Ben Carson says Gay Marriage will lead to polygamy

Yup get government out of it

Then
[video=youtube;HH3ruuml-R4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH3ruuml-R4[/video]

 

That was part of my point, to illustrate the separateness of marriage and children. Many people think that the two should not be separated though, so more of a "moral requirement" than a "biological requirement," but they are wrong.

Responsibility for the child in no way requires marriage, or is even encouraged by it with how divorce would be better than being with somebody you can't stand. Nature didn't design it that way at all. Nature designed men to want to inseminate as many women as possible, which is not ideal for each child but is ideal for passing on his genes. Responsibility is determined by who the biological parents are (or at least it should be). Polygamy would make it easier to raise children, just like having a "village" helps to raise a child.

 

I guess I don't give it much thought because I do not yet have a grandson, and my daughter is 31.

 

There is no requirement for marriage. This is a straw man

He also made women discriminating trying to seek the best genes as well for her children. Men who want men then want to inseminate as many men as possible proving my point. If they were all like me they would spend all day in bed with as many partners as they could find. Give me 4 or 5 at a time. The more the merrier as long as they are attractive women or if I were gay attractive men. Men are pigs

I dont support that it takes a village BS

 

I was responding to the notion that children are harmed if they are not raised in a traditional marriage, and that the parents aren't taking responsibility for the child if anything else occurs. This isn't really the case though.

Well, it's kind of an extension of the two parents being better than a single parent idea in a way. You can learn something from some people that you can't learn from others, so it's good to have multiple teachers, and it's good to have teachers that have time for you. If you have multiple caring adults in the household, the kid has more opportunities for meaningful learning and interaction. But overall, quality is going to matter more than quantity. Having a healthy home isn't about whether it's traditional or polygamous, it's about whether you have caring, smart, capable adults there.

 

Presumably, then, you think the Founding Fathers, whose partisanship in opposition to British monarchical despotism was sufficiently intense to take them to the gravest extreme, were bereft of common sense.

If there's an ideology that has led you to buy into such a thunderous insult to common sense as "SSM", I have no idea what that ideology might be and I don't much care.

who gives a damn

The egotistically inclined always have an affinity for lies.

Then you have an emotional investment in such twaddle for other reasons.

No they could not, because such superficial benefits as you cite would surely be overbalanced, in the best case scenario, by the negative undercurrents that pass between the adults in such a morally bankrupt arrangement, which will undermine the child's sense of security at the very least.

Yes, and it will probably take even longer for our culture to divest itself of the stigma which makes it unpopular for adults to marry 5 year olds.

 

An Open Secret:
The Truth About Gay Male Couples


http://www.josephnicolosi.com/an-open-secret-the-truth-about/




Promoscuity,and SDS, are rampant among male homosexuals.

 

`
I did and as usual, all just your opinions, no facts.
`
`
`
`

 

There's probably some correlation there, but I'm not sure what I lied about.

Same reason I'm for abortion and drug legalization even though I won't be partaking in either: Freedom.

Now this is an interesting comment. What would you say is morally bankrupt about three adults having a loving, honest three-person relationship?

In a secular sense, morality should be defined based upon harm to other people. Morally bankrupt makes me think of somebody who rapes people just because they think they can get away with it, or who microwaves kittens in front of little girls, or more mildly somebody who successfully robs banks for some spending money. Having a parent like that would affect a child's moral compass. How "moral" a polygamous arrangement is is going to be depend on how they treat each other and others they interact with, not on whether there are 2, 3, or 4 people involved. Really the only risk I can see is that the kid's friends might find it weird that they have 3 "parents" and treat them differently because of it, but kids will always find a way to be mean to each other if they want to.

If you're coming from a religious direction, well it was clearly okay in the Old Testament (if done according to certain principles) and a matter of interpretation in the New Testament.

This makes me question the general intelligence of people. It seems obvious that just because early Mormons and some other morons from earlier times married underage girls and were polygamous doesn't mean that polygamy needs to involve underage marriage. Marrying a 5 year old will be wrong and invalid whether it's polygamous or monogamous.

 

Its only wrong until enough people decide its not and put enough pressure on the majority to change their thinking. Correct? Or, just use the courts to circumvent any silly democratic process=) Hey, if a 5 year old boy can confidently know he's actually a girl, why can't he decide to live with someone he loves? Sex isn't necessary for marriage, just LOVE. So whats the problem? Why let age get in the way?

 

I was not referring there to anything you said, but to whatever beliefs you must harbor in order to make such contentions as you have.

By which you mean license, obviously.

Those qualities are absent when more than two of them are in a sexual relationship.

Naturally you focus on the more spectacular manifestations of evil, most likely never having stopped to consider that rapists, microwavers of kittens and bank robbers are made and not born.

What you're conveniently missing, of course, is that when more than two people are sexually involved, negative undercurrents are unavoidable, which is not the case in traditional marriage.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

The question, obviously, is whether, being acknowledged by society as wrong and invalid in 2015, it will still be so acknowledged in 2055.

 

I'm not sure I see the connection between thinking it's okay for other people to do drugs and marry multiple people and arrogance or dishonesty. Maybe you mean disagreeing with the prevailing culture is arrogant?

I mean freedom in terms of how personal contracts are allowed to be set up, we just seem to differ on whether we think victimization is inherent to exercising such a freedom.

I definitely don't see how you can argue that honesty has to be absent. They can all be completely forthcoming about what they want and what is acceptable/unacceptable in a 3+ person arrangement. In terms of love, well love is difficult to define. You'd probably agree that it's possible to love multiple people in different ways, but is it possible to love more than one person in an intimate way? I think it is. If somebody were evenly bisexual, it might be ideal for them to have a relationship with both sexes, but they might not want the risk of STDs that comes with new and random partners. That doesn't mean they don't love one person or the other - just probably differently. People like that today would handle that with open marriages, but it can be unfair to the 3rd person as an equal contributor to the triad.

Are made by what though? Does growing up in a culture where it's okay to have sex with multiple people make you a rapist or a murderer?

You state that negative undercurrents are unavoidable, but you'll have to be more specific and, ideally, provide proof. Freedom is the default position in America, so if you want to restrict what people do the burden of proof is on you.

That's an example of God literally "giving" it to somebody, implying approval.

And God regulates (rather than prohibits) polygamy in Exodus.

I understand that conservatives see a slippery slope here with the gay equality movement and whatever comes afterwards, but there is no slope. The real rules of morality didn't change. Harming people is still wrong, and not harming people but acting outside of cultural norms is still okay and should be legally acknowledged as such. Thus in 2055, the right thing would be for polygamy to be okay, but marriage to 5-year olds not.

 

Democratic processes don't determine what's right. If a judge/jury rules to spare an innocent man, but most people want him dead, the judge/jury is still correct. We let age get in the way in this case not because of the number (I'm against ageism, actually), but because it is probably impossible for a 5-year-old to fully understand and want sex. So if somebody claims a 5-year-old consented to such a thing, they are full of (*)(*)(*)(*) and should be prosecuted.

 

I'm not against polygamy since it's procreative

 

We're seeing more and more kids less than 10 years old knowing for certain that they were born the wrong sex, so it shouldn't be much longer before they can consent to a lot more. Why would the argument be any different? Its sort of a rather huge decision to live as the opposite sex, compared to simply living with someone, if you want to break it down.

 

Id say obviously you dont understand the ruling. With marriage and procreation seperated by judicial fiat, there really is no justification for prohibiting polygamous marriages.

 

And I'm pretty sure you like it that way.

No, you mean license.

With each other, maybe, on a purely superficial level, but not with themselves.

No.

The sins of the parents, projected into the children.

No, it makes you emotionally insecure, and thus likely to repeat the cycle with your own children, until one of your descendants becomes a rapist or murderer.

The wives will be envious of each other and resentful of the husband, and the children will be aware of it though the adults are not.

The problem being, of course, that it is your ideas which are poisonous to freedom, not mine.

No, that's an example of tolerance, such as God has towards pretty much every other sin.

And nobody who reads the historical books of the OT in their entirety with an open mind will believe for a heartbeat that God ever endorsed polygamy.

By which you obviously mean those rules you don't find objectionable.

Which of course is no problem for those who wish to harm people as long as they're in a position to get "harm" legally defined so as be exclusive of their perversions.

 

Well, multiple women with one man is just one possibility, there's plenty of other combinations. But there's no reason that envy and resentment would be inevitable - it's not hardwired into us but taught to us by our culture, and even beyond that there are all kinds of people out there. I think some people could benefit from it, and those who would be harmed wouldn't want it in the first place. I don't think either of us is going to be able to provide proof of whether harm or benefit would result, so I guess that's all there is to say.

Here's an interesting perspective on it though: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201210/the-three-reasons-polygamy

 

And there is no constitutional mandate to require it either. Up to the states IMO

 

Posts like this really reveal your trolling nature.

 

Yes, I decided to deal with the least malignant possibility for brevity's sake.

Obviously it will seem that way to those who are content to understand nothing of human nature.

Of course it is.

There aren't any who are invulnerable to attacks on their psyche via base emotions, and to the temptation to respond in kind - other than saints and psychopaths.

The problem being, of course, that it doesn't much matter whether children "want it in the first place".