Lawsuit to Challenge Ban on Plural Marriage

No I’m not, why?

If you were, you’d recognize the absurdity of your statement above.

I’m not trying to be snarky, but ask ANY woman here what I’m talking about if you can’t figure it out.

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do you guys see polygamy or ssm harming society? Assuming the government didn’t have anything to do with marriage at all, how do you see these two types of marriage arrangements as being harmful? Assume no laws concerning underage sex or sexual abuse are broken. This is a genuine question, so please keep it civil.[/quote]

for the record, i am pro ssm, but i seriously doubt of that other thread that brother chris, zeb, sex machine, or many of the other guys even have the energy to do it again here. i dont and didnt get nearly as involved as they did.seriously go look, its fuckin crazy

[quote]xfactor3236 wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do you guys see polygamy or ssm harming society? Assuming the government didn’t have anything to do with marriage at all, how do you see these two types of marriage arrangements as being harmful? Assume no laws concerning underage sex or sexual abuse are broken. This is a genuine question, so please keep it civil.[/quote]

for the record, i am pro ssm, but i seriously doubt of that other thread that brother chris, zeb, sex machine, or many of the other guys even have the energy to do it again here. i dont and didnt get nearly as involved as they did.seriously go look, its fuckin crazy [/quote]

A couple days ago I got like 7 pages in and the arguments got so vague that I realized there isn’t much of an argument against them other than “it’s wrong, and somehow contributing to the slow downfall of society.”

With respect to polygamy, nobody should care as long as the history of child and spousal abuse stops… Not sure that it will…

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do you guys see polygamy or ssm harming society? Assuming the government didn’t have anything to do with marriage at all, how do you see these two types of marriage arrangements as being harmful? Assume no laws concerning underage sex or sexual abuse are broken. This is a genuine question, so please keep it civil.[/quote]

a culture need structure
“the rules of kinship” are the most basic and fundamental of structures
in our culture, the “rules of kinship” are herosexual and monogamous
no minority should be allowed to change these basic rules.

in other words :
even if it does not harm society (and polygamy surely does because, if anything, it would increase the number of single men in the long run) it does harm (our) culture.

and since we are speaking about the laws of a republic the question is not “how is it harmful ?”
the question is “how would it be beneficial for everyone ?”

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do you guys see polygamy or ssm harming society? Assuming the government didn’t have anything to do with marriage at all, how do you see these two types of marriage arrangements as being harmful? Assume no laws concerning underage sex or sexual abuse are broken. This is a genuine question, so please keep it civil.[/quote]

a culture need structure
“the rules of kinship” are the most basic and fundamental of structures
in our culture, the “rules of kinship” are herosexual and monogamous
no minority should be allowed to change these basic rules.

in other words :
even if it does not harm society (and polygamy surely does because, if anything, it would increase the number of single men in the long run) it does harm (our) culture.

and since we are speaking about the laws of a republic the question is not “how is it harmful ?”
the question is “how would it be beneficial for everyone ?”
[/quote]

This seems crazy… maybe I just can’t see the “big picture” or something but why can’t we all just relax and let some things be…

Also, I’m not sure that changing the heterosexual and monogamous rules will change anything but the rules and the ability of some to get married. Monogamous heterosexuals probably aren’t going to switch because it becomes legal… or at least not the vast majority. So the rules really are still there, they’re just no longer the written rules.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
If you were, you’d recognize the absurdity of your statement above.

I’m not trying to be snarky, but ask ANY woman here what I’m talking about if you can’t figure it out. [/quote]

I get where you’re coming from. I believe in monogamous relationships, but that’s just how I am. IMO, these people are different, and have different views and reasons as to why they’re comfortable being in a polygamous relationship.

[quote]Kebvin wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do you guys see polygamy or ssm harming society? Assuming the government didn’t have anything to do with marriage at all, how do you see these two types of marriage arrangements as being harmful? Assume no laws concerning underage sex or sexual abuse are broken. This is a genuine question, so please keep it civil.[/quote]

a culture need structure
“the rules of kinship” are the most basic and fundamental of structures
in our culture, the “rules of kinship” are herosexual and monogamous
no minority should be allowed to change these basic rules.

in other words :
even if it does not harm society (and polygamy surely does because, if anything, it would increase the number of single men in the long run) it does harm (our) culture.

and since we are speaking about the laws of a republic the question is not “how is it harmful ?”
the question is “how would it be beneficial for everyone ?”
[/quote]

This seems crazy… maybe I just can’t see the “big picture” or something but why can’t we all just relax and let some things be…

Also, I’m not sure that changing the heterosexual and monogamous rules will change anything but the rules and the ability of some to get married. Monogamous heterosexuals probably aren’t going to switch because it becomes legal… or at least not the vast majority. So the rules really are still there, they’re just no longer the written rules.[/quote]

Let’s just all take a chill pill and relax right? It doesn’t matter that a 5000 year old institution will be recked by the liberal politically correct machine. Let’s all homosexual’s, polygamists, and those who enjoy incestuous relationships to marry. How could that possibly harm society?

It’s like important things effect other things. There is no ripple effect at all.

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do you guys see polygamy or ssm harming society? Assuming the government didn’t have anything to do with marriage at all, how do you see these two types of marriage arrangements as being harmful? Assume no laws concerning underage sex or sexual abuse are broken. This is a genuine question, so please keep it civil.[/quote]

a culture need structure
“the rules of kinship” are the most basic and fundamental of structures
in our culture, the “rules of kinship” are herosexual and monogamous
no minority should be allowed to change these basic rules.

in other words :
even if it does not harm society (and polygamy surely does because, if anything, it would increase the number of single men in the long run) it does harm (our) culture.

and since we are speaking about the laws of a republic the question is not “how is it harmful ?”
the question is “how would it be beneficial for everyone ?”
[/quote]

I think you are thinking of communism…

the mere mention of general interest make me a communist ?

wow, just wow.

that being said, i’m quite certain that my country will never legalize polygamy.
muslims are 10 percent of the population here you know.
it make you see the “big picture” a bit more clearly.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Kebvin wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do you guys see polygamy or ssm harming society? Assuming the government didn’t have anything to do with marriage at all, how do you see these two types of marriage arrangements as being harmful? Assume no laws concerning underage sex or sexual abuse are broken. This is a genuine question, so please keep it civil.[/quote]

a culture need structure
“the rules of kinship” are the most basic and fundamental of structures
in our culture, the “rules of kinship” are herosexual and monogamous
no minority should be allowed to change these basic rules.

in other words :
even if it does not harm society (and polygamy surely does because, if anything, it would increase the number of single men in the long run) it does harm (our) culture.

and since we are speaking about the laws of a republic the question is not “how is it harmful ?”
the question is “how would it be beneficial for everyone ?”
[/quote]

This seems crazy… maybe I just can’t see the “big picture” or something but why can’t we all just relax and let some things be…

Also, I’m not sure that changing the heterosexual and monogamous rules will change anything but the rules and the ability of some to get married. Monogamous heterosexuals probably aren’t going to switch because it becomes legal… or at least not the vast majority. So the rules really are still there, they’re just no longer the written rules.[/quote]

Let’s just all take a chill pill and relax right? It doesn’t matter that a 5000 year old institution will be recked by the liberal politically correct machine. Let’s all homosexual’s, polygamists, and those who enjoy incestuous relationships to marry. How could that possibly harm society?

It’s like important things effect other things. There is no ripple effect at all. [/quote]

Who said incest?

I will ignore those shots at me and just ask you to explain to me as if I’m an idiot (which may be what you think) how this (polygamy or ssm) will harm society. Please provide some real world examples, because so far I haven’t seen any and I would like to know.

And how sacred is marriage anyways, if half of them end in divorce?

Edit: Also, ZEB I apologize if you read any of the above sarcastically. I really do wish to see the other side of the argument, but I have my views and share them with one of my parents who has exposed me to this since I can remember.

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
If you were, you’d recognize the absurdity of your statement above.

I’m not trying to be snarky, but ask ANY woman here what I’m talking about if you can’t figure it out. [/quote]

I get where you’re coming from. I believe in monogamous relationships, but that’s just how I am. IMO, these people are different, and have different views and reasons as to why they’re comfortable being in a polygamous relationship.[/quote]

Thinking about it based upon the women I have known from two cultures that are about as far from each other as you can get, I can’t imagine any woman from either side voluntarily agreeing to enter a polygynous arrangement in the absence of some sort of domineering, manipulative chauvinistic structure to heavily influence their decision.

And I don’t think I even have to attempt to explain polyandry.

[quote]kamui wrote:
the mere mention of general interest make me a communist ?

wow, just wow.

[/quote]

No, but the notion of all things for the shared good and placing the rights of the collective above the individual certainly isnâ??t American and is far out of line with our CONSTITUTIONAL republic.

[quote]Kebvin wrote:

And how sacred is marriage anyways, if half of them end in divorce?
[/quote]

This is a good point. I see no-fault divorces as a bigger problem for the sanctity of marriage.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
the mere mention of general interest make me a communist ?

wow, just wow.

[/quote]

No, but the notion of all things for the shared good and placing the rights of the collective above the individual certainly isnâ??t American and is far out of line with our CONSTITUTIONAL republic.[/quote]

i would probably agree if marriage was something like a “natural individual right”.
But it is not.
It’s a privilege given by the State if and only if you commit yourself in a very specific (ie heterosexual and monogamous) social and cultural institution.

homosexuals, polygamous, polyamorous, incestuous, doglovers, etc do not qualify, and as such, they are not entitled to it.

now, you may think this privilege is unfair and “socialist” in nature.
But then you should advocate the abolition of state recognized marriage, not its generalization, nor the “dilution” of the concept unto absurd levels.

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
the mere mention of general interest make me a communist ?

wow, just wow.

[/quote]

No, but the notion of all things for the shared good and placing the rights of the collective above the individual certainly isn�¢??t American and is far out of line with our CONSTITUTIONAL republic.[/quote]

i would probably agree if marriage was something like a “natural individual right”.
But it is not.
It’s a privilege given by the State if and only if you commit yourself in a very specific (ie heterosexual and monogamous) social and cultural institution.

homosexuals, polygamous, polyamorous, incestuous, doglovers, etc do not qualify, and as such, they are not entitled to it.

now, you may think this privilege is unfair and “socialist” in nature.
But then you should advocate the abolition of state recognized marriage, not its generalization, nor the “dilution” of the concept unto absurd levels.

[/quote]

Again let’s assume the government is not in the marriage business at all. No tax breaks, no sanctioning, no nothing. Totally left to religious and cultural institutions since marriage is a primarily religious/cultural affair anyways.

I ask, because there are examples of things like polyandry that came about precisely to help preserve and foster the family unit. In trading cultures where men could be gone for years on end, it made sense to have multiple husbands personally and culturally so that there would be a male to help rear children and protect the family during one of the other male’s periods of absence. It would appear pretty much all cultures agree that the family unit is very important, but different circumstances require different applications of this principle. Obviously polygamy has been practiced by many cultures all over the world for centuries so it isn’t as if this is a new concept or practice.

I’ll just leave this here:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
the mere mention of general interest make me a communist ?

wow, just wow.

[/quote]

No, but the notion of all things for the shared good and placing the rights of the collective above the individual certainly isn�¢??t American and is far out of line with our CONSTITUTIONAL republic.[/quote]

i would probably agree if marriage was something like a “natural individual right”.
But it is not.
It’s a privilege given by the State if and only if you commit yourself in a very specific (ie heterosexual and monogamous) social and cultural institution.

homosexuals, polygamous, polyamorous, incestuous, doglovers, etc do not qualify, and as such, they are not entitled to it.

now, you may think this privilege is unfair and “socialist” in nature.
But then you should advocate the abolition of state recognized marriage, not its generalization, nor the “dilution” of the concept unto absurd levels.

[/quote]

No, marriage is first and foremost a religious practice and is protected by a natural right. Not to mention self determination is a natural right.

those who believe in polygamous religions can have whatever ritual unions they want, and self-determine whatever they want.
I don’t care.
But the State has no reason to subsidize these practices.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

No, but the notion of all things for the shared good and placing the rights of the collective above the individual certainly isnâ??t American and is far out of line with our CONSTITUTIONAL republic.[/quote]

Yes and no. The Constitution was ratified (in part) in order that a national government could pass laws in the national interest. To the extent you state it, our constitutional republic doesn’t stand for the extreme position you note.

And, in any event, marriage laws passed for the benefit of the “shared good” are at the state level, and states certainly have always enjoyed the right to pass such laws (subject to their own limitations).

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Yes and no. The Constitution was ratified (in part) in order that a national government could pass laws in the national interest.
[/quote]

As long as those laws don’t interfere with the protected rights of individuals, which is what the constitution is all about. That is what makes it a constitutional republic. The common interest is placed beneath Individual interest.