Homosexuality and Polygamy

[lilithu]

What if they were born that way? Do you really think that is a lifestyle someone would actually choose? Why should we discriminate?

Who said anything about discriminating? Some of us were expressing doubts as to whether it would work on a personal level but I don't see the marriage equality advocates saying polygamy should be illegal. So we're agreed then, let's legalize both same-sex marriage and polygamy.

Somehow I think that I would be far happier with that outcome than you.

 

[Booko]

This goes back to the core of what marriage is in the eyes of the government, two individual who are a single economic unit. Most of the rights conferred by marriage, with the exception of rights to visit in the hospital, and the like, are in some way related to economics whether it is the right to healthcare, insurance policies and inheritance. Marriage, under civil law, is a contract. I believe that these contracts should be valid between consenting and sound adults. That is why GBLT marriages should be legalized, because an entire segment of the consenting adult population is prohibited from simple economic contracts. By the same logic, polygamy and polygyny could be added.

You make excellent points, but I think there's something missing in your analysis. We allow the contract for the economic unit when there is *sex* involved. Where there is not, we do not.

If my brother moved in today, we would certainly be an economic unit. But the law would not allow us a contract, and certainly not a marriage. :help:

So why is it we allow the contract if there's sex involved (at least in some cases), and we definitely don't when there isn't?

 

[Booko]

If you can or have convinced the majority of voters or elected officials to see your view I completley agree that you deserve the privilige(or if you want to make marriage a right, fine by me) of marriage...

Uh..isn't this what is known as the "tyranny of the majority"?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In spite of all the confusing rhetoric, Scripture clearly classifies homosexuality as sin. "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10. Can the truth be any plainer?

This post is taken from http://www.amazingfacts.org/items/Read_Media.asp?ID=674

It is stolen from Homosexuality: Return to Sodom by Gary Gibbs

Homosexuality in Scripture

In spite of all the confusing rhetoric, Scripture clearly classifies homosexuality as sin. "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10. Can the truth be any plainer?

====

It is well circulated on many other websites. How many times are you going to do this?

http://www.google.com/search?source...ture+clearly+classifies+homosexuality+as+sin.

 

[Booko]

However, homosexual marriage and polygamous marriage are very different. Just because one supports one doesn't mean they will have support for the other.

Exactly! Even though I dislike the idea of polygamy, I've always thought it really strange that we claim to have freedom of religion, well, unless your religion allows polygamy. I would find it difficult to oppose measures to legalize polygamy.

I am very much of a mixed mind about same-sex marriage, and resist the idea of allowing marriage for various reasons.

But there is one thing for sure -- there are insufficient legal protections for homosexuals who live together, and this needs to be addressed. It especially needs to be addressed in cases where there are children involved, and that needs to be done ASAP. Children should not be made to suffer because they happen to live in a non-standard family. It's not like they had a choice. sheesh

I don't so much view the subject of the law and same-sex relationships as one of money, though obviously money is involved. I'm more interested in aspects of simple human decency.

Oops, the subject is polygamy, and this is more off topic than not.

I am software ignorant, being a n00b here. Is there some way to move stuff to start a different thread, or is it just cut and past and start it manually?

 

[Booko]

In spite of all the confusing rhetoric, Scripture clearly classifies homosexuality as sin. "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10. Can the truth be any plainer?

Dear Truth:

Many things are sin. The *practice* of homosexuality doesn't even make God's Top Ten list.

I wonder why so much attention is focused on homosexuality, then?

Personally, I think gossip and backbiting are far more dangerous, and in much more obvious ways.

Oh, btw, there's some other plain truth that Jesus gave us:

Love your neighbor as yourself.

I seem to have missed the part where we were supposed to leave out the homosexuals. Maybe someone edited it out of my Bibles.

 

[Draka]

It seems that most people are looking at only one side of polygamy. The religiously inspired side of one man and several wives. Why couldn't it be other ways? There is talk of how bad women have it in these relationships. What if the woman were to have several husbands? Or would that just make her a legal sl*t? Seems a double standard there doesn't it? And what about polyamory? Where Jane loves Rick and Gary and Gary loves Jane and Trish and Trish loves Gary, Clint and Trevor and so on and so forth? Could a mixed group marry each other to work as a whole family unit? Or does it just have to be one man and many women? How do you apply any terminology that covers all these situations as a whole? And how do you address the issues of taxes and dependents and insurance and beneficiaries and etc?

Where with homosexual marriage that only involved 2 people these would be handled like those in a heterosexual marriage, adding more people to the mix makes things a bit more difficult. I'm not saying that I don't think that people have the right to live how they want to live and love whom they want to love in the way that suits them best. I'm just saying that the legal technicalities of many people in a relationship become more difficult to sort out. There would have to be some completely different laws and procedures to deal with these aspects to those marriages.

 

[lunamoth]

It takes a massive dedication of time and effort to make a marriage with just one partner work well. I can't see many people having the energy or resources to make a marriage with multiple partners work well.

I think that this is one of the main problems with polygamy as opposed to something like gay marriage. And as lilithu also pointed out there are economic issues as well.

Perhaps one of the most critical problems is with resources for child raising (and by resources I mean love and attention, as well as material resources). Instead of two parents per child there is really one parent plus a fraction of a parent. Even if other partners and older children pitch in, this can never equal have two parents in the family as an ideal. 'course, there are many many situations that amount to the same problem in our modern society.

But, I don't see how polygamy can ever be truely fair to all involved. Gay marriage, on the other hand, improves the world by giving legal and cultural value to two people who may wish to raise children together, rather than forcing a gay parent to remain alone or for her partner to be something less than an equal parent.

I would say that if God has an issue with gay marriage, we can trust folks to work that out with Him directly. If there's any doubt at all, isn't it better to err on the side of compassion?

2 c,
lunamoth

 

[lunamoth]

Dear Truth:

Many things are sin. The *practice* of homosexuality doesn't even make God's Top Ten list.

I agree.

I wonder why so much attention is focused on homosexuality, then?

Good question.

Personally, I think gossip and backbiting are far more dangerous, and in much more obvious ways.

I agree again.

Oh, btw, there's some other plain truth that Jesus gave us:

Love your neighbor as yourself.

I seem to have missed the part where we were supposed to leave out the homosexuals. Maybe someone edited it out of my Bibles.

Would loving include not marginalizing them from your community if one is in a gay relationship?

Just wondering.
lunamoth

 

[Bishka]

Wow. Thanks everyone. I didn't think this thread was going to go very far! I've seen some interesting points here and there! Thanks.

 

[Mike182]

Wow. Thanks everyone. I didn't think this thread was going to go very far! I've seen some interesting points here and there! Thanks.

sooooo ........... do we get to hear your oppinion yet?

 

[Bishka]

sooooo ........... do we get to hear your oppinion yet?

Course you do silly! I think that if homosexuals get a civil union, so should anybody else who wants it. Why just limit it to homosexuals. If someone wants to marry an animal; let them, if someone wants to be in a polygamous union, let them.

I do think though that it if a Church does not want to marry a certain type of person or because of their choice in partner or partners, that is fine. That should be that Church's individual choice. Besides, one of the things this country is based on is religious freedom. So, civil unions, yes, but if a Church does not want do admit someone to their membership, so be it.

I do think it would be interesting though, to see what would happen if polygamy was allowed and what would happen inside the LDS Church.:sarcastic

 

[Mike182]

Course you do silly! I think that if homosexuals get a civil union, so should anybody else who wants it. Why just limit it to homosexuals. If someone wants to marry an animal; let them, if someone wants to be in a polygamous union, let them.

I do think though that it if a Church does not want to marry a certain type of person or because of their choice in partner or partners, that is fine. That should be that Church's individual choice. Besides, one of the things this country is based on is religious freedom. So, civil unions, yes, but if a Church does not want do admit someone to their membership, so be it.

I do think it would be interesting though, to see what would happen if polygamy was allowed and what would happen inside the LDS Church.:sarcastic

an oppinion i hold myself! i agree 100% that a church holds the right to membership, and can select who they allow to join.

i would disagree with bestiality, as another animal does not have the ability to consent, but other than that part i agree totally with your post :woohoo:

 

[Booko]

Would loving include not marginalizing them from your community if one is in a gay relationship?

Just wondering.
lunamoth

Yes, lunamoth. Isn't marginalizing someone the same as being prejudiced against them? It's hardly loving, anyway.

Whether giving legal status equal to marriage to gay relationships is marginalizing gays is kind of a thorny question.

I do think something has to be done though. I have too many friends suffering too much because the law accords them no legal status whatsoever. This is even more acute where children are involved.

e.g. A friend of mine has 2 kids (adopted). Legally, their parent is her partner. They did this because her partner is African-American, but she is white. They are excellent parents, imnsho, and surely being adopted by two loving human beings is better that being in an orphanage? I shudder to think what would happen to those two kids if one of the partners was killed driving around Atlanta traffic. The state would rip them away from the only other parent (and extended family) they have, and someone they definitely see as Mommy.

It doesn't even matter if I "approve" of gay marriage or not. Gay couples can adopt children, and those children should not be harmed because our law has not caught up with the times. I cannot imagine anything crueler to those kids than to wake up one day and lose all the family they've ever known, to be tossed willy nilly into the state foster care system.

In discussions like these, we so often talk about the issues as if they were abstract. Well, they're not. There are real human beings involved, and they deserve better.

 

[lilithu]

Course you do silly! I think that if homosexuals get a civil union, so should anybody else who wants it. Why just limit it to homosexuals. If someone wants to marry an animal; let them, if someone wants to be in a polygamous union, let them.

How would one get informed consent from an animal? Don't you think it might be a tad insulting to compare what two (or more) human adults do with beastiality?

 

[Buttercup]

I don't have trouble with the prospect of people marrying more than one person as long as everything is truly on an even keel and stays that way. Where no person is dominant over another and all are happy with the situation or are free to leave if they choose.

I would not want to live in a society that allows marriage to animals. I'm not that liberal, sorry.

I would be concerned about children growing up in a communal situation however. And I'd like to read any studies done in this area if they were available before I could give my whole hearted approval.

 

[Bishka]

Sorry beckysoup...I can't agree with you about the animals. By definition, that is not a relationship between consenting beings.

I'm just giving an example, and I am sorry if I insulted anyone, but I think you get the gist of what I am saying. Basically if homosexuality is to be consiered a civil union, the ANY union between consenting adults should be allowed, and I'm glad Mike that you agree with me about the Church thing.

 

[lilithu]

I'm just giving an example, and I am sorry if I insulted anyone, but I think you get the gist of what I am saying. Basically if homosexuality is to be consiered a civil union, the ANY union between consenting adults should be allowed, and I'm glad Mike that you agree with me about the Church thing.

Becky, no one is advocating that homosexuality be considered a civil union any more than heterosexuality be considered a civil union. Two (or more) people hooking up for a one-nighter is not a civil union regardless of the genders of the people involved. We're talking about people who love each other and want to make a commitment to each other. As it stands, it makes no sense that Britney Spears was considered married (by society and the law) after a drunken debacle in Las Vegas whereas the same-sex partners in my church who have been together for 7, 10, 14 years, some of them raising kids together, are not considered married.

And I too have no problem with allowing individual churches/religions to decide what they consider to be the religious sacrament of marriage.

 

[evearael]

I visited and wrote a paper on a commune for an Anthropology class. What struck me was that it was in the rules that anyone who wanted to get preganant had to have it approved first. If they didn't, they were asked to have an abortion or leave. As far as children are concerned, they were all raised together, unless the parents preferred otherwise. I asked how the kids adjusted: some did well, some did poorly.

 

[jamaesi]

What if they were born that way? Do you really think that is a lifestyle someone would actually choose? Why should we discriminate?

Born like what, with multiple spouses? XP

And yes, I know people who CHOOSE to be in polygamous relationships because they are all in love.

Why does the state have any interest in who is sleeping with whom?

What reason is there for the state accord extra benefits to some people for living together and no benefits to those who live alone?

Being in a committed relationship is a bit higher on the scale than being roomies and those in such a relationship have certain protections by law that roomies don't really need. : P

I think that if homosexuals get a civil union, so should anybody else who wants it. Why just limit it to homosexuals. If someone wants to marry an animal; let them, if someone wants to be in a polygamous union, let them.

Because animals can consent and sign a marriage contract, right?