Am Colph, your call for honesty is commendable and completely appropriate.  However, these old farts are going to die off, and younger folks do not believe as they do...happily.

Jun 17, 2012 -- 4:10PM, amcolph wrote:

Jun 17, 2012 -- 3:02PM, TENAC wrote:

Morocco, in my case, but the same situation is found in all Islamic countries where polygamy is legal.

You are wrong.  This is why these discussions go for 400+ posts.

In Morocco legislation has been enacted to limit polygamy and is almost non existent.  

In islam.  We need to aspire to create a society as such?  This is really weak Am, even for you.
 

 

They very well may be--I lived in Morocco thirty years ago.

My point is not wrong, as your post makes clear.  I was only trying to point out to you that even where polygamy is legal and accepted, it does not lead to the destruction of one man-one woman marriage.

Indeed, all of this 'slippery slope' hysteria does nothing but call your intellectual integrity into question.

Am, you are not alone in that thought, feeling, emotion as evidenced by many on this thread.  And I realize that, but it drives home and demonstrates better than anything else the incredible chasm between the left and right.

The left debates exactly have we have now, and at the end of the day, the structure that allows for the most stable society is the committed man and committed woman in marriage.  But you or some other from the leftist thought pattern will come to this post, make some ambigous, obtuse analysis that has nothing to do with the fact I have stated in order to continue to blur the lines.

A man and a woman in a monogamous marriage is the most stabilizing structure in society today and historically.  You have no other example of that in an alterntive combination.  But the emotion of inequity and guilt the left lives with is hard to overcome.

Looking for a ssm or polygamous marriage promoting society that is in the forefront of an advancing society is next to an impossible task.

If anything, I would like to see marriage further strengthened by getting rid of the no fault divorce which as done more damage to traditional marriage and our society overall than anything and perhaps even what ssm would do.  To do so would likely drive down the rates of people getting married, but I would rather have fewer and stronger marriages than what we have today.

(on a side note, repeal of no fault divorce laws would almost eliminate the ideal of ssm).

Jun 17, 2012 -- 4:58PM, amcolph wrote:

Jun 17, 2012 -- 4:41PM, TENAC wrote:

 

A man and a woman in a monogamous marriage is the most stabilizing structure in society today and historically.

So it is, and allowing a few people to engage in polygamy--and it will always be a few, as Islamic societies prove to us--evidently does not detract from it.

The argument for SSM is the same.  Allowing a few homosexuals to marry--and it will always be a few, as homosexuals are and will remain a small fraction of society and not all of those will wish to marry--would not detract from one man, one woman marriage either, as far as I can tell, any more than polygamy does.

Looking for a ssm or polygamous marriage promoting society that is in the forefront of an advancing society is next to an impossible task.

You are assuming that if SSM is allowed it will dominate heterosexual marriage.  Why should it?  Polygamy doesn't, as we have seen--and the number of individuals able to enter into SSM is severely limited, while those who are potentially capable of entering into polygamous relationships is not.

 

 

It is an impossibility for homosexual unions of any type to dominate heterosexual.  The shear numbers wouldnt allow it.   But for the heterosexual left that wish to pat the homosexual on the head with a "there, there, " on one hand then turn and say "it cant hurt anyting" on the other makes that  type of attitude is condescending at best.

My argument here has always been what is best for society.  It eases your guilt to bring ssm into our culture.  If ssm or unions could build a strong culture it would have done so, but historically it cannot. 

Liberals tend to live for today while conservatives ten to look at things after they're gone.  If we saw a strong, civilized homosexual society anywhere in the world it may be something to consider.  But there is none. 

In medicine we seek best practices.  We should do this socially as well.

as I said, those who feel in the uncharitable way towards others as some of you here do, monopolizing what a marriage is and is not based upon your own prejudices and B.S.  Your voice is not the minority voice now, but it soon will be, thank God.  so really, go on with your churlish old selves...  I mean it ...go on!  go away...your words are hate-filled and injure my sensitive ears...

Jun 17, 2012 -- 5:46PM, Armwar wrote:

Prove in some statistical or other terms that the marriage between a man and a woman is one of the most stabilizing forces in America...that is your opinion, but you tout it as if it is a fact.

 

It is not.  Prove me wrong in my counter-assertion---yes, MY opinion, every bit as strong as yours, but still I recognize it as opinion...as least I am that far ahead of you in reality-checking.

You could grant it arguendo and their argument still wouldn't hold water.