Multiparent Madness

[KarateCowboy]

(the following is a hypothetical argument)

Given that a loving family is all that matters, and there scientific evidence to show that big families are more healthy and stable, I think it might be a bad idea to deny the adoption of children by companies. After all, what's worse, two bad parents or 1822 good ones? I think the argument for two parent families is archaic, non-progressive, and pretty much debunked in light of the above. Furthermore, the inclusion of children into society is plus plus better when the family better prepares them for it, and as we all know: society is more than just two people. Furthermore, a large multi-parent family is much more stable than a two parent family because if two people die in a car accident a loving family remains.

I hope that you will be tolerant and not try to force your beliefs on others. Also, I think that in the future those who oppose it will be considered double plus ungood.

(EDIT: The purpose of this thread is not to deride. I am trying to think what we some day might hear, given the current stuff going on with the marriage debate. Furthermore, I am trying to show how some arguments used by the pro-homosexual marriage philosophy can be applied to justify many, many things. )

 

[OdwinOddball]

I will wonder if I have to send all of them cards on their aniversary(s), or if one will suffice.

 

[JGG]

Think of all the birthday presents!

 

[KarateCowboy]

Think of all the birthday presents!

Holy crud. I didn't even think of that.

 

[JGG]

(EDIT: The purpose of this thread is not to deride. I am trying to think what we some day might hear, given the current stuff going on with the marriage debate. Furthermore, I am trying to show how some arguments used by the pro-homosexual marriage philosophy can be applied to justify many, many things. Also, I disagree with homosexual marriage, but this is not a condemnation of anyone.)

So this is a wedge argument? Just so I know up front.

(EDIT: Phew, that's better)

 

[KarateCowboy]

I'm not familiar with that term, but I guess is that if I were the answer would be yes.

 

[Zaac]

Hillary was right. It does take a village.

 

[JGG]

I'm not familiar with that term.

It means you argue not to do something reasonable now because of the possibility that it may lead to something questionable later. You make a decision not based on the merits of the argument at hand, but based on the consequences the success of that argument will have on other more difficult topics.

 

[KarateCowboy]

It means you argue not to do something reasonable now because of the possibility that it may lead to something questionable later. You make a decision not based on the merits of the argument at hand, but based on the consequences the success of that argument will have on other more difficult topics.

That's not what I had in mind in posting this.

 

[DietCherryCola]

I want to know what their grocery bill is like.

 

[JGG]

That's not what I had in mind in posting this.

We'll see won't we?

Personally, I don't see a problem with it, children are incredibly adaptive, and there are societies (some within the United States) which raise children in similar circumstances.

 

[Belk]

I want to know what their grocery bill is like.

I want to see their joint tax return.

 

[KarateCowboy]

You know I was thinking about the whole marriage debate, and also thinking about Brave New World. Do you think we could end up like that? I mean, once we get to the point of 'all we need is consent' the next step is 'everyone belongs to everybody'.

 

[DietCherryCola]

You know I was thinking about the whole marriage debate, and also thinking about Brave New World. Do you think we could end up like that? I mean, once we get to the point of 'all we need is consent' the next step is 'everyone belongs to everybody'.

Now that's a freaky book. Have you read the Handmaid's Tail? Slightly similar premise.

 

[wblastyn]

Maybe you should ask King Solomon's kids?

 

[george78]

KarateCowboy, It's actually an excellent question, as the New Jersey Appellate Court noted:

[A] core feature of marriage is its binary, opposite-sex nature. Interestingly, plaintiffs admittedly have no quarrel with the legal requirement that marriage be limited to a union of two people. But, the binary idea of marriage arose precisely because there are two sexes. Plaintiffs simply have not posited an alternative theory of marriage that would include members of the same sex, but still limit the arrangement to couples, or that would otherwise justify the distinction. If, however, the meaning of marriage and the right to marital status is sufficiently defined without reference to gender, then what principled objection could there be to removing its binary barrier as well? If, for instance, marriage were only defined with reference to emotional or financial interdependence, couched only in terms of privacy, intimacy, and autonomy, then what non-arbitrary ground is there for denying the benefit to polygamous or endogamous unions whose members claim the arrangement is necessary for their self-fulfillment?
The legal nature of marriage cannot be totally malleable lest the durability and viability of this fundamental social institution be seriously compromised, if not entirely destabilized. Because the reasons for the existence of marriage retain substantial vitality to date, because the "specialness" of its opposite-sex feature makes it meaningful and achieves important public purposes, and because the meaning and value of alternative theories are speculative and unknown, the State's interest in maintaining the traditional gender block is rationally based. Lewis V Harris.



BTW: There is a reason that homo-apologists brush off the excellent question that you asked. The 1972 Homosexual Rights Platform called for polyamory and polygamy.

 

[JGG]

KarateCowboy, It's actually an excellent question, as the New Jersey Appellate Court noted:

[A] core feature of marriage is its binary, opposite-sex nature. Interestingly, plaintiffs admittedly have no quarrel with the legal requirement that marriage be limited to a union of two people. But, the binary idea of marriage arose precisely because there are two sexes. Plaintiffs simply have not posited an alternative theory of marriage that would include members of the same sex, but still limit the arrangement to couples, or that would otherwise justify the distinction. If, however, the meaning of marriage and the right to marital status is sufficiently defined without reference to gender, then what principled objection could there be to removing its binary barrier as well? If, for instance, marriage were only defined with reference to emotional or financial interdependence, couched only in terms of privacy, intimacy, and autonomy, then what non-arbitrary ground is there for denying the benefit to polygamous or endogamous unions whose members claim the arrangement is necessary for their self-fulfillment?
The legal nature of marriage cannot be totally malleable lest the durability and viability of this fundamental social institution be seriously compromised, if not entirely destabilized. Because the reasons for the existence of marriage retain substantial vitality to date, because the "specialness" of its opposite-sex feature makes it meaningful and achieves important public purposes, and because the meaning and value of alternative theories are speculative and unknown, the State's interest in maintaining the traditional gender block is rationally based. Lewis V Harris.



BTW: There is a reason that homo-apologists brush off the excellent question that you asked. The 1972 Homosexual Rights Platform called for polyamory and polygamy.

See? Wedge argument.

 

[suzybeezy]

Closed for staff review

 

[suzybeezy]

Review complete - thread reopened.


Note: Please avoid the baiting kinda comments please and try to stay on topic.

 

[JGG]

BTW: There is a reason that homo-apologists brush off the excellent question that you asked. The 1972 Homosexual Rights Platform called for polyamory and polygamy.

I'm not sure what this has to do with polygamy, or polyamory, or who brushed it off. But I'm fine with it with the idea if someone is ready to adopt, and raise the child. Like I said, it wouldn't be the first time a child has been raised by a large group of people.

I would disagree with a Truman Show type scenairo where the child is used for financial gain though.