Polygamy and group marriage - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-07-2004, 01:19 PM   #46
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 06:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
I think most of us will agree that alcoholism and drug addiction are harmful. However, using the analogy of a drug addict always having the "urge" to use drugs and a gay person always having the "urge" to fall in love with someone of the same sex is inaccurate IMO. Inherent in the argument is the assumption that there is something bad or harmful about being gay in the same way there is something inherently harmful about drug abuse. Being gay is no more harmful then being straight and therefore it makes no sense to suggest that a gay person just has to resist their "urges" in the way a drug addict resists the "urge" to use drugs.

In addition, to suggest that a gay person just needs to resist the urge to fall in love with someone of the same sex as them is suggesting that they should deny themselves something which is absolutely fundamental to most people's lives. It's no different than telling a straight person they just need to resist the urge to fall in love, and I can just imagine the outrage people would express if they were told that.

This isn't really directed only at your post, but...doesn't the Bible also tell us not to lie? Not to envy? And yet I don't see huge campaigns to remind people that the Bible tells us that lying is a sin. I don't see people picketing funerals condeming the dead person for envy. Why is homosexuality so much more deserving of condemnation?

In any case, America supposedly has a separation of church and state, so how can anyone call for laws to be made based on what is in the Bible? It seems to me that many of those calling for gay marriage to be banned are doing so based on their religious beliefs, but you wouldn't have much of a separation of church and state left if people could have their religious beliefs made into law.
.

Dreadsox...the whole "sin is sin" thing...why exactly is homosexuality looked at as a sin to begin with? What exactly is it that they're doing that's so wrong in the eyes of some people? I've always associated the idea of sin with things that hurt or kill other people. Since homosexuality does neither of those things...I don't see how it can be sinful.

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 04:36 PM   #47
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 06:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by beli
I think there are two different issues being discussed here.

Firstly, human rights abuse. I agree completely the abuse of human rights is wrong and I would be down at the protest rally with you on this one. I also believe that human rights abuses are not resticted to the unions being discussed in this forum. There is spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships (married or otherwise), as well as in relationships involving gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex (GLBTI) people. ie all forms of relationships.

Bit about me: I worked fulltime for 4 and a half years at Oxfam (here in Perth), volunteered in the evenings at Amnesty, and did the occasional Greenpeace protest on the weekend. I dedicated most of my twenties to what I considered to be 'doing my bit' to contribute to the planet. So I agree with you 100% - human rights abuses are completely wrong.

What I was typing about in this thread is the other side of the coin, the positive side, when things go right. Just as hetrosexual relationships can be respectiful and loving, so can multipartnered and GLBTI relationships. I have been happily in a loving supporting relationship for the past 10 years and I wish the same happiness on everyone - whereever you may find it.

Peace.
Agree wholeheartedly. Very well said.

All homosexual couples want is to be allowed to have their marriages seen as valid ones. They deserve compaionship as much as anybody else.

And if they did want children, they could find ways-artificial insemination, or the male couple could find a surrogate mother or something. Or, they could adopt. Take in a kid who just wants a home, who wants to be loved and cared for.

Also, verte brought up the whole thing about some people seeing marriage as strictly for the purpose of procreation-as people have said numerous times in these kinds of debates, if homosexual marriages are somehow wrong because the couple cannot produce children naturally, then, going by that logic, straight couples who are unable to have kids shouldn't have their marriages legally recognized, right? There's some people I know who have no intention of ever having children. Would their marriages, when the time comes, be considered invalid then, too?

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 05:09 PM   #48
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


.

Dreadsox...the whole "sin is sin" thing...why exactly is homosexuality looked at as a sin to begin with? What exactly is it that they're doing that's so wrong in the eyes of some people? I've always associated the idea of sin with things that hurt or kill other people. Since homosexuality does neither of those things...I don't see how it can be sinful.

Angela
Why am I getting hit with this...??? There were others in the thread that said this....They said that "acting" on sexual urges was wrong...For the sake of argument...my point was a marriage license is NOT going to prevent the behavior.

There are many here in this forum that believe through biblical teachings it is SIN. Rather than argue if it is or isn't I am trying to say, how does a marriage license change it?

Finally, I see that the post I was referring to is not there anymore.....it was edited. I went to bed came back this morning thinking about it not realizing his post had changed.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-08-2004, 02:21 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Kristie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: back home again in Indiana
Posts: 6,386
Local Time: 07:08 AM
so... what does the bible say about polygamy?
__________________
Kristie is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 04:15 PM   #50
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 08:08 AM
Please see bulletin stuck at top of page for info on this thread.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 01:21 PM   #51
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 08:08 AM
Here's the polygamy thread...go at it...
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 07:40 PM   #52
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:08 AM
Quote:
How exactly does this make polygamy non-consensual? I read the other posts but maybe I'm having a stupid day or I'm blind or something. I don't see how having more than one wife to choose from has anything to do with consent, as long as the wife chosen on a particular night consents and as long as all of the wives have consented to that form of relationship.
Submitting and consenting are two different things.

consent

\Con*sent"\, v. i. 1. To agree in opinion or sentiment; to be of the same mind; to accord; to concur.

After the marriage the women are left with no power. They can say yes or they can say no and that's it. But that doesn't make them of like mind. They no longer have any power to request because if he doesn't want to grant her desire be it dinner, a vacation, sex, or even just a talk he doesn't have to, he can move on to another wife. Consent is not the same as agree to. Consent implies a certain equality.

Sorry if that doesn't make sence, that's the best I can do right now, I'm exhausted.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 09:28 PM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 07:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Submitting and consenting are two different things.

consent

\Con*sent"\, v. i. 1. To agree in opinion or sentiment; to be of the same mind; to accord; to concur.

After the marriage the women are left with no power. They can say yes or they can say no and that's it. But that doesn't make them of like mind. They no longer have any power to request because if he doesn't want to grant her desire be it dinner, a vacation, sex, or even just a talk he doesn't have to, he can move on to another wife. Consent is not the same as agree to. Consent implies a certain equality.

Sorry if that doesn't make sence, that's the best I can do right now, I'm exhausted.
It makes sense, I just don't see how it's any different that a partner in a monogamous (sp?) marriage refusing to have sex, or go on vacation, or vacuum the living room on any given night..... I've always thought that if all of the wives consent to marrying such a man, then they've consented to be part of a relationship where they are only a single choice out of many, but that's what they've chosen.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 08:24 AM   #54
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 12:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


It makes sense, I just don't see how it's any different that a partner in a monogamous (sp?) marriage refusing to have sex, or go on vacation, or vacuum the living room on any given night..... I've always thought that if all of the wives consent to marrying such a man, then they've consented to be part of a relationship where they are only a single choice out of many, but that's what they've chosen.
I agree. What's the difference between this situation and when a husband and wife disagree on something and one gives in to the other? Does that invalidate the entire marriage?
__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 10:11 AM   #55
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
After the marriage the women are left with no power. They can say yes or they can say no and that's it. But that doesn't make them of like mind. They no longer have any power to request because if he doesn't want to grant her desire be it dinner, a vacation, sex, or even just a talk he doesn't have to, he can move on to another wife. Consent is not the same as agree to. Consent implies a certain equality.
You could equally make these comments about a marriage between one man and one woman. What happens when the wife wants something which the husband disagrees with? Does it mean their entire marriage is no longer based on consent because they had one disagreement.

Yes, in a polygamous marriage the husband might be able to leave one wife and spend time with another wife if he disagrees with the first wife. However even in a marriage between one man and one woman the husband could choose to go and spend time with people outside of the marriage. Would that mean their marriage isn't based on consent?
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 01:37 PM   #56
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


You could equally make these comments about a marriage between one man and one woman. What happens when the wife wants something which the husband disagrees with? Does it mean their entire marriage is no longer based on consent because they had one disagreement.
No, men and women will always have disagreements and compromises in a monogamous relationship, I agree. But after the resolvement of that argument they return to an equal playing field. In a polygamous relationship there is no returning to that equal playing field. Yes I agree the initial consent is there, but after that it's not a continuous relationship built upon consent.

I guess the best way I can explain it is if you work for a company you consent to their rules and policies and then your company merges with another and all policies change, you either submit or don't submit, you weren't asked about the policy change.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 02:00 PM   #57
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 12:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


No, men and women will always have disagreements and compromises in a monogamous relationship, I agree. But after the resolvement of that argument they return to an equal playing field. In a polygamous relationship there is no returning to that equal playing field.
Why not? I'm confused about your analogy....if someone of age, male or female, willing enters into a polygamous relationship, how is that a 'policy change'? I'd understand your point a bit more, perhaps, if you were referring only to polygyny or polyandry, especially among religious groups where the sole man or women is deemed the head of the household, but what about polyamorous relationships where there are multiple partners of both sexes or where the wives and husbands are married to each other, rather than to just the single person?
__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 02:44 PM   #58
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:08 AM
Ok obviously my view on this is much different than everyone else so I'll bow out. I understand what everyone is saying about consenting to go into the marriage. I guess to me a true consentual relationship takes more than the initial consent, it takes a continuous relationship of consent. But I guess one can consent to a life of submission, if that's what they choose. To me though I think there would be legal ground to legislate on relationships that are structured in a way where one will never have equal ground. But that's just me.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 05:54 PM   #59
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 07:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Ok obviously my view on this is much different than everyone else so I'll bow out. I understand what everyone is saying about consenting to go into the marriage. I guess to me a true consentual relationship takes more than the initial consent, it takes a continuous relationship of consent. But I guess one can consent to a life of submission, if that's what they choose. To me though I think there would be legal ground to legislate on relationships that are structured in a way where one will never have equal ground. But that's just me.
I guess what I'm not understanding is what you mean by "consent". I would consider consent as the choice. Women have a choice of whether or not to enter a polygamous relationship, they have a choice whether or not to accept or refuse their husband on any given night, the husband has a choice whether or not to accept his wife on any given night... Actually, I think it's easier to think of consentual behavior as the opposite of NON-consensual behavior. For example, if the husband were to force one of his wives to have sex with him when she didn't want to, that's non-consensual. If the husband were to take in a second wife and the first wife did not agree, that would be what I consider non-consensual polygamy.

EDIT: I'm not saying your view is wrong or trying to change your mind, I'm just trying to understand exactly what you mean. Either way, I'm not in favor of polygamy.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-20-2004, 01:43 AM   #60
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 04:08 AM
I think a better word for the argument that BVS is making is "equality." A polygamous marriage can never be totally equal for the reasons he described.
__________________

__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com