Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

True, but that actually supports the argument-it goes specifically against the rules of the Catholic church in fact 3x:
*not outside marriage
*no priest partying permitted
*no same sex.

 Frazzled wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It has to be informed consent though. Some child raised in a cult where this is a great idea is not providing informed consent.

And what defines 'cult'? Should the state consider someone entirely raised Roman Catholic, marrying someone else Catholic as approved by their family, or Jewish or Muslim?

How do we make the definitions here?

How do you determine that someone raising in the Temple of the Great Potato all their lives, preparing to marry 12 other people of the Temple of the Great Potato, isn't entirely sane and happy and entitled to marry in that fashion?

is this a serious question? You can't tell the difference between Catholic (is there a Catholic besides Roman-real question) and a pedo cult in the sticks somewhere?

An immediate answer sprang to mind, but I have no desire to be booted from the site...

Pedophilia would not suddenly become legalized by legalizing polygamy. The age of consent to marry would remain as it is, you're throwing something of a red herring in the mix here. We are discussing polygamy between people of the age to be married.

As I said, if consenting adults want to have a polygamous marriage, they should be allowed to be recognized by the law.

Consenting. Adults.

I'd be ok if they passed a test, alone without benefit of their "family," simply called the "you're know you're making the mistake of your life right?" test.

 Frazzled wrote:
I'd be ok if they passed a test, alone without benefit of their "family," simply called the "you're know you're making the mistake of your life right?" test.

But in the end that is their mistake to make. It won't work for a lot of people but for some it will. In the end a Polynomial marriage will probably effect my daily life will in no way shape or form.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
recognized as binding them before the law

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
none of my damned business or yours

Mutually exclusive, I'm afraid. If I am required to recognize it, it is my business.

EDIT: for clarity, I'm okay with legal same-sex marriage

 Manchu wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
recognized as binding them before the law

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
none of my damned business or yours

Mutually exclusive, I'm afraid. If I am required to recognize it, it is my business.

Its interesting. My concern here is the opposite of the arguments about gay marriage.

I'm not arguing its immoral. I'm not arguing its icky. I'm arguing its seriously ed up for at least one person in that relationship, wrapped in coercion and pressure, even family pressure.

Gay marriage bans hurt individuals, who could not marry the person they wanted (and vice versa), because of the sex. That became an equal protection issue, and thus any person can marry whatever other person they see fit. It changes the traditional definition of marriage being male/female, but because the people that wanted in wanted all of the core aspects of marriage that legal recognition allows.

Poly marriage bans I suppose do hurt individuals, but they also change the way that society has to deal with marriage. The shift from "a man and a woman" to "two dudes" requires some new forms. Shifting to "three people" requires changing, in pretty major ways, how society and government treat a married family.

Do employers want to extend benefits like health care to multiple spouses? What about survivor benefits for annuities?

If a married triple has children, are all adults considered a parent under the law? If so is the non-biological parent liable for child support if they divorce? If not, would a non-biological parent have any standing to foster/adopt if something happens to the biological parents? Will they get visitation rights if they divorce?

In a poly divorce, what is considered community property?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
(is there a Catholic besides Roman-real question)

Yes, there are eastern rite churches. They are in communion with Rome, but they recognize their own patriarch.

Polonius OT message in private mail

 Vash108 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It has to be informed consent though. Some child raised in a cult where this is a great idea is not providing informed consent.

Like he says, indoctrination is not consent.

+1. I agree that it's fine w/ real consent to do w/e, but as long as polygamy is so strongly associated with indoctrination, it will (and IMHO should) have serious problems.

Well, one solution is to have stricter policies regarding marriage in general. Plenty of women in heavily religious or traditional communities are married in monogamous relationships without really informed consent.

As someone who is Polyamorous - I hope eventually to have the right to marry. I fear that it will not happen with in my lifetime though.

 Swara wrote:
As someone who is Polyamorous - I hope eventually to have the right to marry. I fear that it will not happen with in my lifetime though.

Do you want to be married to the people you are currently dating?

Would you want it to a fully group marriage, or would you want separate marriages to each partner? (I've seen both models in poly relationships).

But what about polygamous gay marriage? Why can't one dude, marry 20 dudes ?

When you have no standards, you have no limits.

BY the way..I predict that in my lifetime, one of the LDS prophets will have a "word from god" telling him that the ban on polygamous marriage was only temporary, until the rest of the world "caught up".

But then what will Warren Jeffs do?

GG

 generalgrog wrote:
But what about polygamous gay marriage? Why can't one dude, marry 20 dudes ?

When you have no standards, you have no limits.

BY the way..I predict that in my lifetime, one of the LDS prophets will have a "word from god" telling him that the ban on polygamous marriage was only temporary, until the rest of the world "caught up".

But then what will Warren Jeffs do?

GG

Then what if Aliens landed on earth and have mixed sexes, and then we want to concentually marry them too.

I am not sure if i like the sound of Rules on marriage. It is a bit on the fence.

 Polonius wrote:
Well, one solution is to have stricter policies regarding marriage in general. Plenty of women in heavily religious or traditional communities are married in monogamous relationships without really informed consent.

This is true as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vash108 wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
But what about polygamous gay marriage? Why can't one dude, marry 20 dudes ?

When you have no standards, you have no limits.

BY the way..I predict that in my lifetime, one of the LDS prophets will have a "word from god" telling him that the ban on polygamous marriage was only temporary, until the rest of the world "caught up".

But then what will Warren Jeffs do?

GG

Then what if Aliens landed on earth and have mixed sexes, and then we want to concentually marry them too.

Just remember the words of our spiritual guru:
"To serve Man...its...ITS A COOKBOOK!"

 generalgrog wrote:
But what about polygamous gay marriage? Why can't one dude, marry 20 dudes ?

When you have no standards, you have no limits.

I know you're being snide, but that's actually a good question.

What actual policy reason is there to forbid 20 men from all marrying each other (or 20 men each marrying one, presumably very appealing, man)?

As a society, we looked at gay marriage, and realized that there isn't any particularly good reason to ban it. And holy hell did we try!

The difference here is that gay (mono) marriage is simply allowing slightly different people into a state sanctioned and society recognized relationship contract. Poly marriage is a different beast, in that it doesn't exist. States were able to start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in hours with a little white out. Poly marriage would be a mess to hash out. It would need a pretty substantial apparatus to exist, and as a very general rule, you can't sue the government to create something for you. You can sue to get let in.

BY the way..I predict that in my lifetime, one of the LDS prophets will have a "word from god" telling him that the ban on polygamous marriage was only temporary, until the rest of the world "caught up".

But then what will Warren Jeffs do?

GG

And why not? I bet that in my lifetime the Catholic church will fold on at least one of it's dumb issues: celibate priests, male only priests, or no birth control.

people are into weird stuff. If women want to be a second wife, than let 'em.

 Polonius wrote:

 Swara wrote:
As someone who is Polyamorous - I hope eventually to have the right to marry. I fear that it will not happen with in my lifetime though.

Do you want to be married to the people you are currently dating?

Would you want it to a fully group marriage, or would you want separate marriages to each partner? (I've seen both models in poly relationships).

I would like some of the rights that go with marriage. I know taxes and insurances are a complex topic, but other things that make life easier are constant. I have a partner that is very phone anxious, but I can't legally help them with issue like talking to government employees on their behalf because I don't have a legal bond.
I think it would be easier to have separate marriages and makes the most sense much of the time. Though I date multiple people, most relationships are not shared as a group. Triads and more do exist though, but could all give each other those rights separately.

Thought he poly community is fairly large, it has only become a recent thing to be open about and not be completely mocked or worse. We've had very little time to gain support and it will come slow because of the stigmas placed on us because of religious institutions.

"I would like some of the rights that go with marriage. I know taxes and insurances are a complex topic, but other things that make life easier are constant. I have a partner that is very phone anxious, but I can't legally help them with issue like talking to government employees on their behalf because I don't have a legal bond. "

They can give you power of attorney to help with that.

There are laws on the books that prohibit the number of non-related females from living in one residence.

This was a means to combat against prostitution.

Having all the wimmin legally married subvert that.

I guess it'd be nice? I've got some friends who are into this sort of thing. They way things are she'd only be able to go official with one of her partners, assuming that's something they even want to do collectively. That said I think since it seems like more of a taste or culture thing, it's a bit less important than other rights issues.

 Swara wrote:

I would like some of the rights that go with marriage. I know taxes and insurances are a complex topic, but other things that make life easier are constant. I have a partner that is very phone anxious, but I can't legally help them with issue like talking to government employees on their behalf because I don't have a legal bond.

That's a good point, although increasingly governments are recognizing domestic partners, which is helping a lot of people that are not married, but are in familial relationships.

But I totally get this. I did a relocation for work, and everything went very smooth because my wife can sign things for me, get info about me, and is considered family, and thus included in the dollar amount I received.

I think it would be easier to have separate marriages and makes the most sense much of the time. Though I date multiple people, most relationships are not shared as a group. Triads and more do exist though, but could all give each other those rights separately.

In many ways, having each couple included is probably the simplest, although I would imagine any legal framework would require the consent of any current spouse to add another one.

Thought he poly community is fairly large, it has only become a recent thing to be open about and not be completely mocked or worse. We've had very little time to gain support and it will come slow because of the stigmas placed on us because of religious institutions.

There's no really polite way to say this... but most of the poly people I've met has been pretty strange folk. Very kind, gracious, and friendly, but the stereotype of the hippie commune isn't that far off for a lot of the folk I've met. (Full disclosure: I casually dated a poly woman for a few months. She ended it because she felt I was too "respectable." We stayed in touch for a while, and then drifted apart, as our mutually divergent social lives more or less demanded.)

To OP: Not a chance. An argument can be made for same sex marriages (they involve 2 consenting adults, just like heterosexual marriages.) Polygamy is a different beast. The extra person causes so much confusion when it comes to power of attorney, tax situations, etc. Also - most people just don't care. There was a cultural movement to support same sex, I don't see that happening for polygamy. People are not as supportive.

Can I marry my horse yet?

 Polonius wrote:

 Swara wrote:

I would like some of the rights that go with marriage. I know taxes and insurances are a complex topic, but other things that make life easier are constant. I have a partner that is very phone anxious, but I can't legally help them with issue like talking to government employees on their behalf because I don't have a legal bond.

That's a good point, although increasingly governments are recognizing domestic partners, which is helping a lot of people that are not married, but are in familial relationships.

But I totally get this. I did a relocation for work, and everything went very smooth because my wife can sign things for me, get info about me, and is considered family, and thus included in the dollar amount I received.

I think it would be easier to have separate marriages and makes the most sense much of the time. Though I date multiple people, most relationships are not shared as a group. Triads and more do exist though, but could all give each other those rights separately.

In many ways, having each couple included is probably the simplest, although I would imagine any legal framework would require the consent of any current spouse to add another one.

Thought he poly community is fairly large, it has only become a recent thing to be open about and not be completely mocked or worse. We've had very little time to gain support and it will come slow because of the stigmas placed on us because of religious institutions.

There's no really polite way to say this... but most of the poly people I've met has been pretty strange folk. Very kind, gracious, and friendly, but the stereotype of the hippie commune isn't that far off for a lot of the folk I've met. (Full disclosure: I casually dated a poly woman for a few months. She ended it because she felt I was too "respectable." We stayed in touch for a while, and then drifted apart, as our mutually divergent social lives more or less demanded.)

I can't argue with that, we're a pretty odd bunch. : P Much of the poly community is queer, very open, and very friendly. At the same time we are very good (but intense) communicators. It all adds up to pretty much a bunch of hippies. <3

And as domestic partnership goes, it's hard because I'm already married. I could go through the power of attorney and am looking into that, but it would be nice to be recognized as something more.

 Chongara wrote:
I guess it'd be nice? I've got some friends who are into this sort of thing. They way things are she'd only be able to go official with one of her partners, assuming that's something they even want to do collectively. That said I think since it seems like more of a taste or culture thing, it's a bit less important than other rights issues.

I agree that it is a cultural issue as well as religious. There are still cultures out there that support polygamy separate from religion. Personally I think polygamy should be ok but legal implications are intense to say the least. I can just see polygamous families having a vote round someones deathbed in order to turn off life support.

 Manchu wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
recognized as binding them before the law

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
none of my damned business or yours

Mutually exclusive, I'm afraid. If I am required to recognize it, it is my business.

Is it then my business what goes on in the Catholic Church? I legally have to recognize it, can I have a say in it recognizing female priests and allowing marriage for the clergy?

 generalgrog wrote:
But what about polygamous gay marriage? Why can't one dude, marry 20 dudes ?

When you have no standards, you have no limits.

BY the way..I predict that in my lifetime, one of the LDS prophets will have a "word from god" telling him that the ban on polygamous marriage was only temporary, until the rest of the world "caught up".

But then what will Warren Jeffs do?

GG

Originally, the LDS church introduced polygamy as a means to increase their own population. With missionaries and churches around the world, polygamy seems unnecessary. As far as I can tell, the core population of the LDS faith has little interest in returning to polygamy.

 Mr Nobody wrote:


Originally, the LDS church introduced polygamy as a means to increase their own population....

That wasn't the original reason however..that certainly was part of it..but so was old men wanting to sleep with 18 year old women. There will always be a certain group of people that will gravitate to a cult that allows them to have as many 18 year old women to sleep with. Not to mention other peoples wives. If you displease the leader, he can send you into exile and take your family, wives away, and give them to other faithful members.

All you have to do is look at the FLDS to get an idea of what it was like in the mid 19th century for those mormons at the time. And it could absolutely happen again.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:


Originally, the LDS church introduced polygamy as a means to increase their own population....

That wasn't the original reason however..that certainly was part of it..but so was old men wanting to sleep with 18 year old women. There will always be a certain group of people that will gravitate to a cult that allows them to have as many 18 year old women to sleep with. Not to mention other peoples wives. If you displease the leader, he can send you into exile and take your family, wives away, and give them to other faithful members.

All you have to do is look at the FLDS to get an idea of what it was like in the mid 19th century for those mormons at the time. And it could absolutely happen again.

GG

Do you have proof of this? Or are you just speculating...

In the wake of the marriage equality ruling, some other groups have tried to use the change as a foothold for their own causes, seeking marriage recognition for polygamist or incestuous relationships, as well as ones currently illegal based on laws for age of consent.

Personally, I don't see any of these groups gaining any traction on this front. The marriage equality ruling made no effective change to the legal contract of marriage. The only thing it did was remove a barrier of gender discrimination on the prerequisites for said contract.