Polygamist family applies for 2nd marriage license in Montana...

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Klassified

Answer me this. What influence was running the USA that made Mormons give up Polygamy to join the union?

Why were Mormons not protected by Religious Freedom?

(Mormon women also had to give up the right to vote)

Because religious freedom doesn't excuse the rape of children, as is all too common in mormon polygamy.

a reply to: intrepid

Cast aside orientation for a moment and focus on partners.

The gay movement was about having the partner of your choice.

The bigamy movement (if there really is one) is about having partners of your choice.


Eerie are the similarities I think...

originally posted by: NotTooHappy

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Klassified

Answer me this. What influence was running the USA that made Mormons give up Polygamy to join the union?

Why were Mormons not protected by Religious Freedom?

(Mormon women also had to give up the right to vote)

Because religious freedom doesn't excuse the rape of children, as is all too common in mormon polygamy.

No its not.

If you are talking about Warren Jeffs of FLDS - - - they are not a legal sanctioned religion - - - and he was convicted.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: intrepid

Cast aside orientation for a moment and focus on partners.

The gay movement was about having the partner of your choice.

The bigamy movement (if there really is one) is about having partners of your choice.


Eerie are the similarities I think...

Not in the least. A partner is legal, whether gay or not. Partners, whether gay or not, has always been illegal.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Bisexuality IS a sexual orientation, Polygamy is not

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: grandmakdw

What part of "this has nothing to do with orientation" are you failing to grasp? 3 or more of ANY orientation can not marry. THAT'S why it's fear mongering. Next comes the ridiculous argument about marrying your cow.

ya know marriage used to be between 1 man and 1 woman

we all know how that went

im all for parterning up whomever you wish .

it hurts noone

get over it

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: grandmakdw

Which didn't address my post at all. This is about the LAW, not sexual orientation. Will you ignore this again?

The LAW forbids sexual discrimination.

To refuse polygamy is to sexually discriminate, especially sexual discrimination against the bisexual.

Polygamy itself can be a sexual orientation, the need and desire to have multiple sexual (consecutive or at the same time) partners and the need and desire to love multiple people at the same time.

So there is legal grounds for polygamy and that forbidding it
is against the law because it discriminates against a particular
sexual orientation.

That's not what sexual discrimination is. Sexual discrimination is GENDER. Not who you want to bone. Or not bone, as it were.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: grandmakdw

Bisexuality IS a sexual orientation, Polygamy is not

Please read my post at the end of the previous page.

However, on could argue, rightfully that polygamy is an orientation in a court of law, and most likely win, based on anti-discrimination laws.

a reply to: intrepid

And until now, having a gay partner (in marriage) has always been illegal.

No matter my stance on either subject, I really do see some commonalities.

To give you all where I really stand:
honestly this time:

This what this entire experience of the past few years has taught me.

To accept and live and let live,

as long as no one is physically harmed by another's actions.

My personal religious or private feelings of right or wrong

are to be kept to myself and to never, ever enter the public arena,

for that is to be judgmental and intolerant.

And I would be roundly criticized and hounded and excoriated
for even mentioning my religious or personal beliefs
regarding sensitive matters like this.


Therefore, whatever people choose to do

as long as it harms no one else

and involves fully informed and consenting adults

must be accepted by me and by society.

That is what many, many here on ATS have said over and over.
Even some of the very same people here now saying
polygamy won't happen.
They are using the same arguments that they
accused others of as being intolerant and bigoted
when the arguments were used against gay marriage.

Like gay marriage, or polygamous marriage? Approve of it?

That is my choice to privately approve or disapprove,
but my private choice

My feeling or religious ideas
should never intrude on another's life choices or lifestyle.
Their choices are their choices and I must respect that.

Have the rest of you not learned this lesson yet,
That is the lesson drilled into me over and over here on ATS,
by some of the very same people decrying polygamy and which I find extremely hypocritical.

a reply to: Annee
Thank you for posting that. I got my own terms mixed up a little.

It is legal in the U.S. to live with multiple partners(polyamory), but not legal to be married to more than one of those partners. Bigamy.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: intrepid

And until now, having a gay partner (in marriage) has always been illegal.

Civil unions have been in the States since the 90's. Are you saying that the gov't would have allowed multiple civil unions for polygamists?

Actually, I don't see an issue with either polygamy and/or bigomy. Both fall under the ruling that the supreme court ruled. In the case of Polygamy, Husband A is still marrying Wife A, and therefore it meets the definition of between 2 consenting adults. Further, If Husband A wants to marry Wife B, that is still between 2 consenting adults. Wife A and Wife B are not involved in this process collectively. Therefore this should be allowed to stand as per the supreme court. If Wife A chose to Marry Wife B, that is between 2 consenting adults again, and therefore should be allowed under the law. The only thing not allowed is with Animals and Children as neither can give consent and agree to contract under the law. That said though marrying age depending on parental consent can differ from state to state and therefore, in the future, you will find that a standard age will be created for a child to marry with parental consent. Some states, this is as low as 13 BTW. Irregardless, the Supreme Court opened a major can of worms with this issue, and jumped ahead of the legislative process. It will be decades before the marriage debate is completely settled. I personally look forward to watching the Muslims push this next, and Many muslim cultures have multiple wives, and as soon its allowed for a Christian, they will absolutely standardize this. I personally will stick to my one wife, its hard enough pleasing her, I couldn't imagine having 2 or 3 or 14 wives or husbands for that matter.

Cheers,

Camain

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: grandmakdw

Which didn't address my post at all. This is about the LAW, not sexual orientation. Will you ignore this again?

The LAW forbids sexual discrimination.

To refuse polygamy is to sexually discriminate, especially sexual discrimination against the bisexual.

Polygamy itself can be a sexual orientation, the need and desire to have multiple sexual (consecutive or at the same time) partners and the need and desire to love multiple people at the same time.

So there is legal grounds for polygamy and that forbidding it
is against the law because it discriminates against a particular
sexual orientation.

That's not what sexual discrimination is. Sexual discrimination is GENDER. Not who you want to bone. Or not bone, as it were.

Gender is set by chromosomes, for 99% of the people XX or XY, that is gender.
Transgender is gender identification, for the actual gender will never change, the outward appearance and their orientation toward life does not match their biologically determined gender, which is set and will not change.
Homosexuality is not gender, it is a sexual orientation (or to put it crudely, who you want to bone)
So if someone choose to (pardon my crudeness) bone multiple people and marry multiple people that also has zero to do with gender or XX or XY chromosomes.

So sexual discrimination, as defined in law, in the US, right now, does in fact deal with
who one feels one is as a person (if they feel inherently male or female)
who one wishes to (ahem) bone (who they are sexually attracted to)

I make no judgements on if someone feels they are another gender and choose to have surgery to look like the other gender, but that does not change their biological gender. It is gender identification (no judgement on my part, strictly biology)

I make no judgements if someone is gay, but being gay is who one is sexually attracted to; it does not change biological gender.
Again no judgement on my part, just biology.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Annee
Thank you for posting that. I got my own terms mixed up a little.

It is legal in the U.S. to live with multiple partners(polyamory), but not legal to be married to more than one of those partners. Bigamy.

That depends on whether you have minor children or not

In CA you can not legally have a non related adult living in the same home as a minor. Although its usually not enforced unless there's an issue.

a reply to: Annee
That's an interesting tidbit. I didn't know that.

a reply to: intrepid

At the time, not a chance. But times are changing.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Annee
Thank you for posting that. I got my own terms mixed up a little.

It is legal in the U.S. to live with multiple partners(polyamory), but not legal to be married to more than one of those partners. Bigamy.

That depends on whether you have minor children or not

In CA you can not legally have a non related adult living in the same home as a minor. Although its usually not enforced unless there's an issue.

I'm not sure about that. Can you site the law you are suggesting?

I absolutely support group marriage, BTW.

Especially with the economy as it is today - - - and too many latch key children.

I personally think the "single family unit" is an unnatural way to live - - and harmful to children and the progression of society.

When people live in extended families they have to learn "give and take" - - to get along with different ages, different personalities, usually to share, etc.

And I think the Legal commitment to marriage - - helps in giving it value.

a reply to: Annee
There have been cultures on this planet that would agree with you. For some cultures, children are a community responsibility. Not the sole responsibility of the parents. Under certain circumstances, I could see how that would work to balance a child's life.