Originally posted by jaden101
Ah the old 'free man of the land' nonsense. So far as I know not one of them has ever had an argument stand up in court.
That's cos those Freemen aren't as well versed in the law as they'd like to believe, they show up to court thinking they know how to handle themselves but usually by the time they get to court they've already made themselves susceptable to sanctions on various fronts.
Originally posted by dadudemonYeah, Big Love was a pretty good show in the early seasons.
Emphasis mine. "Many" implies there are a lot. There aren't. There are just a handful of breakaways and they are not "Mormons" nor do they call themselves, such. They specifically give themselves alternative names as to not be confused for the main "sect". RLDS, for example (they no longer do polygamy, either, as I understand them).
Originally posted by dadudemon
Emphasis mine. "Many" implies there are a lot. There aren't. There are just a handful of breakaways and they are not "Mormons" nor do they call themselves, such. They specifically give themselves alternative names as to not be confused for the main "sect". RLDS, for example (they no longer do polygamy, either, as I understand them).
I believe there are more than you think, the FLDS being the most infamous, but I concede the point that they do not refer to themselves as "Mormons" even though they still often use The Book of Mormon.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That implies an extremely restrictive society.
That implies freedom to act as they (polygamists) want to, as long as they consent to living together in a household with 3 or more.
If they all agree, there should be no problem and it's none of anyone's business what they do.
However societies are defined as a group of people acting together to achieve a common goal. If some people are born in a society, and they disagree with what 'rules' (culture) that society has, they have to right to live their own life as they wish as long as their actions do not infringe on other people.
Originally posted by GCG
That implies freedom to act as they (polygamists) want to, as long as they consent to living together in a household with 3 or more.
No, all someone has to do is claim they don't like it and polygamy will be banned.
"Their choices infringe on my desire to not have polygamists within 3000 miles of me!"
"Send in the SWAT team!"
Sidebar: I think freedom is dumb and fails even basic tests of self consistency.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, all someone has to do is claim they don't like it and polygamy will be banned."Their choices infringe on my desire to not have polygamists within 3000 miles of me!"
"Send in the SWAT team!"Sidebar: I think freedom is dumb and fails even basic tests of self consistency.
I don't understand what the problem is. If one does not like polygamy, then all they need to do is not be a part of it. It's that simple.
I think the only limits on marriage should be:
1. Parties involved are all adults.
2. Parties involved give their free mutual consent and are coherent and have all of their faculties about them.
3. Parties involved are human (at least until we encounter other humanoid species which are genetically compatible with us, at which point just limitations 1 & 2).
Beyond that, have at it.
Originally posted by MF DELPH
(at least until we encounter other humanoid species which are genetically compatible with us, at which point just limitations 1 & 2).
And what do you mean by "genetic compatibility"? Do you mean compatible for sex, or compatible for producing offspring? Because the latter is almost certainly impossible.
Originally posted by GCG
I don't understand what the problem is. If one does not like polygamy, then all they need to do is not be a part of it. It's that simple.
It has infringed on their personal comfort. You never defined what "infringed" meant. Of course you didn't, I don't blame you for that, I'm sure you just don't want to own up to the fact that what you really want is the restrictions that make you happiest. The rights of polygamists to be marry are not a priori any more legitimate than the rights of those who do not wish polygamy to be legal. You must choose to restrict one group or other other, they cannot both be satisfied at once. Once you do you can step past the idiotic notion that you care about having a free society.
We should infringe on a murderer's right to kill.
We should infringe on a government's right to prevent polygamy.
To never allow anyone to "infringe" on anyone else is nonsense designed to manipulate stupid people. It just means you want to infringe on things you don't like. Guess what, everybody wants that. Don't fool yourself by dressing it up in soundbytes.
Originally posted by MF DELPH
I mean compatible as in introducing their genome to our own won't cause crazy viral mutations which could make us all go extinct via a pandemic. Procreation isn't an issue. Marriage isn't solely for procreating. It's about sharing your life with someone you love.*edit
Or money. Let's be real.
I agree with the rest of your post.