Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First off let me state I am not a proponent of Polygamy nor am I a Mormon. I have ,however, been considering the state of Utah as a possible retirement location and the history of statehood in Utah combined with recent events here in New York just has me pondering.
Utah became s State on January 4th 1896 after quite an ordeal regarding polygamy, in essence it could not become a state until polygamy became permanently outlawed.
A little over 100 years later New York legalizes same sex marriages. Polygamy still illegal in Utah and all other 49 States. So you can marry someone of the same sex, but cannot have multiple heterosexual spouses.
My questions are as follows. Does this place manageability over morality, and arguably the laws of nature? Is one situation more moral and/or natural than the other? Are cookie cutter two person marriages just easier for society and government to deal with over polygamous households? Or are there genuine problems with polygamy that manifest themselves in society and this is why it continues to be illegal while same sex marriages gain ground?
The ban against polygamy was and remains a violation of the separation of church and state as it codifies Christian religious law into civil law. (While they do not require polygamy, neither Judaism nor Islam prohibit polygamy.)
If same-sex marriage is now permitted by the state, then, my guess is that the state courts, most likely, unless the various state gov'ts act first, will overturn the ban on polygamy.
And, then, there is polyandry, which, as far as I know, is prohibited by Judaism, Islam and Christianity. But, is polygamy becomes legal, then so will polyandry, I'm guessing.
So if you think of Geometry where you have circle A and circle B, and C is where the two circles intersect or overlap. If Polygamy and Polyandry are eventually legalized, there will inevitably be an overlapping in certain cases with same sex marriage. A man could have multiple spouses of different sexes, and the same for a woman.
Is there presently terminology or language to categorize and label these circumstances?
Polygamy: A man with more than one heterosexual wife.
Polyandry: A woman witn more than one heterosexual husband.
????????: A man with more than one spouse, spouses are of both sexes.
????????: A woman with more than one spouse, spouses are of both sexes.
Furthermore, are the terms Husband and Wife assigned to sex or by the status or role the individual plays in the marriage?
If a woman was the breadwinner and had mixed sex stay at home spouses, would the men be husbands, the women wives, or would they all be wives?
The same for a man who was the breadwinner with multiple mixed sex stay at home spouses?
My questions are as follows. Does this place manageability over morality, and arguably the laws of nature? Is one situation more moral and/or natural than the other? Are cookie cutter two person marriages just easier for society and government to deal with over polygamous households? Or are there genuine problems with polygamy that manifest themselves in society and this is why it continues to be illegal while same sex marriages gain ground?
Your post illustrates the true magnitude of the missunderstanding you have over same-sex marriage. It indicates the old tired rhetoric that sexual orientation is a choice: It is NOT a choice, it is determined in the womb. Homosexuals should have the right to marry. They have the right to the same happiness as heterosexuals. However, polygamy is a CHOICE, based on a religion created, that reinforces attitudes that women should be subservient to men. It is a convenient way for a hetero man to have sex with multiple partners, and get away with it: afterall, that is why it was "invented." Homosexuality has nothing to do with immorality. Homosexuals often have higher standards than heterosexuals, (i.e. births out of wedlock, making babies one cannot afford, (absentee fathers), divorce, infedility/adultery, and domestic violence).
Your post illustrates the true magnitude of the missunderstanding you have over same-sex marriage. It indicates the old tired rhetoric that sexual orientation is a choice: It is NOT a choice, it is determined in the womb.
Can you elaborate on what part of my query led you to believe that I determined tendency towards homosexualty is borne strictly by post-womb choice? And secondly do you argue that no one who did not have tendencies at birth could evolve or find themselves in a same sex reltaionship due to life circumstances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ro-Dialin
Homosexuals should have the right to marry. They have the right to the same happiness as heterosexuals. However, polygamy is a CHOICE, based on a religion created, that reinforces attitudes that women should be subservient to men. It is a convenient way for a hetero man to have sex with multiple partners, and get away with it: afterall, that is why it was "invented."
What if you where to take religion out of the equation, and legalize polygamy and polyandry, allowing any man or woman to acquire more than one spouse, or not, giving them free choice. Under these circumstances, would that alter your opinion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ro-Dailin
Homosexuality has nothing to do with immorality. Homosexuals often have higher standards than heterosexuals, (i.e. births out of wedlock, making babies one cannot afford, (absentee fathers), divorce, infedility/adultery, and domestic violence).
When I speak of morality, I do so by comparing the morality of same sex marriage in context with polygamy and polyandry, it is my error I guess for mentioning just polygamy in the thread title and initial post. A second tier of morality argument would be governments allowing one and not the other. You have pointed out problems with reigion based polygamy that genuinely exist, but again, extract religion and add free will and now what do you have?
I take it you place homosexuality on a higher moral ground than polygamy/polyandry, but outside of my neglecting to add polyandry to the thread heading, where is my misunderstanding?? Your post seems emotionally charged and to be honest a little offensive, and you are accusing me of troll like behavior?
I'll be curious to see if you return to respond to this post, or if this is the last we shall hear from Ro-Dailin.
Your post illustrates the true magnitude of the missunderstanding you have over same-sex marriage. It indicates the old tired rhetoric that sexual orientation is a choice: It is NOT a choice, it is determined in the womb. Homosexuals should have the right to marry. They have the right to the same happiness as heterosexuals. However, polygamy is a CHOICE, based on a religion created, that reinforces attitudes that women should be subservient to men. It is a convenient way for a hetero man to have sex with multiple partners, and get away with it: afterall, that is why it was "invented." Homosexuality has nothing to do with immorality. Homosexuals often have higher standards than heterosexuals, (i.e. births out of wedlock, making babies one cannot afford, (absentee fathers), divorce, infedility/adultery, and domestic violence).
Your post illustrates the true magnitude of non sense that gay people often spew in an effort to justify their mental illness.
Isn't it funny how a gay person will blather on and on about how they are "born that way" and how "it's not a choice" ... but as soon as you mention any thing else possibly being somehow genetic (like pedophiles, necrophiliacs, bestiality, or in this case polygamy), they swear up and down it's not the same.
Why is it not possible that the same genetic flaw that created you ... couldn't have created a man that is attracted to minor kids, or someone attracted to animals, or someone attracted to having multiple wives? You know, they can't help it ... they were just born that way.
It's the exact same argument! They just don't like the fact that it puts a big old spotlight on homosexuality being a sexual disorder ... and not some genetic third sex, like they want everyone to believe.
And as far as homosexuals having such higher standards than heterosexuals ... give me a break. The gay community holds the records for infidelity, alcohol / drug abuse, number of sexual partners, STDs, etc.
It's unfortunate to me that so many people have historically been and remain so invested in other people's bedrooms, and so absolutely determined to dictate to them what they should and should not be allowed to do in their own "pursuit of happiness".
Honestly, the law never should have intruded upon personal family arrangements in the first place, and hopefully with NY legalizing gay marriage, the law will realize that it has overstepped its bounds in regards to polygamy, polyandry, polyamoury or any other configuration that makes consenting adult Americans happy.
Can you elaborate on what part of my query led you to believe that I determined tendency towards homosexualty is borne strictly by post-womb choice? And secondly do you argue that no one who did not have tendencies at birth could evolve or find themselves in a same sex reltaionship due to life circumstances?
I was perfectly clear. Please read the post again if you are unsure. People should not be attacked for something that is innate, and completely natural to them, especially since it does not affect you. Your query is intended to use same sex marriage as an argument to justify polygamy. You give the impression that somehow homosexuals usurp a Mormon right to polygamy. You launched the attack, and I provided the defense. Gays are not attacking polygamy, however, since you brought it up, Mormons did raised over 70 million dollars to insure propostion 8 was overturned in CA. Mormons used vitriole, hateful and completely untrue propaganda to scare Californians into believing many of their lies would come to fruition if same sex marriage is allowed in CA. I can tell you same sex marriage has done nothing of the sort in Massachusetts, and it has been legal since 2004. Gays do not campaign whatsoever against polygamy, so why attack gays? The history behind Mormons attacking gays however, speaks for itself.
What if you where to take religion out of the equation, and legalize polygamy and polyandry, allowing any man or woman to acquire more than one spouse, or not, giving them free choice. Under these circumstances, would that alter your opinion?
I never indicated anything against polygamy, only against comparing it to same sex marriage. I have no problem with polygamny, nor have I met any gay person who did have a problem with it. Other heterosexuals would be your primary foe. And truthfully, the current laws allowing only one legal mate, may have affected polygamists positively. My understanding is that children born to a wife that is considered non-legal is entitled to subsidies from the government since that mother would be considered a single parent. If Polygamists were to have as many legal wives as they wanted, I don't necessarily see the advantage? After all, if a retirement check, i.e. pension check or soc sec benefit were extended to multiple wives the amount of money would be so diluted, that each wife would only get a portion of that full amount of the check. Another problem would be if so many children were fathered, could they be provided enough financial support of only the father was employed; as well as emotional support with only one father to numerous children, perhaps. But truthfully, if there are Mormons, or polygamists in general that feel that strongly about legalizing polymany, their time should be more focused directing their attention toward that activism, rather than oppressing homosexuals.
When I speak of morality, I do so by comparing the morality of same sex marriage in context with polygamy and polyandry, it is my error I guess for mentioning just polygamy in the thread title and initial post. A second tier of morality argument would be governments allowing one and not the other. You have pointed out problems with reigion based polygamy that genuinely exist, but again, extract religion and add free will and now what do you have?
I take it you place homosexuality on a higher moral ground than polygamy/polyandry, but outside of my neglecting to add polyandry to the thread heading, where is my misunderstanding??
I place discriminating against homosexuals equal to discriminating against someone because they are left handed. If we compare it to left-handedness, then people of sound mind would agree left handed people should not be discriminated, and would find the idea absurd. I don't think there is anything immoral about sexual orientation. The only that may be immoral about polygamy would be bringing children into the world, that a polygamist family could not financially support, and nurture.
Your post seems emotionally charged and to be honest a little offensive, and you are accusing me of troll like behavior?
We have every right to be offended. This is 2011 and the attitudes and notions about homosexuality are still in the dark ages. We still have 37 states that have laws making it legal to fire someone for being gay. We have laws making it illegal for gays to adopt children, and often have their own biological children taken away from them. There are laws making any positive discussion whatsoever in the classroom illegal--Imagine, in the U.S., the state of TN allows this! It is still legal to inquire if any teaching candidate looking for a job is gay and would be disqualified, and making it legal to fire teachers if they are gay. We have states that have exagerated the fear, spreading missinformation of same sex marriage to the point of having a constitutional ammendment banning it, even though it is not even legal. You may have some very good reasons to defend polygamy, but it should not be proven by wondering why same sex marriage should be legalized before it.
I'll be curious to see if you return to respond to this post, or if this is the last we shall hear from Ro-Dailin.
response.
Last edited by Ro-Dialin; 06-30-2011 at 09:48 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If this isn't a troll I don't know what is...
