- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mark Dice: CNN endorsed open marriages as “healthy”
Posted on 7/2/18 at 2:30 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Posted on 7/2/18 at 2:30 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
I don't agree with this. When it comes to the spectrum of sexual activity between consenting adults, I don't believe it's destructive.
This isn't only about sexual activity. This is about the family unit. Cheapening the family unit is destructive. In a similar way, cheating on a spouse without their knowledge still has destructive results, IMO. It naturally results in a weaker family unit which is central to the health and happiness of the generation growing up in those environments.
quote:
We don't know this for a fact. Hell, similar rhetoric was trotted out once upon a time decrying interracial unions as the potential downfall of society.
I get your point. But, the folly doesn't justify every suggested change.
I'm going to guess assume you think marriage is a benefit to society. If not, then this is probably a moot point. Personally, I think it's self-evident.
If you redefine marriage to be something it is not, it's ridiculous to expect the same benefit simply because you still term it marriage.
I'm going to go ahead and suggest that removing fidelity and commitment from the definition of marriage fundamentally changes it to the point where it's no longer going to have the same benefit...whereas the historical change to include interracial marriage did not.
1
Posted on 7/2/18 at 2:33 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
We don't know this for a fact. Hell, similar rhetoric was trotted out once upon a time decrying interracial unions as the potential downfall of society.
I was just about to bring this up.
These were the same people decrying gay marriage. Nothing could be further from the truth.
There are couples who have lived together for years sans the legal document who do just fine.
How people choose to live their lives and enjoy that life with whatever significant other they choose does not affect the nation in anyway.
It's hilarious how fragile Trumpkins think America is...
Posted on 7/2/18 at 2:35 pm to moneyg
quote:
Of course redefining it to include gays could have chipped away at its value.
How so.
I'd like details here.
quote:
Trying to redefine marriage to something that it isn't (no longer monogamous) would also chip away at it.
Again, give me details. Are you telling me that I guy who has a loving relationship with two women who both know about the other girl and are happy with it is somehow cause damage to the marriage institution?
The divorce rate in this country wouldn't change either way.
Posted on 7/2/18 at 2:35 pm to asurob1
quote:The long-term negative effects on society are worse than the temporary feeling of happiness that people get for having their immorality tolerated or even accepted.
Why?
quote:It further normalized a destructive lifestyle and desensitized the nation to further sexual deviancy.
When gays were allowed to legally wed...did it destroy marriage in your eyes?
Did people suddenly stop getting married?
Did the wedding industry crank to a halt?
Nothing changed with marriage except a few more people got to be happy.
(And no doubt some divorces lawyers added new customers).
Posted on 7/2/18 at 2:36 pm to asurob1
My arguments and opinions stem from the perspective of what I think is optimal for child rearing and that is just about where my ability to care what others do in their relationship ends.
We have data that suggests a traditional nuclear family is optimal. I haven’t seen a study that compares that type of family to a family with an open marriage, but I am going to opine and predict it would end up being suboptimal for the child.
We have data that suggests a traditional nuclear family is optimal. I haven’t seen a study that compares that type of family to a family with an open marriage, but I am going to opine and predict it would end up being suboptimal for the child.
Posted on 7/2/18 at 2:36 pm to Parmen
Regardless of politics, Mark Dice is literally AIDS of the internet.
Posted on 7/2/18 at 2:42 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The long-term negative effects on society are worse than the temporary feeling of happiness that people get for having their immorality tolerated or even accepted.
How so, calling someone who does not believe in your version of morality doesn't make them immoral.
From their perspective maybe they think you're the immoral one because you are hetro.
Posted on 7/2/18 at 2:44 pm to Ross
quote:
We have data that suggests a traditional nuclear family is optimal.
Having two parents is always better then having just 1. No question.
How about have 3 parents? Presuppose everyone is happy and the relation trucks along like any relationship until the kid is 18.
There are plenty of stories of kids coming up with two moms or two dads and their lives were just as good, if not better then, a normal two parent environment.
Posted on 7/2/18 at 2:44 pm to Azkiger
quote:
I'm sure their kids care...
Maybe try not living your entire life for the kids.
Posted on 7/2/18 at 2:47 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
tolerated or even accepted
Unfortunately for you, it is both tolerated and accepted, regardless of your fricked up views on morality. Fortunately for us all, your insane ideas about morality are rapidly dying off.
Posted on 7/2/18 at 2:47 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
Billionaires upgrade. Nothing new.
Yeah, this ain't a good defense, sorry
All of us on the right were bellyaching just the other day about the justice system being different for elites vs. the rank and file. But it's different when we're talking about fidelity? Nah, that's bogus.
Posted on 7/2/18 at 2:53 pm to moneyg
quote:
This isn't only about sexual activity.
It's the crux of it.
quote:
This is about the family unit. Cheapening the family unit is destructive.
The family unit isn't being "cheapened."
quote:
cheating on a spouse without their knowledge still has destructive results
Now this, I agree with. That's not what I'm advocating for itt. I'm saying if both consenting adults condone sexual activity outside their marriage and are good parents to any kids, then there really is no issue.
quote:
I'm going to guess assume you think marriage is a benefit to society. If not, then this is probably a moot point. Personally, I think it's self-evident.
I think it CAN be beneficial to society. It can also be detrimental for a lot of folks for a variety of reasons. I don't think it's a panacea for society, but it can be helpful if both parties communicate fully.
quote:
If you redefine marriage to be something it is not, it's ridiculous to expect the same benefit simply because you still term it marriage.
A marriage is a contract. Terms of contracts can change with regularity.
quote:
I'm going to go ahead and suggest that removing fidelity and commitment from the definition of marriage fundamentally changes it to the point where it's no longer going to have the same benefit...whereas the historical change to include interracial marriage did not.
Ehhh, people DID used to view interracial marriage as an issue of fidelity to one's ethnicity or whatever, but I realize that's not the point you were trying to make, so I'll leave that one alone.
Posted on 7/2/18 at 2:54 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Yeah, this ain't a good defense, sorry
Posted on 7/2/18 at 3:04 pm to asurob1
quote:
These were the same people decrying gay marriage. Nothing could be further from the truth.
There are couples who have lived together for years sans the legal document who do just fine.
How people choose to live their lives and enjoy that life with whatever significant other they choose does not affect the nation in anyway
Agree with all of this.
quote:
It's hilarious how fragile Trumpkins think America is...
I'm a Trump supporter, I'm just not overly clingy to to traditional marriage (even though I'm a married man myself). It's not for everyone, and it's not the downfall of society for marriage to be approached/defined in a variety of ways (assuming all parties are of legal age/consent).
Posted on 7/2/18 at 3:24 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
FooManChoo
I couldn't agree more with your post.
Bring on the downvotes snowflakes.
quote:
Fortunately for us all, your insane ideas about morality are rapidly dying off.
quote:
your version
yep, FooManChoo made those "insane" ideas up on his own. i can do it too. Yall's fricked up versions of a marriage (of which many believe your version of marriage isn't real) is directly playing apart in the slow demise of Western Civilization.
This post was edited on 7/2/18 at 3:30 pm
Posted on 7/2/18 at 3:26 pm to Salmon
quote:
when your marriage comes to the decision to either be open or not, your marriage is pretty much dead
So the only time couples entertain the idea of an open marriage is in a doomed situation?
You dont think articles published calling open marriage healthy and liberating, if pushed often enough, might get happily married couples to try it out?
Posted on 7/2/18 at 3:32 pm to Klark Kent
quote:
yep, FooManChoo made those "insane" ideas up on his own.
Nothing better than safety in numbers.
"It's OK if I believe nonsense because so do a lot of other people."
quote:
i can do it too.
That doesn't mean you do it well.
Posted on 7/2/18 at 3:34 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
the fact that you are arguing for open, gay, transexual perversions of a sacred ceremony between man and woman, tells me you don't know what Western Civilization was founded upon. And we are likely to agree upon nothing.
which is fine by me. Because I enjoy watching you liberals cry and whine as the Red Wave takes place.
which is fine by me. Because I enjoy watching you liberals cry and whine as the Red Wave takes place.
Posted on 7/2/18 at 3:37 pm to asurob1
quote:My "version" of morality is based on a standard that gives me a basis to judge other standards of morality. Other standards that are based on moral relativism have no basis to judge anyone or anything as "immoral" in any real sense.
How so, calling someone who does not believe in your version of morality doesn't make them immoral.
quote:Could be. We've got competing views of "right" and "wrong", but moral relativism can't allow any moral view to be anything more than an opinion, and we all know what good opinions are.
From their perspective maybe they think you're the immoral one because you are hetro.
Posted on 7/2/18 at 3:37 pm to Klark Kent
quote:
tells me you don't know what Western Civilization was founded upon
It was founded by the Western Romans, who for most of their existence had little regard for monogamy.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News