Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on June 28, 2011 at 10:53pm

The concern among adults who care about the well-being of other humans is that the women in polygamous relationships are rarely "consenting" in the true sense of the word.  They submit to the relationship. 

 The male, however, is the predator and rules the roost.  The power and the choices are his.  This is exploitation, not equal partnership.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaytor on June 30, 2011 at 1:57pm

Your argument doesn't follow. Gay people marrying each other brings no harm to either party. As much as polygamists promote their way of life on TV and in other places, it causes harm to all parties. It devalues the woman as being less important and subjugates her to the choices of the man. Consenting is not the end all of things being cool. A virgin cannot choose to sacrifice herself to a god. You can't beat a child even if they wanted to be handled according to the word of god. And just because Joseph Smith was cool with polygamy, doesn't mean that the mental/emotional abuse is cool. Polygamy exists virtually only in a religious context. Why do you suppose that is? If a religious act causes demonstrable harm, it's limited. Think about faith healing. 

 

Civil unions are not recognized as the same as marriage. They are not widespread. Why should my cousin not have the exact same rights as me?  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on June 30, 2011 at 2:41pm

The civil marriage is part of the women's problem in these contexts. Only the first wife has the civil perks, the secondary wives of only religious whores for the male.

 

However, in an alternate social organisation, polygamy would allow absolute equal rights to each wife, and allow them freedom of choice. There is no fundamental reason for polygamy to be harmful, only stupid fundie organisations cause harm.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaytor on June 30, 2011 at 3:41pm

And the #1 Google Search for Secular Polygamy turns up a website with 183 views. Who wants to bet on how many of those views were from the creator? This is a religious issue. Picking out exceptions or how it could be ignores the norm, and the abuse.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on June 28, 2011 at 1:52pm

LDS morons are not morons because of polygamy, they are morons because of their supernatural belief structure. Polygamy among atheists would be entirely different, as it is in nature.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barry Eckert on January 4, 2012 at 7:25am

Um, no. 8 US states permit same sex civil unions, a long way from being "most". Furthermore, these unions are not recognized by the Federal government, which is prohibited from doing so by the abhorrent DOMA.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. del Toro on June 28, 2011 at 3:07am

Equal rights should be for everyone.  It starts getting fuzzy when people want to marry more than one person.  Technically marriage is just a financial arrangement with some benefits and some risks.  I think that any two people should be able to get married if they want.  I can't agree with pumpkin head's definition of marriage as being strictly between a man and a woman.  It's really just a contract.  The most common marriage in America has been Christian marriage, but I had a small wedding in a courthouse with no prayer and no mention of God (and I was xtian at the time).

 

I guess it would be interesting to see what arguments any atheists would be against equal rights for LGBT.  I would suggest watching the episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit that has to do with "Family Values".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pumpkin head on June 28, 2011 at 3:24am

so it's always and forever to you been just two people?  until recently for me i'd never much considered anything other than a man and a woman, and i don't think the world has either?  i dunno much about the japanese culture, but they're atheists.  is gay marriage something they've always had through their history?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on June 28, 2011 at 3:36am

I am against all marriages. I am generally against adding anyone to the human population, and am specially turned off my marriage RIGHTS, in the sense of benefits and perks and breaks... all these, no matter the sex of the actors. I cannot help one group to access something I am against to begin with.

 

The only people who have any justification to receive marriage "perks" is a parent staying at home to raise a child. Double incomes deserve no perks. Our social structure is presently designed to reward breeders. Couples who insist on marriage, with perks, but have no intent to breed I am completely NOT in support of. The reason our society favours breeders over non-breeders is that our economy is designed strictly for constant growth, which requires constant new cheap labour. Our governments will continue to subsidise breeders, until we take a stand against it. If atheists can't step up to the plate on this one, I really don't see whom else will. The earlier feminist movement had begun to go down this path, but, in my entourage at least, breeding is fully back in fashion again :(

 

In addition, when governments give perks to married people, it is discriminating against single/non-breeders, in our modern overpopulated humanity, I find this untenable. Women choosing not to breed are right at the bottom of the list along with atheists and gays as the least respected members of society and that needs changing.

 

Beyond the concept of marriage contracts for perks, I have no issues with any adult who chooses to live his/her life with another, no matter the sexual orientation.

 

As far as breeding goes, beyond the fact that I'm against it on principal, I distinguish between lesbian couples and gay couples and womb rentals. From a biological ethics standpoint, the very first right a baby has is to fresh breast milk, all other rights come after. Therefore any child conceived with full knowledge/intent that it will not have access to fresh breast milk is to me a crime against humanity, on the same scale as brainwashing a child into religion. Some may disagree with the latter as well... so be it.

 

I have no sympathy whatsoever for people "aching" to be parents. Beyond that, there are plenty of orphans on this planet who need parents way more than un-conceived. I have as little empathy for desperate wannabe parents as I have for Paris Hilton and her baby-toy-chihuahua. So many teens today use pregnancy to act-out psychological issues, and the adults who are willing to pay any amount to conceive their own little toy IMHO have the very same psychological issues.

 

Here's to the annulment of all marriage contracts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pumpkin head on June 28, 2011 at 3:45am

very well said.  agree with a lot just not as good at putting it to words. 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sassan K. on June 28, 2011 at 3:55am

IF you do not have any children, you are weak and your genes dissipate. IT is against evolutionary instincts. Therefore, those who do not procreate simply means they die out for being among the weak of our species.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on June 28, 2011 at 4:14am

Interestingly, very many people seem to believe "their" genes are worth reproducing... whereas in many other mammals, it's not all individuals who procreate. Breeding in our society has become the equivalent of self validation.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page