'Sister Wives': Polygamy law challenge called demand for equality

Originally posted by silent thunder

Originally posted by SirMike
So whats the take on this ... good or bad? And is this the start of state recognized polygamist marriages just like gay marriage is being now being recognized?

My take on this is that gay marriage has indeed opened the door for polygamy and evern more, shall we say...exotic...domestic arrangements.

Nobody wanted to think about that. The entire issue (both pro and con) was framed in terms of the rights of Gay people. Nobody spent much time asking about the knock-on effects of changing the basic foundation of what defines marriage, one of the oldest and most universal human institutions.

Because the entire thing became a cirucus of political-correctness, "hate," and "homophobia" there has been shockingly little discussion of what it means for society to change the essential definition of something as fundamental as marriage.

so what's so wrong with consenting adults being in relationships with more than one person at a time, as long as everybody involved is in the know? why should we give our gov't that much power to dictate our personal lives? i'm not a polygamist, in fact that goes against my very nature. but who else does it harm? maybe it should be legal!

i'm also pretty tired of all this garbage about (heterosexual) marriage being this venerable institution that has remained the same, and operates exactly the same, through time and across cultures. do the parents of the bride still give a dowry? does the bride still get examined to make sure she is a virgin, and does she become the legal property of her husband upon marriage? no. it was legal at one time for a man to beat his wife (look up the phrase "rule of thumb"), but the marriage "sacrament" no longer protects this practice. marriage, like all aspects of culture, does change through time as society changes.

somehow I am not surprised that within 3 posts this thread turned to gay bashing, sorry I never seen a gay guy marry 3 men.

Why do you have to blame someone for this...seriously I just want to say a bug F*** you, but thats against the rules.

People today are so uneducated that they have no idea how far these "traditions" stem into our past.
ie. greek nude sculptures ( you ever see one of a woman , and i know what i'm talking about here, i have studied art history )

Muslim traditions, although most of you are intolerable of anything muslim, they have been around much longer than us and their tradition of multiple wives goes hand in hand with that... now if they want to live in a different country they need to follow the rules, however, if say the two wives WANT to be with the man than whats the problem. Are we forcing arranged marriages here in the north america, not that I know of so why are forcing them apart.

Originally posted by Leahn

Originally posted by Annee
It sure seems like a far more nurturing environment for raising children - - - than two parents working and dropping kid off at daycare.

I feel forced to remind you that "two parents working and dropping kid off at daycare" was a consequence of the feminism you defend so eagerly. Yet, your idea to solve this is not that maybe we should return to what we had before but that we should descent further down the slippery slope.

What crap!

I get so tired of the anti-feminists blaming women's independence for everything.

Man went to war - - Man left women home to fend for themselves - - take care of EVERYTHING. Women had to go to work to build war machines.Then man comes home and expects woman to become subservient to his needs and stop being an independent person.

Now if man encouraged women to have their mothers or other relatives live with them and offered to take up some of the household and child raising responsibilities so that his wife could continue working or going to school - - that would have been a positive step forward in family evolvement.

Of course commercialism/materialism of wanting a bigger house and new car and etc - - had nothing to do with anything.

Let's just blame WOMAN. Why not - - blaming WOMAN for the fall of society - - - even empires is so easy. Man can't possibly be blamed for anything.

We can't blame MAN for walking away from his wife and children. I'm sure the woman and stress of it all - - was just too much for him.

So - - group marriage - - as I see it - - creates a better society.

reply to post by SirMike


here's a slippery slope for you: why not let people do what they want, as long as it isn't hurting anybody else? all this "protecting traditional values" crap is the real slippery slope.

reply to post by GummB


perhaps its the millions of couples that are already married?

they spend thousands of dollars on the ceremony alone....im pretty sure they want to keep what they have "special".

changing marriage would be changing what they originally subscribed to.

its sort of like the value of a rare object. the more unauthentic reproductions that are produced and circulated[amongst other variables]...the less valueble it becomes.

married couples believe what they have is special, and by diluting the overall meaning of what they have you are therefore treading on their civil rights too.

nobody is stopping the choice of fornication-unions by simply asking it to not be called the same title as non-fornication-unions[marriage].

Originally posted by feanor411
reply to post by SirMike

 

here's a slippery slope for you: why not let people do what they want, as long as it isn't hurting anybody else? all this "protecting traditional values" crap is the real slippery slope.

I completely, whole heartily, 100% emphatically agree …. let consenting adults do what they want. Unfortunately a large segment of the “marriage equality” movement isn’t on the same page. They are using gay marriage as a wedge issue against social conservatives and its now backfiring with polygamists wanting a part of the action.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by Partygirl

 

I'm mostly curious to know if the people and groups in Utah who support polygamy, would also be accepting of same-sex polygamy. Because when I read the OP, it looked like the particular group that was advocating the legalization of polygamy was using the idea of equality to help lift the cause off the ground. But it makes me wonder if these people would extend that advocacy to same-sex polygamy. If not, then their notion of equality is misplaced.

The Official Mormon leaders are similar to fundamental Christians. Mormons are Christians.

However - - within the congregation - - just like within other Christian faiths - - individual members do support equality for gay marriage.

www.towleroad.com...

www.abc4.com...

mormonsformarriage.com...

reply to post by Annee


it is clear you know very little about Christianity. however ill take this oppurtunity to illustrate the dangers of one group inserting themselves into the title of another.

much like how mormans call themselves christians, fornicating unions calling themselves married couples creates confusion to the ignorant.

if a bear calls himself a flower, it will create confusion and subsequent misunderstanding to the next bee that trys to land on him.

a bear calling itself a flower does not make him a flower.

catching the drift?

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by GummB

 

its sort of like the value of a rare object. the more unauthentic reproductions that are produced and circulated[amongst other variables]...the less valueble it becomes.

married couples believe what they have is special, and by diluting the overall meaning of what they have you are therefore treading on their civil rights too.

I feel that life is less special because of all the arrogant, self-centered idiots that are allowed to live.

How does allowing others to have a legal union with whoever they love make anyone elses legal union less special?

"Diluting the overall meaning"? Are you suggesting that homosexuals and polygamists are a solvent? How is their love any less valid than the love between a man and a woman? How does allowing more love to be expressed decrease the overall value of love?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by getreadyalready
If a very strong, very capable women can support several husbands in a similarly good manner, then I am fine with a multiple husband household.

This is not sounding so bad... I wouldn't mind a couple extra husbands to help support me.

My husband does a fine job, but if we pooled our resources, we could become even better consumers.

I could have more stuff.

I like this idea more and more. It's good for the economy!

Now see, if the lobbyists for Polygamy approached the legislature in this manner....."Think how much better consumers we will be! Think how good this can be for the economy!"....... then Polygamy will be legalized, supported, and championed! We know the almighty dollar is the secret to politics. Show them some greenbacks, and your wishes will be granted!

reply to post by Glass


no im suggesting they are an additive.

i guess its a matter of perspective.

if i would have used the term "dirtied" im sure you and many others would have thrown an even bigger fit.


and its less valid in the polygamists case because its illegal

reply to post by RelentlessLurker


You still fail to explain the reasoning behind your arbitrary argument that allowing gay/polygamist marriage somehow intrudes on the rights of straight couples despite the fact that it really doesn't affect them in any way.

Here's my problem with Polygamy..

There is a practice called polyandry which is a woman with multiple husbands.. The problem here is in the US Polygamists are against the practice of polyandry and therefore if they cannot accept that a wife can have multiple husbands than why should a husband be allowed to have multiple wives?

I don't think this should be allowed if one cannot accept the other.

Originally posted by DaMod
Here's my problem with Polygamy..

There is a practice called polyandry which is a woman with multiple husbands.. The problem here is in the US Polygamists are against the practice of polyandry and therefore if they cannot accept that a wife can have multiple husbands than why should a husband be allowed to have multiple wives?

I don't think this should be allowed if one cannot accept the other.

edit on 13-7-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)

Once again, I think that is a religious issue. We need to separate the religious aspect from the legal aspect. It is fine with me if some religion or some particular church does not support gay marriage, or polyandry, or polygamy, but the government should not declare any of it a crime based upon religious doctrine.

The government should see all of it as equal in the eyes of the law, unless someone can show some logical reason, or some community harm from allowing it.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
much like how mormans call themselves christians, fornicating unions calling themselves married couples creates confusion to the ignorant.

Mormons ARE Christians.
Catholics are Christians.
Lutherans are Christians.
Baptists are Christians.
They are all subsets of Christianity. Not confusing.

Gay marriage IS marriage.
Polygamy IS marriage.
Holy matrimony IS marriage.
Secular marriage IS marriage.
They are all types of marriage. Not confusing at all.

if a bear calls himself a flower, it will create confusion and subsequent misunderstanding to the next bee that trys to land on him.

If a rose or a tulip call themselves 'flowers', however... Catch my drift?

.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
married couples believe what they have is special, and by diluting the overall meaning of what they have you are therefore treading on their civil rights too.

If you depend my MY marriage to make yours "feel special", then I dare say you have bigger issues than can be dealt with here. Perhaps a marriage counselor?

My marriage does not depend on ANY one else's marriage. Oh, Lord! If it did, I would never have gotten married. Why do you care about what my marriage is like? Why is your nose in ANYONE else's marriage, for that matter?

reply to post by Glass


it is not my arguement.

im neither gay, polygamist, nor married.

but that seems to be the general attitude from married couples.

it was an attempt at explaining the word "sanctity".

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


the problem there is that your definition of "christian" SEEMS to be based off anybody thats given themselves the title. (based off your list)

rather than an actual "follower of Christ".

if you were to study Christ, it would not take you long to see that those groups are not followers of him but followers of their own doctrines.

but i do not wish for this to turn into a religious debate. if you missed my point (which was directed at another user, not you) then i guess im woefully lacking today in my devils advocacy

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


now your just getting emotional.

i think you should give the thread another read over and learn my actual position in this arguement, which is dominently in the earlier pages.

it has sense spun off into me explaining the general consensus of the gay marriage debate (and now religion for that matter), when the topic is suppsoed to be polygamy.

Originally posted by lynn112
How about the government stay out of what consenting adults personal lives? If two adults want to get hitched, so be it. If a man wants to marry 3 woman, all I have to say is good luck buddy, you're gonna need it. haha

All I mean is, that IMO, the government honestly has no business deciding who I can or can not marry, end of story. IMO, as long as you have a piece of paper with signatures of witnesses to say you are an adult, you want to be married & no one is forcing you to do it, then that should be enough.

(And this is coming from a woman who tends to lean more towards the conservative side)

But I'd be willing to bet be you'd sure want the government in your life to enforce your alimony cheque after you split.