Polygamists fight to decriminalize bigamy

[AEON]

I can't say I am in favor of this - but it seems there is little to stop it.



Polygamists fight to decriminalize bigamy

 

[diamond]

this is sick and twisted showing a warped sense of right and wrong.


dbs

 

[Ormus]

Well, this is the slippery slope when we start defining marriage based on religious beliefs. There are Mormons who clearly believe that their religion encourages polygamous marriages. So why do your religious beliefs automatically trump theirs? After all, this is "religious freedom."

 

[AEON]

Well, this is the slippery slope when we start defining marriage based on religious beliefs. There are Mormons who clearly believe that their religion encourages polygamous marriages. So why do your religious beliefs automatically trump theirs? After all, this is "religious freedom."

So then, as I understand it - you have no problem with this?

 

[Ormus]

this is sick and twisted showing a warped sense of right and wrong.

So what makes it sick and twisted? Their religious beliefs say that it's an ideal, just as your religious beliefs say otherwise. Some people could say that your comment here is an assault against religious freedom.

I'm giving you and AEON a bit of a hard time, because I want to hear arguments beyond "Ewwww....It's gross!" and "The Bible tells me....". The first is irrelevant, because the thought of two hillbillies marrying makes me want to vomit, and we're not about to start limiting marriages to attractive people, and the second is irrelevant in light of these people's religious beliefs.

So there goes your two knee-jerk arguments. Next?

 

[Ormus]

So then, as I understand it - you have no problem with this?

Read my reply to diamond.

 

[diamond]

Well, this is the slippery slope when we start defining marriage based on religious beliefs. There are Mormons who clearly believe that their religion encourages polygamous marriages. So why do your religious beliefs automatically trump theirs? After all, this is "religious freedom."

Wrong.

There are fundamentalists that believe this, not Mormons.

Get it right.

dbs

 

[Ormus]

There are fundamentalists that believe this, not Mormons.

I never said "all Mormons." I think that some of our comrades here would take offense if I started referring to certain Christians as "fundamentalists" in such a derogatory tone like this. Where's your religious tolerance? They're allowed to dissent from orthodox Mormonism just as you're allowed to dissent from Roman Catholicism. Our country has a tradition of allowing heresy to flourish.

 

[AEON]

So what makes it sick and twisted? Their religious beliefs say that it's an ideal, just as your religious beliefs say otherwise. Some people could say that your comment here is an assault against religious freedom.

I'm giving you and AEON a bit of a hard time, because I want to hear arguments beyond "Ewwww....It's gross!" and "The Bible tells me....". The first is irrelevant, because the thought of two hillbillies marrying makes me want to vomit, and we're not about to start limiting marriages to attractive people, and the second is irrelevant in light of these people's religious beliefs.

So there goes your two knee-jerk arguments. Next?

Thanks for the hillbilly visual.


Well - this goes back to many of my posts in the gay marriage threads. I think once you stray from the definition of marriage between one man and one woman - eventually the term will become meaningless and then we'll start over from scratch. And then we will be back to where we started - marriage is between one man and one woman.

Why not fast forward all the way through this and simply stay with the genuine definition of marriage?

 

[maycocksean]

 

[Ormus]

Thanks for the hillbilly visual.

I considered visuals of old people sex, but I had to prioritize my sense of revulsion.

Why not fast forward all the way through this and simply stay with the genuine definition of marriage?

Why not rewind and go back to how marriage was defined in the Pentateuch? I mean, I'm sure that many people would love to take multiple wives, and, if they were infertile, have a large body of concubines. As I noted, Jewish law defined "adultery" as a married woman cheating on her husband, not the other way around. As such, it was fully lawful to take more than one wife. And the concubines made sure that marriage stayed strictly to the purpose that you advocate: childbearing.

Again, what makes your religious beliefs any better than theirs? You still haven't answered this question.

 

[AEON]

Again, what makes your religious beliefs any better than theirs? You still haven't answered this question.

Well - that is a loaded question. I am sure we all in some way feel our religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are in some way "better" than others - or else we wouldn't have them.

If you are asking why I think the conservative Christian definition is the "better" option and should be the legal definiton is because I quit simply, in the end, think it makes the most sense - biologically, sociologically, and theologically.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I would say since religion and state has to be divided a hundred per cent, and the thinking of monogamy is a clear christian ideal, it's really hard to accept that polygamy is a crime, even more, it's a felony. If everybody is over 18, and wants to live in a polygamistic way it should be as legal as being gay and married.

I myself wouldn't want to live in a polygamic way, and I'm by far not a fan of the Mormon church, but I think people shouldn't say they are tolerant on the one hand, and on the other hand criminalise everything that isn't supported by their belief.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Thanks for the hillbilly visual.


Well - this goes back to many of my posts in the gay marriage threads. I think once you stray from the definition of marriage between one man and one woman - eventually the term will become meaningless and then we'll start over from scratch. And then we will be back to where we started - marriage is between one man and one woman.

Why not fast forward all the way through this and simply stay with the genuine definition of marriage?

Why not just define what marriage means to you, and letting others define what marriage means to them?

I mean, do you feel less married because there are also two men or two women married?

Or in this case one man with more than one woman?

 

[Ormus]

If you are asking why I think the conservative Christian definition is the "better" option and should be the legal definiton is because I quit simply, in the end, think it makes the most sense - biologically, sociologically, and theologically.

Well, come on, you've said before that marriage is all about the children. The children. Won't somebody please think of the children?

Polygamous marriages have more per capita children than monogamous marriages. Reading that article, one family had 21 children. Osama bin Laden has over 50 brothers and sisters (and, just to state the obvious, even only children in a nuclear family can turn out to be psychotic; I'm just using family size as an example).

If marriage is about the children, children, children, wouldn't you want a family structure with lots of...you know...children? The nuclear family "ideal" is a relatively modern construction, ultimately dating since the Industrial Revolution. Joint/extended families were far more common, and, as I've demonstrated, complex families date back to the book of Genesis.

Maybe it's time to admit that the nuclear family is a failed sociological experiment? Won't somebody please think of the children?

 

[Irvine511]

Well - this goes back to many of my posts in the gay marriage threads. I think once you stray from the definition of marriage between one man and one woman - eventually the term will become meaningless and then we'll start over from scratch. And then we will be back to where we started - marriage is between one man and one woman.

Why not fast forward all the way through this and simply stay with the genuine definition of marriage?

ah, the "genuine" definition of marriage. i really wonder how Memphis and i would degrade that so horribly that men will marry dogs and women will marry snakes and one child will have dozens of mothers.

the slippery slope works in the other direction -- once you've enshired opposing genders as a requirement for marriage into law, what's next? same race? same religion? same income?

this cuts both ways.

the polygamists are free to fight their own battles. that's fine. i don't agree with them, and that's based not on a sense that polygamy is some sort of moral wrong but that the historical models for polygamist relationships are inherently exploitative and sexist, that it's one many with many younger women. if someone were to make a compelling argument that there's a real need for the social recognition of poly relationships, then i'm happy to listen and re-evaluate, but don't for a second conflate the polygamist desire for marriage rights with those of us fighting for marriage equality.

the point you miss is this: a heterosexual polygamist has the right to get married. to one other heterosexual. he/she is not in denied marriage rights by the state. he might prefer to marry many women -- (and the argument of religious discrimination, which i'm sure is very appealing to many in here because freedom of religion seems to be the most important civil right to many and how dare we let someone else's rights trample on how we are able to express our religious views and in fact we are discriminated against if the government fails to perfectly reflect our own religious views!) -- but simply because i might prefer to marry Daniel Craig doesn't mean that i am discriminated against because i am unable to do so. for the polygamist, on the basis of his/her sexual orientation, marriage is an option. a homosexual still HAS NO OPTIONS.

so stop comparing the two. there is no comparison to be made.

 

[AEON]

Well, come on, you've said before that marriage is all about the children. The children. Won't somebody please think of the children?

Polygamous marriages have more per capita children than monogamous marriages. Reading that article, one family had 21 children. Osama bin Laden has over 50 brothers and sisters (and, just to state the obvious, even only children in a nuclear family can turn out to be psychotic; I'm just using family size as an example).

If marriage is about the children, children, children, wouldn't you want a family structure with lots of...you know...children? The nuclear family "ideal" is a relatively modern construction, ultimately dating since the Industrial Revolution. Joint/extended families were far more common, and, as I've demonstrated, complex families date back to the book of Genesis.

Maybe it's time to admit that the nuclear family is a failed sociological experiment? Won't somebody please think of the children?

While I do think children are important - I think you are confusing me with someone else when you say that I think it is all about the children.

There are obviously limits to religious tolerance. I am not saying this is one of the cases - but to make the argument solely on religious tolerance won't succeed. If Satanists want to come chop up your baby for a sacrifice based on their religious beliefs - I am certain most of us would say "no." (I certainly hope so).

There is more at play here than simple religious tolerance.

 

[Ormus]

While I do think children are important - I think you are confusing me with someone else when you say that I think it is all about the children.

There are obviously limits to religious tolerance. I am not saying this is one of the cases - but to make the argument solely on religious tolerance won't succeed. If Satanists want to come chop up your baby for a sacrifice based on their religious beliefs - I am certain most of us would say "no." (I certainly hope so).

Who needs Satan when you have God? After all, didn't God command Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac? He would have done it too, had God not changed his mind.

I'm not the one who bases all my arguments on religious beliefs. I already have an argument against polygamy, which I'm sure I shall share later.

I'm challenging you to come up with one on something more than "Eww....that's gross," and "The Bible says...." If people like Dennis Prager are your biggest cheerleaders for the status quo, you're screwed, because his arguments were full of sexist stereotypes.

"A woman makes a man a better person; and a man does the same for a woman."

So wouldn't five women make a man five times as better of a person?

If you were sent to Saudi Arabia and had to tell a Muslim why polygamy was wrong, what would you say? "The Bible says..." would get shouted down with "The Koran says..." So there goes your religious arguments. Care to try again?

 

[AEON]

Care to try again?

Not really. I vote my convictions just as you do - and as do the Mormons, as do the Muslims, as do the secular humanists...etc.

 

[Ormus]

Not really. I vote my convictions just as you do - and as do the Mormons, as do the Muslims, as do the secular humanists...etc.

If that's the best you can come up with, then we might as well legalize polygamy.

 

[A_Wanderer]

While I do think children are important - I think you are confusing me with someone else when you say that I think it is all about the children.

There are obviously limits to religious tolerance. I am not saying this is one of the cases - but to make the argument solely on religious tolerance won't succeed. If Satanists want to come chop up your baby for a sacrifice based on their religious beliefs - I am certain most of us would say "no." (I certainly hope so).

There is more at play here than simple religious tolerance.

Sorry? Firstly Satanists are a mirror on Christians - they do not sacrifice babies - their beliefs seem more rooted in the idea of antitheism, being against God. Secondly this isn't an issue of the state sanctioning anything religious, it is about the right of people to elect to enter into relationships with legal recognition; many of the arguments in favour of gay marriage should cross over into this arena provided that the marriage involves consenting parties.

I am in favour of legalising polygamy, polygyny and polyandry and everything in between, I don't see why they should be opposed off the bat.

 

[Irvine511]

many of the arguments in favour of gay marriage should cross over into this arena provided that the marriage involves consenting parties.

which arguments?

 

[AussieU2fanman]

I agree with Irvine in that whilst the issues of gay marriage and polgamy do share similar arguments (as long as its consentual yadda yadda), it's quite well known that these types of systems of polygamy are very exploitative and I don't think it should be legalised.

 

[diamond]

." If people like Dennis Prager are your biggest cheerleaders

I am a cheerleader of Dennis Prager's of the first order, although we differ on smokers' rights.
dbs

 

[AEON]

Sorry? Firstly Satanists are a mirror on Christians - they do not sacrifice babies -

I apologize - I suppose I had too many movie images in my mind.

 

[AEON]

If that's the best you can come up with, then we might as well legalize polygamy.

Melon - you know where I stand on this issue because everything in the other threads about gay marriage holds true here. Please feel free to go back and cut and paste all of my other posts - I simply don't want to.

 

[Irvine511]

I agree with Irvine in that whilst the issues of gay marriage and polgamy do share similar arguments (as long as its consentual yadda yadda), it's quite well known that these types of systems of polygamy are very exploitative and I don't think it should be legalised.

actually, i don't agree that the same arguments apply to polygamists.

i don't see where the civil rights of a polygamist are violated -- unless we are to understand the illegality of polygamy as a form of religious discrimination.

 

[BVS]

Well, this is the slippery slope when we start defining marriage based on religious beliefs. There are Mormons who clearly believe that their religion encourages polygamous marriages. So why do your religious beliefs automatically trump theirs? After all, this is "religious freedom."

This is what it comes down to and exactly why AEON and Diamond don't have a leg to stand on in this thread.

I have my issues with polygamy, none of which are religious, that I've argued ad naseum in other threads.

 

[diamond]

This is what it comes down to and exactly why AEON and Diamond don't have a leg to stand on in this thread.

Im against both for different reasons.

dbs

 

[Canadiens1131]

Thanks for the hillbilly visual.


Well - this goes back to many of my posts in the gay marriage threads. I think once you stray from the definition of marriage between one man and one woman - eventually the term will become meaningless and then we'll start over from scratch. And then we will be back to where we started - marriage is between one man and one woman.

Why not fast forward all the way through this and simply stay with the genuine definition of marriage?

Damn you let those bloody homosexuals start coupling and see what happens?