Lawsuit to Challenge Ban on Plural Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

So, according to you and in your opinion, the problems that 3rd world countries are facing is because of one guy having too many wives? That’s real cute.[/quote]

In some cases, yes - polygamy creates a class of men with no wives and a diminished future (particularly in a culture built on the status of having wives and property). That can be a social recipe for disaster.
[/quote]

Wait, how is allowing polygamy going to keep men from getting married? You really think there’s going to be this run on women and there’s going to be a sudden shortage of marriageable women for single men to marry?[/quote]

Sorry to do this at your expense…

This isn’t a response.

This is me saying, “told ya so.” Keep a look out for the “Non-marital romance” movement, too.[/quote]

No offense taken. You still don’t understand I was using “romantic relationship” as a way of saying “two people in love”. [/quote]

No, I mean, actual calls to equalize non-marital romance. New York Times Op-ed is a start…

"…Of course, this means weâ??ll be treated just as straight people are now. But this moment provides an opportunity to reconsider whether we ought to force people to marry â?? whether they be gay or straight â?? to have their committed relationships recognized and valued…

As strangers to marriage for so long, weâ??ve created loving and committed forms of family, care and attachment that far exceed, and often improve on, the narrow legal definition of marriage. Many of us are not ready to abandon those nonmarital ways of loving once we can legally marry.

…Of course, lots of same-sex couples will want to marry as soon as they are allowed to, and we will congratulate them when they do even if we ourselves choose not to. But we shouldnâ??t be forced to marry to keep the benefits we now have, to earn and keep the respect of our friends and family, and to be seen as good citizens."

[/quote]

Ah okay…will have to read that.

62

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

So, according to you and in your opinion, the problems that 3rd world countries are facing is because of one guy having too many wives? That’s real cute.[/quote]

In some cases, yes - polygamy creates a class of men with no wives and a diminished future (particularly in a culture built on the status of having wives and property). That can be a social recipe for disaster.
[/quote]

Wait, how is allowing polygamy going to keep men from getting married? You really think there’s going to be this run on women and there’s going to be a sudden shortage of marriageable women for single men to marry?[/quote]

Sorry to do this at your expense…

This isn’t a response.

This is me saying, “told ya so.” Keep a look out for the “Non-marital romance” movement, too.[/quote]

No offense taken. You still don’t understand I was using “romantic relationship” as a way of saying “two people in love”. [/quote]

No, I mean, actual calls to equalize non-marital romance. New York Times Op-ed is a start…

"…Of course, this means weâ??ll be treated just as straight people are now. But this moment provides an opportunity to reconsider whether we ought to force people to marry â?? whether they be gay or straight â?? to have their committed relationships recognized and valued…

As strangers to marriage for so long, weâ??ve created loving and committed forms of family, care and attachment that far exceed, and often improve on, the narrow legal definition of marriage. Many of us are not ready to abandon those nonmarital ways of loving once we can legally marry.

…Of course, lots of same-sex couples will want to marry as soon as they are allowed to, and we will congratulate them when they do even if we ourselves choose not to. But we shouldnâ??t be forced to marry to keep the benefits we now have, to earn and keep the respect of our friends and family, and to be seen as good citizens."

[/quote]

Sooo…wouldn’t Bloomberg and his girlfriend be considered common law married? Or do they still refer to her by her maiden name? Maybe we should be allowed to choose between marriage and domestic partnerships, regardless of sexual orientation? There are people who don’t believe in marriage, common law or otherwise. IH and I had to get married so I could be put on his medical plan. We didn’t want to get married how we did (justice of the peace) but we had to do it fast. Interesting stuff…

63

If a bunch of people want to get married it doesn’t bother me. Doesn’t break my leg or pick my pocket.

64

[quote]John S. wrote:
If a bunch of people want to get married it doesn’t bother me. Doesn’t break my leg or pick my pocket.[/quote]

Well, you might be paying for all of their benefits through taxation and/or medical plans. So, basically the expansion of government benefits and mandates in the name of ‘fairness.’ Wait, isn’t that ‘progressive’ action?

65

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

So, according to you and in your opinion, the problems that 3rd world countries are facing is because of one guy having too many wives? That’s real cute.[/quote]

In some cases, yes - polygamy creates a class of men with no wives and a diminished future (particularly in a culture built on the status of having wives and property). That can be a social recipe for disaster.
[/quote]

Wait, how is allowing polygamy going to keep men from getting married? You really think there’s going to be this run on women and there’s going to be a sudden shortage of marriageable women for single men to marry?[/quote]

Sorry to do this at your expense…

This isn’t a response.

This is me saying, “told ya so.” Keep a look out for the “Non-marital romance” movement, too.[/quote]

No offense taken. You still don’t understand I was using “romantic relationship” as a way of saying “two people in love”. [/quote]

No, I mean, actual calls to equalize non-marital romance. New York Times Op-ed is a start…

"…Of course, this means weÃ?¢??ll be treated just as straight people are now. But this moment provides an opportunity to reconsider whether we ought to force people to marry Ã?¢?? whether they be gay or straight Ã?¢?? to have their committed relationships recognized and valued…

As strangers to marriage for so long, we�¢??ve created loving and committed forms of family, care and attachment that far exceed, and often improve on, the narrow legal definition of marriage. Many of us are not ready to abandon those nonmarital ways of loving once we can legally marry.

…Of course, lots of same-sex couples will want to marry as soon as they are allowed to, and we will congratulate them when they do even if we ourselves choose not to. But we shouldnÃ?¢??t be forced to marry to keep the benefits we now have, to earn and keep the respect of our friends and family, and to be seen as good citizens."

[/quote]

Sooo…wouldn’t Bloomberg and his girlfriend be considered common law married? Or do they still refer to her by her maiden name? Maybe we should be allowed to choose between marriage and domestic partnerships, regardless of sexual orientation? There are people who don’t believe in marriage, common law or otherwise. IH and I had to get married so I could be put on his medical plan. We didn’t want to get married how we did (justice of the peace) but we had to do it fast. Interesting stuff…[/quote]

Maybe I’m getting ahead of myself, but I’m just soooo excited. Bigotry would have only one last bastion in the realm of human relationships. Once we’ve got SSM, polyamorous marriages, and non-marital romances on equal grounds, we could move to the aid of non-marital, non-romantic relationships! Death to discrimination!

66

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
If a bunch of people want to get married it doesn’t bother me. Doesn’t break my leg or pick my pocket.[/quote]

Well, you might be paying for all of their benefits through taxation and/or medical plans. So, basically the expansion of government benefits and mandates in the name of ‘fairness.’ Wait, isn’t that ‘progressive’ action?[/quote]

I will stand with you to fight off those things if they do indeed pop up.*and most certanly will). But to punish them because the government wants to expand is the wrong way to go IMO.

67

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
If a bunch of people want to get married it doesn’t bother me. Doesn’t break my leg or pick my pocket.[/quote]

Well, you might be paying for all of their benefits through taxation and/or medical plans. So, basically the expansion of government benefits and mandates in the name of ‘fairness.’ Wait, isn’t that ‘progressive’ action?[/quote]

I will stand with you to fight off those things if they do indeed pop up.*and most certanly will). But to punish them because the government wants to expand is the wrong way to go IMO.[/quote]

You can’t fight those things, it was the whole point of all of this. Claiming the same legal privileges.

Punished is an interesting term to choose. Are non romantic relationships then punished too if they are denied the same status and privileges? Perhaps they are. Perhaps some kind of status could be set up so they could add somebody or (some persons, plural) on their healthcare plans (and other such things) if the plan presently covers spouses. Of course then the insurers would have to drop coverage on anyone but the employee, creating a new mass of the uninsured to convince all of us of the need for UHC. Just thinking ahead about the possibilities.

I can’t help but think libertarians are shooting themselves in the foot, again. Well, no, I know they are.

68

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Again let’s assume the government
[/quote]

That is about as useful as assuming men didn’t have blood flowing through their veins. Man is a political creature, he is also a religious creature. To yank him out of it is abstract and useless.[/quote]

But outside of subsidizing a behavior (marriage), the government is in no way shape or form required for this institution to flourish. It isn’t as if the government is ‘propping up’ monogamous heterosexual unions or anything. Obviously the government is currently involved in the practice, but it absolutely need not be. It also makes for a cleaner thought experiment in this instance to put all positions on a level playing field.

69

If the ultimate fear is the collapse of the family unit and thus society, we would have to prove that the end result of all of these legalizations of various marriage forms leads to the collapse of the family unit. At first blush it would seem the opposite is happening here: people are clamoring to form familial units based on love and support.

We are effectively limiting the number of voluntary, loving familial units yet claiming to want to support loving familial units. At least officially, obviously people are doing this anyway with or without the government sanctions.

70

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
No one has brought up incest, just you. Like I said in the other thread, incest is against natural law (NOT to be read as God’s law even though to some people “natural law” and “God’s law” are synonymous). [/quote]

So is polygamy and so is homosexual unions.[/quote]

Again…not talking about God and religion.[/quote]

Neither am I. I am talking about the philosophical moral tradition which is referred to as Natural Law.

I feel terrible pointing this out, but I believe you are confusing laws of nature with Natural Law. They are not the same thing generally although the latter pulls from the former.

Here are some links:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/

Well if lions are what we should look to for our morals from then women should do all the work while the man sits under a tree and offers protection, like a pimp. As well, if a man wants wives he should challenge the patriarch of the family, kill him and all his children so his new wives will go into heat in preparation of being jumped by the new male. He will also eat his male children, sometimes being merciful and chases them off once they become old enough to reproduce.

Or, we can look to the big horn sheep who’s idea of pursuing a female is chasing her all over the mountain side, sometimes resulting in her death as she runs away from the male. Once he catches up to her he dominates her and mounts her pretty much against her will. Afterwards he leaves her and may or may not ever see her again. Doesn’t even take her to dinner or even ask her name, such a gentleman is he.

It is extreme, but my point is that all though a good lion does as he does, we have an intellect and unfortunately for the lion he only can rely on his instinct.

The first principle of Natural Law is to do good and avoid evil, it is of course good to do what helps man flourish or function well. To figure out if something helps us flourish and function well we can take Kant’s principle by applying it to all humans across the board in all circumstances.

If all sexual unions were homosexual unions, would humans flourish or function well? Well, besides discounting the abusive situation that is rampant in homosexual unions, the plain answer is no. Humans would be extinct after one generation.

The others are more troublesome to go through with such principles, but they ultimately suffer from similar fates.

71

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Again let’s assume the government
[/quote]

That is about as useful as assuming men didn’t have blood flowing through their veins. Man is a political creature, he is also a religious creature. To yank him out of it is abstract and useless.[/quote]

But outside of subsidizing a behavior (marriage), the government is in no way shape or form required for this institution to flourish. It isn’t as if the government is ‘propping up’ monogamous heterosexual unions or anything. Obviously the government is currently involved in the practice, but it absolutely need not be. It also makes for a cleaner thought experiment in this instance to put all positions on a level playing field.[/quote]

Why is it not required for this institute to flourish?

72

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Again let’s assume the government
[/quote]

That is about as useful as assuming men didn’t have blood flowing through their veins. Man is a political creature, he is also a religious creature. To yank him out of it is abstract and useless.[/quote]

But outside of subsidizing a behavior (marriage), the government is in no way shape or form required for this institution to flourish. It isn’t as if the government is ‘propping up’ monogamous heterosexual unions or anything. Obviously the government is currently involved in the practice, but it absolutely need not be. It also makes for a cleaner thought experiment in this instance to put all positions on a level playing field.[/quote]

Why is it not required for this institute to flourish?[/quote]

Because it is probably also totally ordained by God and therefore does not need no stinking gubamint?

73

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Chimps (particularly bonobos) practice same sex all time. Shit, bonobos use sex so commonly it’s almost like saying thank you or something.[/quote]

74

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
No one has brought up incest, just you. Like I said in the other thread, incest is against natural law (NOT to be read as God’s law even though to some people “natural law” and “God’s law” are synonymous). [/quote]

So is polygamy and so is homosexual unions.[/quote]

Again…not talking about God and religion. Polygamy and homosexual relations happen in nature all the time. There is only one male lion in a pride with multiple lionesses. Chimps (particularly bonobos) practice same sex all time. Shit, bonobos use sex so commonly it’s almost like saying thank you or something. There have been cases of two male penguins “parenting” an egg (cue Morgan Freeman). [/quote]

This is also natural to chimps.

So, am I allowed to reject this act while still thinking chimps are alright, or must I accept this too, or else be labeled an intolerant bigot?

Sorry for the crass example, but your statement was asking for it.

75

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

When?
And that isn�¢??t what he was discussing. He was saying sometimes, he was saying our government is based on doing things for the common good. He was saying common interest overrides personal freedoms, period. Which is backwards.[/quote]

Yes, and Kamui is right - common interest does override personal freedoms in certain instances. If this weren’t true, we’d have no government. Our federal Constitution does both - it protects freedoms and authorizes grants of power. Not either/or. And this is especially true for states, which have had the authority to pass public welfare laws since before our country was a country.[/quote]

Again. When?

And again, sometimes and always as the rule are 2 different things.

76

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Again let’s assume the government
[/quote]

That is about as useful as assuming men didn’t have blood flowing through their veins. Man is a political creature, he is also a religious creature. To yank him out of it is abstract and useless.[/quote]

But outside of subsidizing a behavior (marriage), the government is in no way shape or form required for this institution to flourish. It isn’t as if the government is ‘propping up’ monogamous heterosexual unions or anything. Obviously the government is currently involved in the practice, but it absolutely need not be. It also makes for a cleaner thought experiment in this instance to put all positions on a level playing field.[/quote]

Why is it not required for this institute to flourish?[/quote]

Because humans want to get married regardless of what the government does or says. It is in our nature to want to ‘legitimize’ our relationships with each other through ritual. If the government stopped giving tax breaks for marriage, do you honestly think for one second a lot of folks would simply stop getting their relationships at least ‘spiritually’ recognized? And if they did, should they have ever gotten married in the first place? I am married with two children (one is on the way) and I can assure you that at no point in time did the thought of tax breaks or government sanction ever come into my decision making process. A nice perk perhaps, but absolutely inconsequential to the desire to get married.

The polygamist challenging the constitutionality of this case is a perfect example. Despite jail time, social harassment, intimidation and the like they desperately want to be together and do so in spite of all these dangers. They love each other and want to make that love more permanent than an open ended ‘dating’ relationship. Gays have for years been having their own ‘non-official’ marriages to symbolize their love for one another and differentiate their love from simply dating someone.

I believe we should cherish and encourage the family unit which is why it seems ass backwards to me to be keeping folks who want to create family units, regardless of the makeup of that union, from doing so.

77

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

So, according to you and in your opinion, the problems that 3rd world countries are facing is because of one guy having too many wives? That’s real cute.[/quote]

In some cases, yes - polygamy creates a class of men with no wives and a diminished future (particularly in a culture built on the status of having wives and property). That can be a social recipe for disaster.
[/quote]

Wait, how is allowing polygamy going to keep men from getting married? You really think there’s going to be this run on women and there’s going to be a sudden shortage of marriageable women for single men to marry?[/quote]

The fact of the matter is that there will be very few men capable of having a polygamous marriage. Only the really wealthy can do this and really most women do not see any economic benefit from this sort of arrangement anymore. Woman are, after all, allowed to be more than just a carrier of man’s seed these days.

78

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Again. When?[/quote]

Uh, say for example, when states first passed laws recognizing marriage, which were perceived to be in the general interest of society?

Are the questions you are asking serious?

79

[quote]kamui wrote:
the question is “how would it be beneficial for everyone ?”
[/quote]

Excellent point.

That is the exact question that I’ve asked in several previous debates regarding gay marriage. How does changing a 5000 year old institution for less than 1% of the population (those homosexual who will actually get married) help our society (I can think of many ways it could hurt it). I’ve yet to hear a reasonable answer.

80

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
If a bunch of people want to get married it doesn’t bother me. Doesn’t break my leg or pick my pocket.[/quote]

Well, you might be paying for all of their benefits through taxation and/or medical plans. So, basically the expansion of government benefits and mandates in the name of ‘fairness.’ Wait, isn’t that ‘progressive’ action?[/quote]

And how is that the fault of polygamous marriage?