As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[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.

    Lykouragh on
  • 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.

    wwtMask on
    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 Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    So, what, you want Mormons granted marriage that isn't marriage in any fashion?

    Quid on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered 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...

    Feral on
    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 Peanut Butter Shill Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Can you guys atleast differentiate between Mormons and FLDS, please.

    Element Brian on
    Switch FC code:SW-2130-4285-0059

    Arch,
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana 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?

    Quid on
  • 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.

    mcdermott on
  • 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.

    wwtMask on
    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 MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered 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.

    Feral on
    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.

    mcdermott on
  • 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.

    Regina Fong on
  • 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.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • 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.

    JamesKeenan on
  • 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.

    Richy on
    sig.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.

    JamesKeenan on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter 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.

    Incenjucar on
  • 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.

    gtrmp on
  • 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.

    Regina Fong on
  • 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.

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • 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.

    JamesKeenan on
  • 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.

    wwtMask on
    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.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
Sign In or Register to comment.