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.

 Jimsolo wrote:
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.

Yea but barriers have been removed.

Over the next decade it isn't hard to imagine young people questioning why only 2 people can get married and then over time it growing into a movement. They will look back and say people who are against it are crazy and maybe gay people will do the "X years ago this was illegal" thing.

Im pretty certain Polygamy will be legal in my time on earth anyway. That is, if current trends continue. But im just guessing here.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 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...

It's well documented for the FLDS, and also there is documentation that Joe Smith married other members wives, and exiled members and remarried off their wives and daughters to other mormons. If I recall correctly..Brigham young did this as well.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 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...

It's well documented for the FLDS, and also there is documentation that Joe Smith married other members wives, and exiled members and remarried off their wives and daughters to other mormons. If I recall correctly..Brigham young did this as well.

GG

No im talking about the bit where it was pretty much only created for old men to sleep with young women. Because some wives got remarried is not really proof of that, all it shows is that when someone messes up and gets kicked from the church their wives decided to remarry within the church again really.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 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...

It's well documented for the FLDS, and also there is documentation that Joe Smith married other members wives, and exiled members and remarried off their wives and daughters to other mormons. If I recall correctly..Brigham young did this as well.

GG

No im talking about the bit where it was pretty much only created for old men to sleep with young women. Because some wives got remarried is not really proof of that, all it shows is that when someone messes up and gets kicked from the church their wives decided to remarry within the church again really.

No not really...they were assigned to other members..as a reward for faithfulness. And as way of controlling current members, I.E. don't get out of line or you will lose your entire family. Go do some research on your own, and you will see for your self.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 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...

It's well documented for the FLDS, and also there is documentation that Joe Smith married other members wives, and exiled members and remarried off their wives and daughters to other mormons. If I recall correctly..Brigham young did this as well.

GG

No im talking about the bit where it was pretty much only created for old men to sleep with young women. Because some wives got remarried is not really proof of that, all it shows is that when someone messes up and gets kicked from the church their wives decided to remarry within the church again really.

No not really...they were assigned to other members..as a reward for faithfulness. And as way of controlling current members, I.E. don't get out of line or you will lose your entire family. Go do some research on your own, and you will see for your self.

GG

Ok will do... but my question still remains, do you have proof polygamy was there mainly for old men to sleep with young women?

 generalgrog wrote:


No not really...they were assigned to other members..as a reward for faithfulness. And as way of controlling current members, I.E. don't get out of line or you will lose your entire family. Go do some research on your own, and you will see for your self.

GG

But if its legalized by the feds, that can no longer happen, as the spouses will be legally chained together...

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:


No not really...they were assigned to other members..as a reward for faithfulness. And as way of controlling current members, I.E. don't get out of line or you will lose your entire family. Go do some research on your own, and you will see for your self.

GG

But if its legalized by the feds, that can no longer happen, as the spouses will be legally chained together...

OK so they divorce their current husband and remarry who the leader wants them too..so on and so forth. And its all legal.

GG



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:


Ok will do... but my question still remains, do you have proof polygamy was there mainly for old men to sleep with young women?

I admit that..that is my description of what I have read on the issue..take a look at the wives of joe smith..and you might come to the same conclusion.Read each of the wives background and you will see that joe smith married really young girls (and some not so young). This kind of thing was practiced by most mormons of the 19th century.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/



Also the FLDS is fairly good representation of what the mormon church was like in the 19th century..so yeah if you want to call that "proof" then there you have it.


GG

If all involved are adults and all are consenting to the practice, then what frackin' business is it of anyone else what they do?

Deleted

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
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.

Yea but barriers have been removed.

Over the next decade it isn't hard to imagine young people questioning why only 2 people can get married and then over time it growing into a movement. They will look back and say people who are against it are crazy and maybe gay people will do the "X years ago this was illegal" thing.

Im pretty certain Polygamy will be legal in my time on earth anyway. That is, if current trends continue. But im just guessing here.

I've never had cause to research it at length, but I've heard before that polygamy is historically a tool of gender oppression.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
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.

Yea but barriers have been removed.

Over the next decade it isn't hard to imagine young people questioning why only 2 people can get married and then over time it growing into a movement. They will look back and say people who are against it are crazy and maybe gay people will do the "X years ago this was illegal" thing.

Im pretty certain Polygamy will be legal in my time on earth anyway. That is, if current trends continue. But im just guessing here.

I've never had cause to research it at length, but I've heard before that polygamy is historically a tool of gender oppression.

Apparently the way I sit when I have space to do so is oppressive to a certain gender. People claim A LOT of things are gender oppression. If people are willing to argue homosexuality is ok because some animals do a few things similar to it, then people will argue polygamy is ok because some animals do it too.

Any argument against it is gonna have a hard time justifying it as time goes on even if you disagree with it.

Can you realistically say it's not ok to marry 2 people(hypothetically)? The only reason against I can see now would be the way the law treats marriage, but if people want that will change.

I'd be in favor of one marriage with cohabitation being fine until they change the tax laws. I wouldn't be surprised if people tried to abuse completely legal polygamy, with even just a tight knit close of friends deciding to all get benefits by marrying everyone in their group.

 Wyzilla wrote:
I'd be in favor of one marriage with cohabitation being fine until they change the tax laws. I wouldn't be surprised if people tried to abuse completely legal polygamy, with even just a tight knit close of friends deciding to all get benefits by marrying everyone in their group.

People abuse monogamous marriage all the time for various purposes.

Relapse wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
I'd be in favor of one marriage with cohabitation being fine until they change the tax laws. I wouldn't be surprised if people tried to abuse completely legal polygamy, with even just a tight knit close of friends deciding to all get benefits by marrying everyone in their group.

People abuse monogamous marriage all the time for various purposes.

Yeah, but that's just limited to two parties With polygamy it opens a can of worms. Exactly what is the limit as to how many people can be mutually married? What legal benefits will the entire group receive?

 Wyzilla wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
I'd be in favor of one marriage with cohabitation being fine until they change the tax laws. I wouldn't be surprised if people tried to abuse completely legal polygamy, with even just a tight knit close of friends deciding to all get benefits by marrying everyone in their group.

People abuse monogamous marriage all the time for various purposes.

Yeah, but that's just limited to two parties With polygamy it opens a can of worms. Exactly what is the limit as to how many people can be mutually married? What legal benefits will the entire group receive?

I think I see what you mean, and it is valid to worry about, but I think if someone is out to abuse marriage, it'll be in equal numbers whether it's monogamous or polygamist.

Relapse wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
I'd be in favor of one marriage with cohabitation being fine until they change the tax laws. I wouldn't be surprised if people tried to abuse completely legal polygamy, with even just a tight knit close of friends deciding to all get benefits by marrying everyone in their group.

People abuse monogamous marriage all the time for various purposes.

Yeah, but that's just limited to two parties With polygamy it opens a can of worms. Exactly what is the limit as to how many people can be mutually married? What legal benefits will the entire group receive?

I think I see what you mean, and it is valid to worry about, but I think if someone is out to abuse marriage, it'll be in equal numbers whether it's monogamous or polygamist.

Not really. Unless they're good friends or casual lovers, marrying in a typical pairing will prove problematic of one of them actually legitimately falls in love. But with legal polygamy carrying the same benefits of marriage, you could have multiple couples all marry each other for the benefits while remaining into their original pairs while continuing a friendship. IMO the only way to proceed is to just cut-back on any benefits that come from marriage, and return it purely to being a cultural/religious thing with the state not giving a damn besides the legal guardianship of any minors.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 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?

Except you do realize how much those things are in no way remotely alike, right? You absolutely do get to opt out (in fact, they might well greatly prefer you to. I don't know. Just a feeling here.) of being a part of that group, don't you? You get to not give a gak about any Catholic (internal) rule(s) and there's feth all consequence to that, right? Do you get to opt out of civil society like that? Last I checked the whole sovereign citizen gak hadn't really been all that successful so far. Feel free to start your own club. Don't feel free to start your own sovereign entity with it's own body of laws on U.S. soil. Or do - but pass us some popcorn first.

Seriously, take a moment to properly think that argument of yours through and see just how much it isn't remotely the same as Manchu's.

I would suggest that the door is not open for polygamy. The "consenting adult" argument is strong, but I think polygamy would have other far more difficult obstacles to overcome.

Polygamy would potentially change the perimeters of existing marriages in a way that gay marriage did not. For example: what if your wife suddenly decides she wants to add an additional husband to the relationship? What is the nature of your relationship when marriages are no longer exclusive? The legal ramifications are mind-bending.

I think people would also feel that their exclusive commitment to each other was being eroded. Being a husband or wife loses all meaning in a world where people can collect spouses like they collect facebook friends. Monogamous people would need to look for a new term to describe their "one and only". So you end up with just a semantic shift, which is pointless.

I have nothing against polygamistic arrangements, but I doubt they are compatible with our legal or cultural concept of marriage. I think the nature of the relationships would be too different to ever reconcile them under the same umbrella term.

 Smacks wrote:
I would suggest that the door is not open for polygamy. The "consenting adult" argument is strong, but I think polygamy would have other far more difficult obstacles to overcome.

Polygamy would potentially change the perimeters of existing marriages in a way that gay marriage did not. For example: what if your wife suddenly decides she wants to add an additional husband to the relationship? What is the nature of your relationship when marriages are no longer exclusive? The legal ramifications are mind-bending.

I think people would also feel that their exclusive commitment to each other was being eroded. Being a husband or wife loses all meaning in a world where people can collect spouses like they collect facebook friends. Monogamous people would need to look for a new term to describe their "one and only". So you end up with just a semantic shift, which is pointless.

I have nothing against polygamistic arrangements, but I doubt they are compatible with our legal or cultural concept of marriage. I think the nature of the relationships would be too different to ever reconcile them under the same umbrella term.

I like what you say about exclusivity and compatibility, but consider this, arguments for polygamy could use slight variations on the same tact as the ones I think we've all seen used used for gay marriage over the years, such as:

It's natural. Just look at the animals in the wild where a male has several mates, such as a Lion pride or group of Gorillas, to name a couple of examples.

How is hetero marriage superior when so many end in divorce, or devolve into one spouse or the other cheating all the time?

Children get sexually abused in hetero households.

What business is it of others who someone loves and chooses to marry?

Here is my theory about how it will happen at large, since this is how I see it at play right now around here and nearby states:
The husband is legally married to one of the women in the eyes of the state. The others are married in a ceremony that is recognized by the participants and their religion, and every one in the arrangement lives together. That way, the state only has to worry about any legal rights for the original couple.
There were cohabitation laws here in Utah that made this a crime, but were struck down by a federal judge, paving the way for these types of relations to be more open. They were already happening and known about. My nephew worked for some polygamists in a cabinet shop ithey owned in Nevada and would visit their "home", which was really a group of houses. My father was visiting a friend in Idaho who had a polygamist uncle who had the same arrangement, with all the wives living side by side in seperate houses. One of our neighbors was in a polygamist marriage and her daughter would play with ours and she would tell us she loved living that way and wanted a polygamist marriage when she grew up.
The foundation and practice are already there. I think in a time not many years down the road, enough people in society are going to reflect the evolution in attitude towards gay marriage over the years that it will be even more open than it is now. That being said, it only takes a couple of judges to say constitutional rights are being violated to make it the law of the land.

Since we've established that marriage is not solely a religious ceremony, nor does any religion have a sole claim to the institution of marriage, we can discard that line of reasoning.

That leaves us with marriage as a contract between parties in a legal sense. Have questions about the taxes and such? Write it up in a legally-binding contract signed by and agreed upon by all parties.

Worried about child-brides and wife-swapping? The former is already illegal in the US and the latter is already a practice of swingers. But in a more serious sense, a wife not consenting to being swapped is, obviously, a non-consensual event, which would make it a crime (potentially criminal offenses).

 Psienesis wrote:
Since we've established that marriage is not solely a religious ceremony, nor does any religion have a sole claim to the institution of marriage, we can discard that line of reasoning.

That leaves us with marriage as a contract between parties in a legal sense. Have questions about the taxes and such? Write it up in a legally-binding contract signed by and agreed upon by all parties.

Worried about child-brides and wife-swapping? The former is already illegal in the US and the latter is already a practice of swingers. But in a more serious sense, a wife not consenting to being swapped is, obviously, a non-consensual event, which would make it a crime (potentially criminal offenses).

The way I've outlined it though, could be looked at as a step on the way to full legalization. Once society at large discards the stigma associated with polygamy the way it did with gay marriage, then that could open the door for what you are talking of. Right here and now, though, with some variations depending on who is doing it, how I said it is practiced is pretty much the way. Society might not recognize the religious service with the extra wives, but the involved religion does and the people live as husband and wives.

 Bolognesus wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 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?

Except you do realize how much those things are in no way remotely alike, right? You absolutely do get to opt out (in fact, they might well greatly prefer you to. I don't know. Just a feeling here.) of being a part of that group, don't you? You get to not give a gak about any Catholic (internal) rule(s) and there's feth all consequence to that, right? Do you get to opt out of civil society like that? Last I checked the whole sovereign citizen gak hadn't really been all that successful so far. Feel free to start your own club. Don't feel free to start your own sovereign entity with it's own body of laws on U.S. soil. Or do - but pass us some popcorn first.

Seriously, take a moment to properly think that argument of yours through and see just how much it isn't remotely the same as Manchu's.

I'll break this down for you.

He is in no way more likely to be involved in recognizing my godless marriage to my wife, or a wiccan's marriage, than a gay one or a polygamous one, other than to say 'oh, some people have the legal status of married', he already exists in a state where that recognition is afforded to a large part of the population. If he is an employer, he is now expected, just as he always was, to follow the laws of the land.

We also recognize, in this state, that a woman is entitled to equal pay in employment and not to suffer discrimination for reasons of her gender alone, and yet the church, which pays it's priests and houses them, refuses to take on and train women in that role, that makes it an unfair employer, unless there can be a demonstrable reason for this exclusion, which as far as I am aware, given that other churches following the teachings of Christ have allowed women, makes them an unfair and discriminatory body. I DO get to have an interest in an organization operating within my nation, enjoying the benefits of my taxes, that excludes and demonstrates prejudice against one half of the population.

As a citizen with a vested interest in existing in a society without discrimination, I now have a really vested interest in that. Do YOU see how that works, chum?

Relapse wrote:
I like what you say about exclusivity and compatibility, but consider this, arguments for polygamy could use slight variations on the same tact as the ones I think we've all seen used used for gay marriage over the years, such as:

It's natural. Just look at the animals in the wild where a male has several mates, such as a Lion pride or group of Gorillas, to name a couple of examples.

How is hetero marriage superior when so many end in divorce, or devolve into one spouse or the other cheating all the time?

Children get sexually abused in hetero households.

What business is it of others who someone loves and chooses to marry?

Yeah, absolutely. I think it would be futile to try and argue that polygamy is amoral. I expect that argument would be about as successful as it was against gay marriage.

In fact, we can probably save a lot of effort by just saying that if polygamy is equivalent to gay marriage, then it follows that it should be just as legal.

So we really need to look at where they are different, to see if that is true. Gay marriage is still a commitment between two people. In that sense I think it has more in common with traditional marriage than it does polygamy. In fact, I think part of the argument for gay marriage, was that gay people wanted recognition of their commitment to each other.

A commitment to more than one person seems somewhat less committal: "I forsaking all others (err, except her...), do solemnly swear...". I think that's the sticking point. It's going to be difficult to argue for equality when the nature of the commitment is not equivalent.

The vows would certainly be interesting. But how many hetero marriages have we seen lack any real commitment if the number of divorces are anything to go by?

But marriage vows differ between different couples. There's no codified set of vows that must be announced at a marriage ceremony.

With polygamous marriages? Again, get the tax and bank stuff sorted out, make sure everyone involved is consenting to the arrangement (husbands, wives, the whole kit-and-kaboodle), get it on paper, get your licenses, and get hitched.

These seem the sort of thing where a pre-nup is going to be required beforehand to ensure that all parties in divorce proceedings are treated fairly (divorce law is a different topic altogether) but not an insurmountable challenge, in my opinion.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Is it then my business what goes on in the Catholic Church?

LOL this just isn't a clever point. First, you don't have to recognize the Catholic Church. At most, you are required to recognize the concept that certain organizations can qualify for tax exemptions. This has nothing, nothing w h a t s o e v e r, to do with Catholicism as a religion. That's kind of the point of the tax exemption, after all. Second, there are issues concerning the Catholic Church in America that are abso-bloody-lutely your business solely by virtue of your status as a member of American society as opposed to some concept of legal recognition. Like, for example, oh I don't know if you managed to notice it, the sex abuse scandals. Note that that is specifically related to the institutional structure of the Catholic Church (because that seems to be the root of this systematic pattern of crimes and cover-ups). So even despite the fact that certain aspects of the Catholic Church are indeed your business, sorry to rain on your rhetorical parade, it has nothing to do with you "recognizing" the Catholic Church. Contrast this to a marriage, any marriage, not just gay marriages: a civil marriage only exists if and to the extent that the civil authority insists that members of the society explicitly recognize it.

And again:

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

 Swastakowey wrote:

Yea but barriers have been removed.

What barriers?

Barriers have always been removed.

I wonder, what if polygami was allowed?

But no, I don't see it happening. Sounds so complicated.

Like what if two groups of married people then wants to marry? Does everyone have to be married at once, or can you add more later?

 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.

In all fairness, what stops this from happening with a regular marriage? As a recent example, Josh Duggar molested various members of his family- and his victims blamed themselves for tempting him into it. Polygamy needn't be equated with indoctrination, nor is indoctrination by any means exclusive to polygamy.

Legally, it creates some incredibly messy possibilities, and I can't imagine the life of a child of a polygamous divorce but especially since it hasn't been legal, I don't think it would necessarily give rise to perverted cults.

 Gitzbitah 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.

In all fairness, what stops this from happening with a regular marriage? As a recent example, Josh Duggar molested various members of his family- and his victims blamed themselves for tempting him into it. Polygamy needn't be equated with indoctrination, nor is indoctrination by any means exclusive to polygamy.

Legally, it creates some incredibly messy possibilities, and I can't imagine the life of a child of a polygamous divorce but especially since it hasn't been legal, I don't think it would necessarily give rise to perverted cults.

We were neighbors with a woman who had been in a polygamist relationship whose daughter played with ours all the time. The little girl loved the concept and would tell us that's what she wanted for herself when she grew up. She pretty much became another child in our household while she lived by us. She was very well educated and socially adept.

Relapse wrote:
But how many hetero marriages have we seen lack any real commitment if the number of divorces are anything to go by?

On the other hand, that might actually demonstrate just how big of a commitment it is. Lots of people attempt to climb Everest and fail, that doesn't make the mountain any shorter.