Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Polygamy] Will it legally stand or fall before the charter

1789101113»

Posts

  • LykouraghLykouragh Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Mmmmm... I'm not arguing that we should grant tax benefits to poly groups, just that we should avoid putting them in jail. I guess I don't know what the legislation says about groups of people who live together, have sex, raise children together, and loosely call themselves "married", but don't ask for tax benefits, etc.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    The others in this thread would call them polyamorous. Unless they're Mormons. Then they're called child abusing misogynists.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    So, what, you want Mormons granted marriage that isn't marriage in any fashion?

    PSN: allenquid
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    The others in this thread would call them polyamorous. Unless they're Mormons. Then they're called child abusing misogynists.

    If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Element BrianElement Brian Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Can you guys atleast differentiate between Mormons and FLDS, please.

    I like the idea of the carbonation in your pop being too much for your mormon body

    too worldly nooooo
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Can you guys atleast differentiate between Mormons and FLDS, please.
    I make a it a point of habit not to differentiate between Mormons and Sikhs, much less FLDS, thank you very much.

    You guys have swords and long pajamas right?

    PSN: allenquid
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    The others in this thread would call them polyamorous. Unless they're Mormons. Then they're called child abusing misogynists.

    If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

    In fairness they may or may not abuse children. And the same would apply to Muslims, or any other religion that takes up the practice.

    Still don't see any reason to grant their institutionalized misogyny any legal recognition.

    EDIT: And not all Mormons that practice polygamy are FLDS. Though yes, the main Church forbids it.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Because misogyny isn't a crime, so punishing institutional misogyny makes little sense. Say what you will about indoctrination, but adults entering into it voluntarily are doing nothing wrong. You really have no good reason for why those three consenting adults can't be married beyond the fact that you think their arrangement is misogynistic.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Can you guys atleast differentiate between Mormons and FLDS, please.

    In all honesty, I was thinking about amending wwtMask's post to say "FLDS Mormons" before I responded.

    I don't think all Mormons are terrible misogynists. Just that the FLDS and similar groups institutionalize it.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Because misogyny isn't a crime, so punishing institutional misogyny makes little sense. Say what you will about indoctrination, but adults entering into it voluntarily are doing nothing wrong. You really have no good reason for why those three consenting adults can't be married beyond the fact that you think their arrangement is misogynistic.

    If you can show me that a majority of Mormons in the US, let alone FLDS Mormons, join the religion as adults (rather than are brought up into it as minors) then I'll bother to even re-read your post and give it further consideration.

    EDIT: Oh, you maybe referring to misogyny (institutionalized, that is) and not the indoctrination. Again, I see no benefit in giving this institution legal recognition, and no rights are being trampled. I'm fine with the status quo.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm not arguing about this being in a vacuum. Mormon polygamy isn't the entire fucking world of polygamy.

    Isn't it?

    Who are these benign polygamists who are being harmed by the lack of legal recognition of their multi-partner unions? Even. Fucking. Pedophiles have an organization dedicated to raising awareness for their "cause". Where is the pro-polygamy parade that consists of people (or at least includes people) who aren't religious separatists?

    The only mention I can find of polygamy that isn't related to child-molestation cult activity is practiced in countries that are not Canada or the U.S. and quite obviously spring from the odious practice of treating women like chattel, a practice which is clearly a contravention of the inherent human rights that Canada and the U.S. (and other decent countries) recognize.

    There's just nothing about polygamy that isn't shitty.

    Oh, and here's my favorite line from the wikipedia article on polygamy:
    Until polygamy was outlawed by King Rama VI, it was expected that wealthy or upper-class Thai men were historically recognized to maintain mansions consisting of multiple wives and their children in the same residence. Among the royalty and courtiers in the past, wives were classified as principal, secondary, and slave.


    Fuck these people. This isn't a "right" or a "freedom". This is a horrible thing that some assholes want to do and is rightfully illegal. More should be done to stop these people, and nothing should be done to accommodate them.

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Can you guys atleast differentiate between Mormons and FLDS, please.
    I make a it a point of habit not to differentiate between Mormons and Sikhs, much less FLDS, thank you very much.

    You guys have swords and long pajamas right?

    The Flood Sikhs (FLDS) actually wear ritual water wings in anticipation of the coming deluge. The swords are taken off for fear they'd pop the water wings.

  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    People that, in this country, want to be polygamous but can't will simply live their lives in an equivaletn fashion, taking themselves out of the dating pool just as well.

    Polygamy won't subtract from the available men and women, it will simply allow the ones who've already removed themselves to be in multi-partner relationships to be married.

    I don't see polygamy causing the "lost boys". I mean, if we want to assume that polygamy will lead to taking wives by force, then sure. That might actually alter the dating pool.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    People that, in this country, want to be polygamous but can't will simply live their lives in an equivaletn fashion, taking themselves out of the dating pool just as well.

    Polygamy won't subtract from the available men and women, it will simply allow the ones who've already removed themselves to be in multi-partner relationships to be married.

    I don't see polygamy causing the "lost boys". I mean, if we want to assume that polygamy will lead to taking wives by force, then sure. That might actually alter the dating pool.
    Polygamy in a vacuum involves men taking several wives and women taking several husbands. That doesn't lead to the lost boys problem, or really any problems. Polygamy as practiced in the real world is only one way, with men taking several wives and women having only one husband. That leads to the lost boys problem, and a ton of other problems.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I suppose I can see it occurring, but my point wasn't that men will take women and women will take men in complete parity.

    My point was that men and women who'd want a polygamous relationship but couldn't have one would just act like swingers anyway.

    The fear seems to be that polygamy, once legalized, would drain the dating pool of what would otherwise have been fair, monogamous women. But I just don't see that being the case. The fair monogamous women wouldn't suddenly become polygamous.

    And the women who would be polygamous would right now just be in a non-marital multi-partner relationship.

    By all which I mean my point is that I don't think much would change now except the polyamorous would actually be able to get married if they want.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    There is nothing wrong with polygamy itself, it's just that our laws are fucking crappy at dealing with the horrible things that certain Christian sects do, and the polygamy thing is their best weapon because they don't have the balls to make laws against things that are actually bad because the population is too fucking stupid to support them.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    jeepguy wrote: »
    Oh, and here's my favorite line from the wikipedia article on polygamy:
    Until polygamy was outlawed by King Rama VI, it was expected that wealthy or upper-class Thai men were historically recognized to maintain mansions consisting of multiple wives and their children in the same residence. Among the royalty and courtiers in the past, wives were classified as principal, secondary, and slave.

    Some people see historical trends like this and say "If the husbands involved in polygamous marriages literally view their wives as property, then fuck polygamy", but some of us don't see the qualifier specifically for polygamous marriage as the real point of contention. The difference is a matter of degrees, really.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I've known a number of polyamorous people, and none of them were interested in polygamy. In most cases they had a "primary partner" and the other partners were frequent sexual companions and friends, but not close enough (by a longshot) to be a spouse.

    What I'm saying is that polygamy and polyamory aren't the same thing. Polyamorists are not stifled polygamists. And pointing to healthy consensual polyamorous relationships doesn't say anything for polygamy, one way or the other.

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I suppose I can see it occurring, but my point wasn't that men will take women and women will take men in complete parity.

    My point was that men and women who'd want a polygamous relationship but couldn't have one would just act like swingers anyway.

    The fear seems to be that polygamy, once legalized, would drain the dating pool of what would otherwise have been fair, monogamous women. But I just don't see that being the case. The fair monogamous women wouldn't suddenly become polygamous.

    And the women who would be polygamous would right now just be in a non-marital multi-partner relationship.

    By all which I mean my point is that I don't think much would change now except the polyamorous would actually be able to get married if they want.

    Magenta for so very very wrong.

    I dont think a single person has even come close to articulating or expressing an opinion that is even in the same ballpark as that.

    Most of the people seem to have a problem with the more common expression of polygamy where it is children that are inducted into the lifestyle from birth, given like a peice of property when still below the legal age of consent. Then for the rest of their life being kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety trying to be the good housewife so they can escape hell and get into heaven.

    They also have a problem with the side effects of many of these polygamous groups who use up far more than their fair share of the social safety net. And who often eject their extra males to be burdens of the state if the polygamous communities themselves feel that their isnt enough females to go around.

    El'Jeffe has also expressed concern with what legalized polygamous marriage would mean for current marriage and divorce contracts/law as well as legal benefits and priviledges.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Brave Frontier: Adamski (481 077 56)
    Puzzles & Dragons: Adamski@pa (313 842 296)
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Aahhhh, yes, that would make more sense. Although typically we use red for 'wrong'.


    And I'll have to read back through because I'm confused how legalized polygamous marriage would effect current married couples and divorces.

    Like, I understand the concern about spouse dies, and now we have 3 partners in court over who gets the house. However I really can't imagine polygamy would be legalized under any condition that didn't already lay the legal framework to prevent this issue in the first place. Like mandating wills to be created if entering in a polygamous marriage, or having to define a "primary" benefactor to whom property should first and foremost be handed to.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Basically the problem people has is with the religious indoctrination, but since they can't outlaw that, they're happy with blaming polygamy for all of the things they don't like and having it outlawed.

    Mcdermott, I was saying that the indoctrination is not relevant. All religions foist their beliefs on impressionable children in order to hold them close to the religion, and most have objectionable shit in their belief structure; the fundamentalist Mormons aren't some kind of special case in this regard. The reason it's irrelevant is because, once you become 18, regardless of your upbringing, you're supposed to be able to reason and make your own informed decisions. Citing indoctrination as a reason to discount an adult's decisions is just goal-post moving on your part, which is fine if you're talking about your personal opinion. With the law, however, 18 is the line of demarcation between adult and child, between making one's own decisions and having someone else make them for you. There is no consideration of religious indoctrination to determine whether an adult's decision/consent ought to be honored as valid.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    People that, in this country, want to be polygamous but can't will simply live their lives in an equivaletn fashion, taking themselves out of the dating pool just as well.

    Polygamy won't subtract from the available men and women, it will simply allow the ones who've already removed themselves to be in multi-partner relationships to be married.

    I don't see polygamy causing the "lost boys". I mean, if we want to assume that polygamy will lead to taking wives by force, then sure. That might actually alter the dating pool.

    Well, um it has (historically throughout the world) it did (read any history on the founding of the Mormon church, particularly that bastard Joseph Smith) and it does currently (FLDS).

    Simply put, the difference between general polyamory and polygamy today is that in the former everyone is ideally treated as equals (like any marriage) and that in the latter it it is extremely skewed towards male dominance and women being treated like slaves/chattel/put in your favorite metaphor for something at the bottom of one's shoe.

    steam_sig.png
1789101113»
Sign In or Register to comment.