeofhearts/"]This caught my eye few days ago. Might interest you.[/url]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Nov 21 2005, 09:18 PM']Legalizing pedophilia on the other hand is just crazy. That's not going to happen. No way. [right][snapback]797193[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That's what they used to say about "gay marriage."

[quote]Polygamy and gay marriage are not going to effect that. There's a clear difference.[/quote]

Is the difference really so clear? There is already a movement pushing for its legalization and acceptance. (Someone provided links to this some time back.)

[Didacus]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 21 2005, 08:53 PM']Here we go again.
A fellow who sleeps around with a bunch of women used to be called a womanizer or philanderer.

Now we give this old vice a pretty new name, "polyamory," and it becomes a beautiful "alternative lifestyle" which demands acceptance, and, no doubt, lots of special legal "rights" and privileges to go with it.
[snip][right][snapback]797169[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Hence my compliments on their start of the dictionary... control the language and you control reality.

That link to the pedophilia article was from me (if you're refering to the one I posted).

The only thing that is required for pedophilia to be acceptable is to remove the victim from the child. ANd what did that article state? It said that pedophilia could provide benefits to the child; the child learned about sex in a mature relationship rather than learning it in random immature relationships.

To make it seem logical is very easy. You'd be surprised how a quick twist of the words can make everything seem ok. Heck reading the article I posted at the start of this thread I was almost tempted to give ita try for a moment! j/k However, I'm certain teenagers who rad the article might think so.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Nov 21 2005, 09:18 PM'][snip]

Legalizing pedophilia on the other hand is just crazy. That's not going to happen. No way. Polygamy and gay marriage are not going to effect that. There's a clear difference.
[right][snapback]797193[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And what pray tell is the reason pedophillia is not acceptable? What is this clear difference? Try to keep an open mind to others who have a different view and at least listen to their ideas wihtout preconceived notions like morality or protection of the young.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Nov 21 2005, 04:33 PM']Right... 
But can you actually say what's wrong with polygamy? And "God forbids it" is not an adequate answer. You'll have to explain why God forbids it.
[right][snapback]796950[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Anything less than a single spouse is a hinderance to a real commitment.

If I had two wives (or 'serious relationships') my commitment is thus only two half-commitments. And these people don't stop at two partners?!

"Oh dear, George, one of my husbands is dead, but that's ok, I got two others on sthe side, and a couple of woman too!"

or how about this one:

"I broke up with my wife becauase I couldn't get along with her boyfriends."



Semalsia, I challenge you to read 'Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, (a pretty quick read) and then honestly tell me if that is the world where you want to live. In that book, everyone belongs to everyone else. It's like all of society is married to each other and origes are part of religious practice.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Didacus']Anything less than a single spouse is a hinderance to a real commitment.[/quote]

Perhaps it is, which is partly why I wouldn't want to be in a polygamous relationship myself. But that's hardly reason enough to deny from those who do want to be in one the right to, um... what exactly do they want? Marriage for three?

Or for more, hm. Okay, if someone came to me and told me about her ten persons she's seriously involved with, it would come across kind of weird. I'd wonder what all these people actually meant for her. But maybe she just desires for different kind of love. Who are we to tell her not to do this?

[quote]Is the difference really so clear?[/quote]
[quote]And what pray tell is the reason pedophillia is not acceptable? What is this clear difference?[/quote]

The difference is harm. Pedophiles cause harm to the children. There's no way around it. Polygamy causes no harm to anyone.

[quote]Semalsia, I challenge you to read 'Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, (a pretty quick read) and then honestly tell me if that is the world where you want to live. In that book, everyone belongs to everyone else. It's like all of society is married to each other and origes are part of religious practice.[/quote]

I've seen it mentioned here quite a few times. I'll take a look.

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Nov 23 2005, 12:49 PM']The difference is harm. Pedophiles cause harm to the children. There's no way around it. Polygamy causes no harm to anyone.
[right][snapback]798984[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It causes harm the people in the marriage and to humanity in general, because it is taking on the guise of marriage... a mutually exclusive, life giving, radically committed relationship that is not.

Who are you to tell me that I as a minor am going to be harmed by a relationship with someone twice my age? Maybe I want to... and you should stay out of it. Yeah see... doesn't make sense.

Edited November 23, 2005 by zunshynn