| Click here to go to the original topic View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
F'losrix
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 8010
Location: Michigan, Washtenaw County
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
ToonArmyIsComing wrote: John Galt wrote: The Netherlands has officially descended down the slippery slope, making the slippery slope argument all the more vaild. I have shown it HAS happened, so now what say you?
Skeptical Mystic wrote: The U.S. is not the Netherlands and it never will be.
If anything, this article makes the case for why civil unions present a loophole for polygamists and why creating a two tier system of recognition for couples' unions is a bad idea (if one is opposed to polygamy). It does not validate your slippery slope argument that we if we allow gay couples to get married we'll have to let in polygamists and other kinds of unions you consider 'unholy'.
What is wrong with being a polygamist? :? I don't understand why they should be prevented from marrying each other.
Besides, it would be hypocritical to consider polygamists bad when "monogamist" marriage in many cases is not even worth the paper it's written on because of the high divorce rates!
Hence my parenthetical above. Polygamy itself doesn't necessarily strike me as patently immoral, but it has often been applied in ways that foster the oppression of women. And it's a potential minefield for government to try to navigate when it comes to issues of estate handling, child custody, etc. So while I think there are potential problems associated with it, I can't lay my finger on an argument that would make me oppose it outright. |
|
| Back to top |
|
John Galt
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 21243
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Skeptical Mystic wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: John Galt wrote: The Netherlands has officially descended down the slippery slope, making the slippery slope argument all the more vaild. I have shown it HAS happened, so now what say you?
Skeptical Mystic wrote: The U.S. is not the Netherlands and it never will be.
If anything, this article makes the case for why civil unions present a loophole for polygamists and why creating a two tier system of recognition for couples' unions is a bad idea (if one is opposed to polygamy). It does not validate your slippery slope argument that we if we allow gay couples to get married we'll have to let in polygamists and other kinds of unions you consider 'unholy'.
What is wrong with being a polygamist? :? I don't understand why they should be prevented from marrying each other.
Besides, it would be hypocritical to consider polygamists bad when "monogamist" marriage in many cases is not even worth the paper it's written on because of the high divorce rates!
Hence my parenthetical above. Polygamy itself doesn't necessarily strike me as patently immoral, but it has often been applied in ways that foster the oppression of women. And it's a potential minefield for government to try to navigate when it comes to issues of estate handling, child custody, etc. So while I think there are potential problems associated with it, I can't lay my finger on an argument that would make me oppose it outright.
It's basically because of its associated oppression of women. In fact, one would suspect that without the oppression of women where both polygamy and polyandry were legal, only polyandry would be present. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Click here to go to the original topic |
|
