vbnautilus 48 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I mean, it's no wonder this guy fell victim to religion, amirite? Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I think the point is that bigamy is illegal. Do you think it should be legal just for Mormons due to religious freedom?Neither, I don't think government should be involved in sanctioning any marriages. If a guy has 6 women that agree of their own free will to "marry" him and all live together, then what is to stop them. I think that would be a disaster, but to each his own. Why do you want it to be illegal. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Why do you want it to be illegal.Because in Utah (where bigamy is practiced), it is notoriously sleazy and rapey. Like, girls are essentially forced at age 14 to marry a 50-year-old man because they have the "permission" of their parents. Obviously that's not always the case, but it is widespread (within bigamist communities) and horrible. It also subjugates women, pretty much as a rule. Who's ever heard of a woman having multiple husbands? No, bigamy is always the other way round. For those and other reasons bigamy is harmful to the general well-being of a society, and to the specific well-being of many people who have essentially no choice. Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Either you are fighting for1. The law to be repealed and therefore apply to no one, in which case you need not invoke religion at allOr2. The law to exist but have an exception for religious organizations#2 is how the law is written, but there has been a squabble about which religious organizations get exempt. That is what spurred the current discussion. You now seem to be vacillating on what you want.I want number one. But if that does not happen then #2. I have been arguing mainly in this thread about 2. Hopefully the courts will help with number 1. They will be challanging the individual mandate, that you can compel the folks to buy something they don't want to buy.An interview about upcoming court case. http://reason.tv/video/show/ilya-somin-on-why-the-individu Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Because in Utah (where bigamy is practiced), it is notoriously sleazy and rapey. Like, girls are essentially forced at age 14 to marry a 50-year-old man because they have the "permission" of their parents. Obviously that's not always the case, but it is widespread (within bigamist communities) and horrible. It also subjugates women, pretty much as a rule. Who's ever heard of a woman having multiple husbands? No, bigamy is always the other way round. For those and other reasons bigamy is harmful to the general well-being of a society, and to the specific well-being of many people who have essentially no choice.Sounds like a good reason to make it illegal, I said earlier I am only for it if everyone is on board and of age. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 To continue the bigamist tangent, I agree that if everyone involved were over 18 or whatever and were doing it of their own accord then it would be hard to find good reasons to make it illegal, and I'm curious what the actual reasons for the law are. It does of course subjugate women no matter what age, but if a grown woman wants to be publicly subjugated by her husband then nobody can really stop her. Wearing a burqa, for example. Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 ....but if a grown woman wants to be subjugated by her husband then nobody can really stop her. Wearing a burqa, for example.I mean couldn't you argue that porn has an overall negative efffect by degrading women and portraying them as sex objects. I think you are right, if a woman wants to put herself in these situations of her own free will, then that overrides how it effects women as a whole. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Neither, I don't think government should be involved in sanctioning any marriages. If a guy has 6 women that agree of their own free will to "marry" him and all live together, then what is to stop them. I think that would be a disaster, but to each his own. Why do you want it to be illegal.I don't.I want number one. But if that does not happen then #2. I have been arguing mainly in this thread about 2.Right, and I have been arguing against #2. That's why its confusing for you to switch to #1. Do you see how #2 involves discrimination based on religion? Do you think its ok that both Joe and I eat peyote, then I get arrested and he doesn't simply because I don't have the same religious beliefs that he does? Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Because in Utah (where bigamy is practiced), it is notoriously sleazy and rapey. Like, girls are essentially forced at age 14 to marry a 50-year-old man because they have the "permission" of their parents. Obviously that's not always the case, but it is widespread (within bigamist communities) and horrible. It also subjugates women, pretty much as a rule. Who's ever heard of a woman having multiple husbands? No, bigamy is always the other way round. For those and other reasons bigamy is harmful to the general well-being of a society, and to the specific well-being of many people who have essentially no choice.I guess another point is how does a law against bigomy really stop this. There are already laws against Rape. Can a parent give permission for their underage child to have sex with someone older than 17? I would think this is already illegal, but maybe not. Link to post Share on other sites
The Ocho 970 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I have scrolled through the top 3 or 4 threads in the past couple days. I literally have not been able to read through any one post completely. You guys are terrible right now. Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I don't.Right, and I have been arguing against #2. That's why its confusing for you to switch to #1. Do you see how #2 involves discrimination based on religion? Do you think its ok that both Joe and I eat peyote, then I get arrested and he doesn't simply because I don't have the same religious beliefs that he does?Yes, I see what you mean, it doesn't make sense for it to be that way. I think religious people should be libertarians. It would be the best thing for them. The libertarians have a subset of anti-religious bigots which helps to keep this from happening. I know there are some good reasons to stand against religious organizations, you probably have some, though, you have kind of admitted that you have antipithy for all religion. Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I have scrolled through the top 3 or 4 threads in the past couple days. I literally have not been able to read through any one post completely. You guys are terrible right now.This is a poker forum entitled Daniel's pokerblog which discusses a wide range of subjects almost all off topic. I am just curious, what did you expect to find? Plato and Aristotle? I agree with you though, it has been a lot better at times than it has been lately. I am a blackjack dealer who mainly argues against a lawyer(Caine) and two other guys with advanced degrees. LLY and Vb. I don't know as much about timwakefield. I guess he is a retired knuckle ball pitcher. I have a college degree but I have never taken a class in logic or philosophy(maybe I did take History of Philosophy) so you are not going to get those types of arguments from me. I will not apologize for that, because... for Gods sake!... I am on a poker site!! Link to post Share on other sites
The Ocho 970 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I don't expect anything, except to be entertained. I have been the opposite of entertained. Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I have a college degree but I have never taken a class in logic or philosophy so you are not going to get those types of arguments from me. I will not apologize for that, because... for Gods sake!... I am on a poker site!!Did you just say we aren't going to get logical arguments from you because we're on a poker site? Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Did you just say we aren't going to get logical arguments from you because we're on a poker site?Ok Dammit!! You aren't going to get a formal debate from me because I don't have the training. And because this is a forum about a poker blog. It is not a debate society. Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I don't expect anything, except to be entertained. I have been the opposite of entertained... again you have access to the Internet.. yet, ..to be entertained .....you come to a poker blog where they are debating politics? Just Kidding!! I don't know where all the flamers have gone. Have you checked the religion forum? Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 But what I don't get is why a 13 year old girl is allowed to go to a country that is on the 'not recommended for travel' lists of the US State Department for spring break.My 16 year old daughter was refused by me to go to Mexico. Anyone who knows anything refuses their child to go to party in Mexico. But 13 years old?I don't care that 25 secret service agents were required to go with her, I don't care that the whole trip is paid for by US taxpayers.I want to know what parent is this stupid?And now there's a 7.6 earthquake in Mexico. Coincidence? Probably. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 My goodness. I missed a page. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 And now there's a 7.6 earthquake in Mexico. Coincidence? Probably. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 broken link, BG. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 broken link, BG.Or is it?Just in case here's something else the reasonable people on this site can discuss while vb tries to argue something about why he needs peyote... Link to post Share on other sites
The Ocho 970 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I see Cage as the type of guy who would run with this, it could easily become 7-8 movies for him as well. Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Or is it? Just in case here's something else the reasonable people on this site can discuss while vb tries to argue something about why he needs peyote...Love it. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 Or is it?Yes, it is. It just says "Tripod is hosting this." Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Yes, it is. It just says "Tripod is hosting this."Obama strikes again! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now