There is a difference between people's feelings being hurt and measurably increasing the crime rate.
You don't get to stick your nose in other people's basic rights because you are afraid of what indirect outcome it may have. We all should have equal rights, not "equal rights except for this group because we think it wouldn't be good for society".
If someone could legitimately (hypothetically) prove to me a negative impact on some aspect of society that would be the result of interracial or gay marriage, I still would support both being legal.
You don't get to stick your nose in other people's basic rights because you are afraid of what indirect outcome it may have. We all should have equal rights, not "equal rights except for this group because we think it wouldn't be good for society".
Difference between Adam and Steve is that Joe, Bill, Bob, and Ron are all still able to find other mates. In a polygamist culture such as Mormons there are outcasts and in African communities there is wife sharing that vastly increases the AIDs rate. It creates really stupid social dynamics, either way even in the traditional sense males are less likely than females to get married. Even if a woman is horrendously ugly inside and out, she will be more likely to get married than her male counter part.
The direct outcomes are fairly well documented about the psycho-social interactions with polygamist marriages that involves more direct involvement in maintaining relationships and there is far more competition for the attention of the single mate which creates other problems. Equally, more people in a relationship, more sex is involved, and more little kiddies which in turn raises the amount of kids born that helps to tip the scales towards state dependency as seen with some current Mormon sects in the States.
So why should my tax dollars support polygamists running off children like human xerox machines? Polygamy and those that engage in multiple sex partnerships are more likely to have multiple children, where as gays in a committed relationship are less likely to spread STD's versus unwed gays with multiple partners in cities like what was seen when AIDS first gained public notoriety. The one encourages better public health, while the other encourages social discord by creating more dependents and competition for mates within communities.
Either way, there's still going to always "that guy" that lives with multiple women like Hugh Heffner and has serial marriages. The other issue, though, are also creating a rich culture that encourages the creation of a harem, which do exists still in the world.
But it's also not zero-sum: not all who wish to marry do so, not all who wish to marry would be willing to do so polygamously, not all who would marry would be willing to do so monogamously.
We don't have data for introducing polygamy to monogamous cultures, nor to nations with significantly high GDP such as the United States. All of the data is discussing polygyny; would you be at ease with polyandry? And that paper mentions that, oddly, simple co-habitation does not have the crime-reducing effect of marriage, and so I could argue we should allow polyamorous groups in long-term co-habitation to marry as they're unlikely to marry monogamously. In fact, long-term co-habitation as a prerequisite for all marriage makes a good deal of sense...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
Difference between Adam and Steve is that Joe, Bill, Bob, and Ron are all still able to find other mates.
So we should limit the rights of Sue and Sally to try and engineer society for the benefit of Bill and Bob?
In a polygamist culture such as Mormons there are outcasts and in African communities there is wife sharing that vastly increases the AIDs rate. It creates really stupid social dynamics, either way even in the traditional sense males are less likely than females to get married. Even if a woman is horrendously ugly inside and out, she will be more likely to get married than her male counter part.
If someone could prove that gay marriage (and the overall acceptance of homosexuality in society) led to an increased AIDs rate, I would still support gay marriage.
The direct outcomes are fairly well documented about the psycho-social interactions with polygamist marriages that involves more direct involvement in maintaining relationships and there is far more competition for the attention of the single mate which creates other problems. Equally, more people in a relationship, more sex is involved, and more little kiddies which in turn raises the amount of kids born that helps to tip the scales towards state dependency as seen with some current Mormon sects in the States.
So why should my tax dollars support polygamists running off children like human xerox machines?
Why should the tax dollars of homophobic Christians go to support gay marriage?
You people don't seem to get it. You cannot take away the rights of a group of people because you have a certain vision for society. I think our society would benefit from the outlawing of the Westboro Baptist Church. I think that not allowing any KKK member to obtain a marriage license would be beneficial to society because it may have an impact on them reproducing. But I would not actually support these measures because that isn't how our rights in this country work.
I see people are only attacking the social arguments against polygamy, but what about the logistical arguments? Are those just easily ignored?
Also, we take away plenty of people's rights to protect society as a whole. You don't have a right to own slaves, you don't have a right to go and murder someone, heck, in places, you don't have the right to smoke in your car if a child is present.
Why should the tax dollars of homophobic Christians go to support gay marriage?
You people don't seem to get it. You cannot take away the rights of a group of people because you have a certain vision for society. I think our society would benefit from the outlawing of the Westboro Baptist Church. I think that not allowing any KKK member to obtain a marriage license would be beneficial to society because it may have an impact on them reproducing. But I would not actually support these measures because [I]that isn't how our rights in this country work.[/I]
We outlaw people not taking children to see the doctor, why should we condone marriages that encourage the creation of an entire "lost generation" of boys in small communities that displace these young so that elderly, socially connected males in these small pocket communities can get more women?
Encouraging the displacement effect facilitates the growth of these sects as well as experimentation. Looking at the modern Mormon, there's not really a whole lot of discrimination over them nor are there issues with "lost boys" and rather the opposite the youth tend to be successful and rather worldly.
On the topic of gay marriage, gay marriage doesn't displace large sects of people just so that a few can get married. Gay marriage just pisses off people with no real harm to communities and actually encourages the creation of households and increases the likelihood of an orphan finding a good home. Polygamy when practiced has a long history of logistics problems when the genders are balanced while the amount of marriages and increased competition for mates is not. Gays adopt, polygamists tend to create too many kiddies and displace those kiddies when they aren't "with the system."
So we should limit the rights of Sue and Sally to try and engineer society for the benefit of Bill and Bob?
[/I]
Let's take Steve and Adam not being able to marry Ron, Bob, Bill, and Joe as a singular "cluster marriage." In this situation Adam and Steve are married, while Ron and Bob, and Bill and Joe are all married as a part of the Pareto-superior move where every one gets a mate. The problem occurs when Steve and Adam want to marry the other four guys, but some people don't like Joe because he's not a part of the circle of cook kids and therefore because he's 15 and before of marriage age he's run out of town and his father and mother aren't giving him the time of day nor any money. Which redirects Joe to foster care upon which affects my tax dollars, meanwhile Sally and Sue adopting Joe would be a net benefit but that doesn't always work out as you need to connect Sally and Sue with Joe.
We outlaw people not taking children to see the doctor, why should we condone marriages that encourage the creation of an entire "lost generation" of boys in small communities that displace these young so that elderly, socially connected males in these small pocket communities can get more women?
Encouraging the displacement effect facilitates the growth of these sects as well as experimentation. Looking at the modern Mormon, there's not really a whole lot of discrimination over them nor are there issues with "lost boys" and rather the opposite the youth tend to be successful and rather worldly.
You are approaching this from the wrong angle. I don't support gay marriage because I believe it will have some quantitative benefit to society. I support it because it is their inherent right to equality, all other considerations be damned. The same argument would apply for allowing KKK members to marry or allowing polygamy.
On the topic of gay marriage, gay marriage doesn't displace large sects of people just so that a few can get married. Gay marriage just pisses off people with no real harm to communities and actually encourages the creation of households and increases the likelihood of an orphan finding a good home. Polygamy when practiced has a long history of logistics problems when the genders are balanced while the amount of marriages and increased competition for mates is not. Gays adopt, polygamists tend to create too many kiddies and displace those kiddies when they aren't "with the system."
Once again, it doesn't matter what you think the societal impact will be. We don't take away the Westboro Baptist church's freedom of speech even though society would benefit from that.
Would you even entertain an economic argument against interracial marriage? Would it even matter to you what someone had to say along those lines? Or would you be of the opinion that that kind of argument is irrelevant because regardless of the economic outcome, it is the right of interracial couples to marry?
That is my stance here. No amount of rationalization about societal impact will make me change my stance on a equality, whether it be for gays or polygamists. My support of polygamy is grudging, but I would be a hypocrite if I did not accept this rational outcome of my views on equality.
You are approaching this from the wrong angle. I don't support gay marriage because I believe it will have some quantitative benefit to society. I support it because it is their inherent right to equality, all other considerations be damned. The same argument would apply for allowing KKK members to marry or allowing polygamy.
The false dichotomy here is that "being gay" isn't a choice, while being a polygamist is a choice that to support the social structures for a patriarchal form of polygamy requires that some men out compete others for mates. This means economically or easier to just kick people out of the "circle of cool kids" and turn them into vagabonds and dejected people.
Americans don't practice polygamy well, and many other societies have severe drawbacks to those such as wife sharing that help to spread disease.
Once again, it doesn't matter what you think the societal impact will be. We don't take away the Westboro Baptist church's freedom of speech even though society would benefit from that.
Speech has it's limits so does religious expression. Westboro Baptist Church may have the ability to protest, however they still can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. Equally we limit the expression of religion, in terms of their societal and individual impact. For example, children sacrificed in the name of Cthlulluu would have parents in jail just like using faith healing to cure cancer.
Would you even entertain an economic argument against interracial marriage? Would it even matter to you what someone had to say along those lines? Or would you be of the opinion that that kind of argument is irrelevant because regardless of the economic outcome, it is the right of interracial couples to marry?
Interracial marriage doesn't give birth to genetically deficient kids, however incest does which has an impact on genetic stability for a population. Therefore there is a regulation on that because of the externalities.
That is my stance here. No amount of rationalization about societal impact will make me change my stance on a equality, whether it be for gays or polygamists. My support of polygamy is grudging, but I would be a hypocrite if I did not accept this rational outcome of my views on equality.
I agree with bLatch as marriage is dumb. someone shouldn't be able to take possession of someones property just by marrying them and divorcing them. If two people want to share custody of a house and each pay a certain amount of money, so be it. Don't make them get married. Of course, the issue with this is the same problem we have already; the old hump her and dump her idea. Then we have a mom or dad trying to support a child alone. Once two people have a child, they should be legally sealed in that both have to pay a certain amount of money for child support.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On jace
By WeNeedControl
i tested jace tonight and its one of the worst planeswalkers. it never really does anything except make u lose. i suggest u sell yours for 17 each like i did.
then again on valakut
ROFL what? Valakut? The best card in standard is Jace the mind Sculptor
hm.... interesting.
Haters gonna hate on my jank decks.
unfortunately it's a bit late to keep the government out of marriage. As much as a "civil unions only" approach would simplify a lot of things in my eyes, I don't think it'll happen in our lifetimes.
As such, I'd be happy with "two consenting adults".
I agree with bLatch as marriage is dumb. someone shouldn't be able to take possession of someones property just by marrying them and divorcing them.
I'm not sure you really do agree with me then. What I proposed wouldn't remove the current practice of two people joining together and having joint property. It would jsut remove the term "marriage" from the sphere of government, and let everyone do it via civil union.
If two people want to share custody of a house and each pay a certain amount of money, so be it. Don't make them get married. Of course, the issue with this is the same problem we have already; the old hump her and dump her idea. Then we have a mom or dad trying to support a child alone. Once two people have a child, they should be legally sealed in that both have to pay a certain amount of money for child support.
Yea, I'm going to go with not on the same page as me at all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There is a difference between people's feelings being hurt and measurably increasing the crime rate.
You don't get to stick your nose in other people's basic rights because you are afraid of what indirect outcome it may have. We all should have equal rights, not "equal rights except for this group because we think it wouldn't be good for society".
If someone could legitimately (hypothetically) prove to me a negative impact on some aspect of society that would be the result of interracial or gay marriage, I still would support both being legal.
Difference between Adam and Steve is that Joe, Bill, Bob, and Ron are all still able to find other mates. In a polygamist culture such as Mormons there are outcasts and in African communities there is wife sharing that vastly increases the AIDs rate. It creates really stupid social dynamics, either way even in the traditional sense males are less likely than females to get married. Even if a woman is horrendously ugly inside and out, she will be more likely to get married than her male counter part.
The direct outcomes are fairly well documented about the psycho-social interactions with polygamist marriages that involves more direct involvement in maintaining relationships and there is far more competition for the attention of the single mate which creates other problems. Equally, more people in a relationship, more sex is involved, and more little kiddies which in turn raises the amount of kids born that helps to tip the scales towards state dependency as seen with some current Mormon sects in the States.
So why should my tax dollars support polygamists running off children like human xerox machines? Polygamy and those that engage in multiple sex partnerships are more likely to have multiple children, where as gays in a committed relationship are less likely to spread STD's versus unwed gays with multiple partners in cities like what was seen when AIDS first gained public notoriety. The one encourages better public health, while the other encourages social discord by creating more dependents and competition for mates within communities.
Either way, there's still going to always "that guy" that lives with multiple women like Hugh Heffner and has serial marriages. The other issue, though, are also creating a rich culture that encourages the creation of a harem, which do exists still in the world.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
We don't have data for introducing polygamy to monogamous cultures, nor to nations with significantly high GDP such as the United States. All of the data is discussing polygyny; would you be at ease with polyandry? And that paper mentions that, oddly, simple co-habitation does not have the crime-reducing effect of marriage, and so I could argue we should allow polyamorous groups in long-term co-habitation to marry as they're unlikely to marry monogamously. In fact, long-term co-habitation as a prerequisite for all marriage makes a good deal of sense...
So we should limit the rights of Sue and Sally to try and engineer society for the benefit of Bill and Bob?
If someone could prove that gay marriage (and the overall acceptance of homosexuality in society) led to an increased AIDs rate, I would still support gay marriage.
Why should the tax dollars of homophobic Christians go to support gay marriage?
You people don't seem to get it. You cannot take away the rights of a group of people because you have a certain vision for society. I think our society would benefit from the outlawing of the Westboro Baptist Church. I think that not allowing any KKK member to obtain a marriage license would be beneficial to society because it may have an impact on them reproducing. But I would not actually support these measures because that isn't how our rights in this country work.
Also, we take away plenty of people's rights to protect society as a whole. You don't have a right to own slaves, you don't have a right to go and murder someone, heck, in places, you don't have the right to smoke in your car if a child is present.
We outlaw people not taking children to see the doctor, why should we condone marriages that encourage the creation of an entire "lost generation" of boys in small communities that displace these young so that elderly, socially connected males in these small pocket communities can get more women?
Encouraging the displacement effect facilitates the growth of these sects as well as experimentation. Looking at the modern Mormon, there's not really a whole lot of discrimination over them nor are there issues with "lost boys" and rather the opposite the youth tend to be successful and rather worldly.
On the topic of gay marriage, gay marriage doesn't displace large sects of people just so that a few can get married. Gay marriage just pisses off people with no real harm to communities and actually encourages the creation of households and increases the likelihood of an orphan finding a good home. Polygamy when practiced has a long history of logistics problems when the genders are balanced while the amount of marriages and increased competition for mates is not. Gays adopt, polygamists tend to create too many kiddies and displace those kiddies when they aren't "with the system."
Let's take Steve and Adam not being able to marry Ron, Bob, Bill, and Joe as a singular "cluster marriage." In this situation Adam and Steve are married, while Ron and Bob, and Bill and Joe are all married as a part of the Pareto-superior move where every one gets a mate. The problem occurs when Steve and Adam want to marry the other four guys, but some people don't like Joe because he's not a part of the circle of cook kids and therefore because he's 15 and before of marriage age he's run out of town and his father and mother aren't giving him the time of day nor any money. Which redirects Joe to foster care upon which affects my tax dollars, meanwhile Sally and Sue adopting Joe would be a net benefit but that doesn't always work out as you need to connect Sally and Sue with Joe.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
You are approaching this from the wrong angle. I don't support gay marriage because I believe it will have some quantitative benefit to society. I support it because it is their inherent right to equality, all other considerations be damned. The same argument would apply for allowing KKK members to marry or allowing polygamy.
Once again, it doesn't matter what you think the societal impact will be. We don't take away the Westboro Baptist church's freedom of speech even though society would benefit from that.
Would you even entertain an economic argument against interracial marriage? Would it even matter to you what someone had to say along those lines? Or would you be of the opinion that that kind of argument is irrelevant because regardless of the economic outcome, it is the right of interracial couples to marry?
That is my stance here. No amount of rationalization about societal impact will make me change my stance on a equality, whether it be for gays or polygamists. My support of polygamy is grudging, but I would be a hypocrite if I did not accept this rational outcome of my views on equality.
The false dichotomy here is that "being gay" isn't a choice, while being a polygamist is a choice that to support the social structures for a patriarchal form of polygamy requires that some men out compete others for mates. This means economically or easier to just kick people out of the "circle of cool kids" and turn them into vagabonds and dejected people.
Americans don't practice polygamy well, and many other societies have severe drawbacks to those such as wife sharing that help to spread disease.
Speech has it's limits so does religious expression. Westboro Baptist Church may have the ability to protest, however they still can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. Equally we limit the expression of religion, in terms of their societal and individual impact. For example, children sacrificed in the name of Cthlulluu would have parents in jail just like using faith healing to cure cancer.
Interracial marriage doesn't give birth to genetically deficient kids, however incest does which has an impact on genetic stability for a population. Therefore there is a regulation on that because of the externalities.
And what of incest?
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
By WeNeedControl
then again on valakut
hm.... interesting.
Haters gonna hate on my jank decks.
As such, I'd be happy with "two consenting adults".
WCommander EeshaBDrana, Kalastria BloodchiefBGGlissa, the TraitorBWVish Kal, Blood ArbiterRUNin, the Pain Artist
UGEdric, Spymaster of TrestWRBasandra, Battle SeraphBGWDoran, the Siege TowerBGWGhave, Guru of Spores
RGWUril, the MiststalkerGUBThe MimeoplasmUWGRafiq of the ManyWUBRGSliver Overlord
I'm not sure you really do agree with me then. What I proposed wouldn't remove the current practice of two people joining together and having joint property. It would jsut remove the term "marriage" from the sphere of government, and let everyone do it via civil union.
Yea, I'm going to go with not on the same page as me at all.