NationStates

if multiple partners are not of both genders its still biased.

Sundiata wrote:

Nova Bromelia wrote:What happens between two, or three, or five, or seventyeight, consenting adults should be entirely their own case, who am I to call that "bad"?

Well, most likely a Catholic.

Same thing with polygamy (although in that case I would advocate for triplechecking the "consenting" part. Or, you know what, let's do that for polyandry as well, to get one nice and clear rule in place)

Consent is not the sole determinant of whether or not an act is immoral.

To you.

Atheris wrote:

Ottomeme wrote:According to the laws of God, yes it is illegal.

The Lambeth Conference was the law of man justified by the way the law of God was interpreted. Isn't polygamy defended in the Old Testament?

Yes, you're referring to the civil laws of Ancient Israel.

Atheris wrote:

Ottomeme wrote:According to the laws of God, yes it is illegal.

The Lambeth Conference was the law of man justified by the way the law of God was interpreted. Isn't polygamy defended in the Old Testament?

Polygyny not polyandry. https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0220.htm#2

Sundiata wrote:

Ottomeme wrote:According to the laws of God, yes it is illegal.

While you're not wrong about that, the state should also follow suit with respect to that moral trend.

Religious morals should not influence political decisions.
See First Amendment for the US.

Kernen wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Well, most likely a Catholic.

Consent is not the sole determinant of whether or not an act is immoral.

To you.

To God.

No, as long as they are open to their partners on it.

Promising monogamy while having multiple partners is bad.

Same goes for polygyny.

Sundiata wrote:

Kernen wrote:To you.

To God.

A consideration entirely irrelevant to most participants of polygamous relationships.

Sundiata wrote:

Atheris wrote:The Lambeth Conference was the law of man justified by the way the law of God was interpreted. Isn't polygamy defended in the Old Testament?

Yes, you're referring to the civil laws of Ancient Israel.

That are in the Bible, what Christians consider the word of God (Also us Muslims consider parts of the Bible, including that part to be the word of God). Also didn't Jesus say "not an iota will be gone from the law until all is accomplished"?

Sundiata wrote:

Atheris wrote:The Lambeth Conference was the law of man justified by the way the law of God was interpreted. Isn't polygamy defended in the Old Testament?

Yes, you're referring to the civil laws of Ancient Israel.

I see. How does polyandry, then, go against the laws of God? Didn't Solomon practice it?

Yea, any form of polygamy is bad.

Old Tyrannia wrote:Anything other than monogamy is immoral and anti-social.

States should not extend legal recognition to polygamous relationships, regardless of gender ratio, and society should reject such arrangements as acceptable ways of living.

It's only immoral if you are religious, but it is not anti-social.

People should be able to determine themselves what is acceptable, not the state.
Who I choose to be with is not up to any government.

Celritannia wrote:

Sundiata wrote:While you're not wrong about that, the state should also follow suit with respect to that moral trend.

Religious morals should not influence political decisions.
See First Amendment for the US.

But isn't that tantamount to disenfranchising monotheists? I'm fine with a Christian voting as a Christian or a Jew as a Jew so long as I can also vote as a Muslim.

Sundiata wrote:

Kernen wrote:To you.

To God.

What if people, like myself, do not believe in the existence of a God?

And why should your religion be the only one to determine what is moral?

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
Religious morals should not influence political decisions.
See First Amendment for the US.

But isn't that tantamount to disenfranchising monotheists? I'm fine with a Christian voting as a Christian or a Jew as a Jew so long as I can also vote as a Muslim.

Nope. You can vote as you will for representatives but can't entangle state and church.

Celritannia wrote:Religious morals should not influence political decisions.

Yes, yes they should.

See First Amendment for the US.

The Founding Fathers were wrong, not completely wrong, but wrong nonetheless.

Celritannia wrote:

Sundiata wrote:To God.

And what if people, like myself, do not believe in the existence of a God?

You know the answer. It's fuck'em, but prettier sounding.

Sundiata wrote:

Celritannia wrote:Religious morals should not influence political decisions.

Yes, yes they should.

See First Amendment for the US.

The Founding Fathers were wrong, not completely wrong, but wrong nonetheless.

And have a theocratic fascist state to deny happiness to people?

Celritannia wrote:

Sundiata wrote:To God.

And what if people, like myself, do not believe in the existence of a God?

Then you're mistaken.

There's nothing wrong with polyamory.

Old Tyrannia wrote:Anything other than monogamy is immoral and anti-social.

States should not extend legal recognition to polygamous relationships, regardless of gender ratio, and society should reject such arrangements as acceptable ways of living.

But isn't it pro-social in a society where there are many more women than men (E.G. Russia especially Chechnya)?

Sundiata wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
And what if people, like myself, do not believe in the existence of a God?

Then you're mistaken.

Kernen wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
And what if people, like myself, do not believe in the existence of a God?

You know the answer. It's fuck'em, but prettier sounding.

See?

Atheris wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Yes, you're referring to the civil laws of Ancient Israel.

I see. How does polyandry, then, go against the laws of God? Didn't Solomon practice it?

Solomon at most was given a dispensation due to special circumstances.

The Church has condemned polygamy since its earliest days. (See De Monogamia by Tertullian, for example)

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
Religious morals should not influence political decisions.
See First Amendment for the US.

But isn't that tantamount to disenfranchising monotheists? I'm fine with a Christian voting as a Christian or a Jew as a Jew so long as I can also vote as a Muslim.

That's the thing, because western countries are quite multicultural, why should one group of people usurp the rights of another?
This is why secularist policies help everyone, because they are not determined by religion.

Sundiata wrote:

Kernen wrote:To you.

To God.

What are your god's reasons and why should people consider them valid?