- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My opinion is that if they are of legal age…people should be able to marry who or how many they want. I.E. A man and a group of women want to be polygamous fine…but I think it’s the same coin as Gay Marriage. If one is good then all is good. And I am all for what ever people want to do as long as they are consenting adults. And to say Gay Marriage is the reason for the destruction of Straight Marriage is a weak straw man at best.
I know I am probably the only member who thinks differently about Prop 8, and from my point of view it is the exact same issue as polygamy and polyandry
Arwen wrote:I know I am probably the only member who thinks differently about Prop 8,and 
cwald wrote:Arwen wrote:I know I am probably the only member who thinks differently about Prop 8,and Same horse…different horse race. I think if the people in a state wants polygamy/polyandry to be legal…fine by me. Same with Gay Marriage, if the people in a state want it..fine by me. As long as everyone is over the age of consent. I know that makes me a very odd duck indeed in the TBM world.
I myself would choose neither…but it would be my choice not the choice of the government or a bunch of well meaning people trying to save me by forcing their moral standards on me.
and from my experience, most of the dysfunctional families I know are straight, one husband/one wife families.
How many polygamy / polyandry families do you know? Personally, I don’t know any.
Mike from Milton.
Mike wrote:How many polygamy / polyandry families do you know?
Personally, I don’t know any.
Mike from Milton.
That’s my point…I don’t know any, except the Sister Wives Reality TV show (I will take as a Reality TV show’s worth only, which ain’t much IMHO). But I know plenty of very dysfunctional regular ‘normal’ mom/dad 2.5 kid families. In fact I don’t know any that aren’t dysfunctional. I am just saying that everyone has the right to be miserable and have a horrible family life….why should I suffer alone.
:wtf: 😆 Quote:Let’s see now,
girls 14 and under being “married” to older menfamilies being reassignedyoung men being kicked out of communities and left on the streethaving your home taken awaybeing forbidden to have sex with your wife, being told you can’t listen to the radio, watch TV, read the news paper.Maybe “God doesn’t care…” but I’m glad someone here on this side of the veil does.+1. Couldn’t agree more.
All of the above occur outside of polygamy communities as well, Perhaps all marriage should be discarded. If we condemned a religous group based on abuses committed I doubt there would be much religion left.
gtb7697 wrote:Quote:Let’s see now,
girls 14 and under being “married” to older menfamilies being reassignedyoung men being kicked out of communities and left on the streethaving your home taken awaybeing forbidden to have sex with your wife, being told you can’t listen to the radio, watch TV, read the news paper.Maybe “God doesn’t care…” but I’m glad someone here on this side of the veil does.+1. Couldn’t agree more.
All of the above occur outside of polygamy communities as well, Perhaps all marriage should be discarded. If we condemned a religous group based on abuses committed I doubt there would be much religion left.
No. In a normal western society, girls under 14 are not getting married to older men, families do not get reassigned, and men are not forbidden to have sex with their wives. Perhaps you need to explain what you mean, because I don’t get it.
Actually someone said to me recently (who’s gay/bi by the way!), “if they legalise gay marriage, they’ll have to legalise polygamy.” Given that we have quite a few Muslims round here, some of them might go for that…
SamBee wrote:Actually someone said to me recently (who’s gay/bi by the way!), “if they legalise gay marriage, they’ll have to legalise polygamy.”
Given that we have quite a few Muslims round here, some of them might go for that…
which brings up the fundamental problem with the state having a view on this. If you restrict marriage to one man and one woman, then you restrict the religious freedom of muslims, and FLDS who want to practice plig and you discriminate against UUs and Episcopalians who would like to sanctify single-sex marriage, all in favor of a so-called mainstream definition of marriage coming from conservative christianity. That would be called “establishment” in first amendment language. if “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and if my religious obligation is to live the ‘principle’ (FLDS), or remain married to my 2nd-4th wife (islam), or to sanctify my gay marriage rather than living in ‘sin’ and not be married (well it’s a stretch, but let’s just say Episcopal here); then congress or the states are prohibiting the free exercise of my religion, and establishing a religious principle of marriage in harmony with what I consider to be false religion.Does allowing a gay couple to marry affect the free exercise of my religion? For that matter, does allowing the FLDS men to have as many consenting adult wives they want to have have anything to do with the free exercise of my religion?
There is great hypocrisy on this matter. I’ve known men who’ve had at least half a dozen female lovers – often simultaneously. And the whole notion of menage a trois (threesomes) is fashionable in Hollywood and used for titillation. But get married to more than one woman…
My basic stance has been and continues to be “consistency”. If someone uses an argument against one group of people, I don’t want them to ignore that same arguement when it applies to them and others they accept.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.