Fundamental Mormons seek recognition for polygamy

[theknight571]

Should it be... dunno.

Would I oppose it ... no.

If a guy really wants more than one wife... and the wives agree to it... then... let them suffer.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Sure, but they shouldn't get extra tax incentives to do so. Polygamy would also be subject to the same laws that govern traditional marriage, meaning no underage marriages without parental consent.

If all the members are working adults, then their pooled resources would be formidable. It might even be better than a traditional marriage financially, but there should also be provisions to deter forming families that are designed to take advantage of welfare benefits.

If only it could be made to work the way Heinlein envisioned it...

Robert A. Heinlein described line families in detail in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. Heinlein's characters argue that the line family creates economic continuity and parental stability in an unpredictable, dangerous environment. In Mistress, Manuel's line marriage is said to be over one hundred years old. The family is portrayed as being economically comfortable because the improvements and investments made by previous spouses compounded, rather than being lost between generations. Heinlein also makes a point of telling the reader that this family is racially diverse

Group Marriage

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Howard
I don't see why not.

It's a slippery slope I tells ya!!! Before you know it they'll be sacrificing virgins!

***Waves torch and pitchfork***

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You should be able to marry with whomever you choose, or however many you choose (within the confines of your religion). However there needs to be a separation between marriage and legal status. Marriage is a religious thing, period. It shouldn't mean anything, grant any status or rights, or involve the government in any way. Unions should be the government version of marriage (which can optionally be done concurrent with a marriage, or separate from it). A union is what would grant status and rights (tax things, inheritance, etc). I think a union (of marriage) should be restricted to one person, purely for logistical reasons. There might be need of another type of union for offspring (this would settle issues of having children with multiple permanent partners).

So, marry your gay lover and 45 members of the opposite sex (if allowed by your religion)...but you only get a government sanctioned union with one person. This pretty much solves all issues about gay marriage, polygamy, etc.

:thumbsup:

I've said the same thing so many times. All problems are solved. Marriage is a religions thing ONLY, get government out of religion.

Unfortunately I doubt that would do much to pacify the hardliners backing current marriage rules. Besides the immediate problem of a religious ceremony not counting (some people will be irate that marriage doesn't count legally), you'll immediately see religious institutions pop up that will offer weddings to non-traditional groups; no one religion has a monopoly on the term marriage, so you will see these non-traditional groups become married and call themselves such. I don't have a problem with this myself, but the hardliners whole agenda is that they want marriage defined(and only defined) as 1 man, 1 woman, and this won't accomplish that so the hardliners would likely try to block it.

 

[sdifox]

I say if all parties are willing, go for it. If the idiot can't figure out 1 wife is murder, let him try multiple...

 

[Rage187]

absolutely

 

[LeiZaK]

Yes, polygamy should be legal... along with everything else that doesn't have a victim.

I am 100% monogamous and don't do drugs of any kind.



Disclaimer: I haven't done drugs of any kind in years.

 

[Eli]

It should most certainly be legal.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You should be able to marry with whomever you choose, or however many you choose (within the confines of your religion). However there needs to be a separation between marriage and legal status. Marriage is a religious thing, period. It shouldn't mean anything, grant any status or rights, or involve the government in any way. Unions should be the government version of marriage (which can optionally be done concurrent with a marriage, or separate from it). A union is what would grant status and rights (tax things, inheritance, etc). I think a union (of marriage) should be restricted to one person, purely for logistical reasons. There might be need of another type of union for offspring (this would settle issues of having children with multiple permanent partners).

So, marry your gay lover and 45 members of the opposite sex (if allowed by your religion)...but you only get a government sanctioned union with one person. This pretty much solves all issues about gay marriage, polygamy, etc.

:thumbsup:

I've said the same thing so many times. All problems are solved. Marriage is a religions thing ONLY, get government out of religion.

Unfortunately I doubt that would do much to pacify the hardliners backing current marriage rules. Besides the immediate problem of a religious ceremony not counting (some people will be irate that marriage doesn't count legally), you'll immediately see religious institutions pop up that will offer weddings to non-traditional groups; no one religion has a monopoly on the term marriage, so you will see these non-traditional groups become married and call themselves such. I don't have a problem with this myself, but the hardliners whole agenda is that they want marriage defined(and only defined) as 1 man, 1 woman, and this won't accomplish that so the hardliners would likely try to block it.

Actually it's already partially implemented. Merely having a priest say a few words doesn't marry you; you still need a license lawfully filed. It would just be a small step to the distinction I discussed. Sure some would argue about it, but for the most part they're 40IQ bigots who can be dismissed out of hand.

Speaking of bigots, that's the real beauty of my solution. It removes ANY argument over unions other than, "I'm a bigot and I want to persecute others." It would effectively force every person who opposed it to admit that openly. Once that happens it would be cake to press the matter to the supreme court and shoot them down handily. I actually have no problem with people that oppose gay marriage, I have a problem with people that do so and still claim they're not homophobic hate mongers determined to hold themselves above others. If you're going to be a bigot then be a proud outspoken bigot. Revel in your self-centered ignorance. Don't try and cloud the issue under legal pretenses.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: LeiZaK
Yes, polygamy should be legal... along with everything else that doesn't have a victim.

I agree completely. Legislating morality for its own sake is wrong, IMO. If there's a situation where women are being exploited, then address that as a separate issue; there should be nothing wrong with any non-traditional marriage arrangement where all parties involved want to be there.

 

[illusion88]

The problem with polygamy is the same as over breeding. If you can't support that many wives and children you shouldn't have them. Period.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

I voted yes, its their problem

I however, cant grasp the concept of loving 2 women at the same time... It just doesnt happen, sounds more like "belongings" than anything

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: illusion88
The problem with polygamy is the same as over breeding. If you can't support that many wives and children you shouldn't have them. Period.

part of the idea is they support each other. Not that the man has to support the wife (wich is a idiotic thought anyway)


say you have 3 willing adults. 2 of them have good jobs. one is better suited to staying home takeing care of the house kids.

i see nothing wrong with 3 of them being married.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Howard
I don't see why not.

Because its inherently misogynistic. Unless i missed the part where it says that a woman can take multiple husbands.

Actually, polygamy is technically having multiple spouses. It usually means wives, but doesn't have to.
And even if it did specify the gender, it's not really misogyny. Sexist, sure, but not misogynistic.

Did you not read past the first sentence in my TWO sentence post? I know the definition. I was referring to polygamy as implimented by the mor(m)on church. These "wives" are often captives and forced into a marriage by elders. After that they are property. To support such a thing is indeed misogynistic.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Howard
I don't see why not.

Because its inherently misogynistic. Unless i missed the part where it says that a woman can take multiple husbands.

Actually, polygamy is technically having multiple spouses. It usually means wives, but doesn't have to.
And even if it did specify the gender, it's not really misogyny. Sexist, sure, but not misogynistic.

Did you not read past the first sentence in my TWO sentence post? I know the definition. I was referring to polygamy as implimented by the mor(m)on church. These "wives" are often captives and forced into a marriage by elders. After that they are property. To support such a thing is indeed misogynistic.

This isn't a matter of approving or disproving of polygamy. Its a matter of liberty. The only people that polygamy can harm are those who practice it so there is no reason to ban it. Same argument applies to homosexual marriages.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Howard
I don't see why not.

Because its inherently misogynistic. Unless i missed the part where it says that a woman can take multiple husbands.

Actually, polygamy is technically having multiple spouses. It usually means wives, but doesn't have to.
And even if it did specify the gender, it's not really misogyny. Sexist, sure, but not misogynistic.

Did you not read past the first sentence in my TWO sentence post? I know the definition. I was referring to polygamy as implimented by the mor(m)on church. These "wives" are often captives and forced into a marriage by elders. After that they are property. To support such a thing is indeed misogynistic.

Well, perhaps you should be more specific. I read your post as saying that polygamy is inherently misogynistic, and it's not. Even if a woman can't take multiple husbands, there's nothing inherently misogynistic about it. I guess if you like to toss around the word "misogynistic" lightly, then maybe. DON'T MAKE ME GET SEMANTIC ON YOU, FOO!

 

[zephyrprime]

Polygamy is like pollution. So long as not much of it is going on, is doesn't matter. But if everyone does it, we are screwed.

If wide-scale polygamy became the norm, society would fall apart as huge number of disaffected men find that they would prefer revolution to the status quo.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Polygamy is like pollution. So long as not much of it is going on, is doesn't matter. But if everyone does it, we are screwed.

If wide-scale polygamy became the norm, society would fall apart as huge number of disaffected men find that they would prefer revolution to the status quo.

With 300million or so more woman in the world than men, some of us have to step up and easy the inbalance

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Polygamy is like pollution. So long as not much of it is going on, is doesn't matter. But if everyone does it, we are screwed.

If wide-scale polygamy became the norm, society would fall apart as huge number of disaffected men find that they would prefer revolution to the status quo.

Do yourself a favor and look up the strict definition of polygamy.

 

[Turin39789]

What was the name of that guy on the forum who was buying himself a chinese bride? Now he can have 5!

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Turin39789
What was the name of that guy on the forum who was buying himself a chinese bride? Now he can have 5!

bennylong

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: homercles337
Did you not read past the first sentence in my TWO sentence post? I know the definition. I was referring to polygamy as implimented by the mor(m)on church. These "wives" are often captives and forced into a marriage by elders. After that they are property. To support such a thing is indeed misogynistic.

:laugh:

Yeah, whatever.

 

[everman]

Just make sure they can't use it to abuse the tax code, both income and estate.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Did you not read past the first sentence in my TWO sentence post? I know the definition. I was referring to polygamy as implimented by the mor(m)on church. These "wives" are often captives and forced into a marriage by elders. After that they are property. To support such a thing is indeed misogynistic.

Please stop your whining.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: Howard
Do yourself a favor and look up the strict definition of polygamy.

Come on. The other form of polygamy is virtually non-existent so considering it is equally unimportant.