| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/21/2009 03:28:54 PM · #2501 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This seems different from you statement that "polygamists are not a protected minority subject to discrimination". Are you retracting that statement or are you shifting your stance? |
They're not. 200 years ago, neither were blacks. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 03:32:34 PM · #2502 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... It even seems to me, with the way the economic cycle is spinning, there may be real-world arguments for the "greater security" of multiply-partnered unionsâ„¢...
R. |
Race you to the PTO ... ;-) |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 03:34:33 PM · #2503 |
In some accounts I've read (though not through personal discussion), wives involved in polygamous relationships not only don't mind, but enjoy the company and comraderie of the others and their children as well. Not only that, but if she has a headache, he just goes down the hall.... :-)
In a somewhat related aside (I'm still kinda bugged by the 3x5 cards)... when I got my mocha this evening, I had an enjoyable visit with my favorite barista. We decided we needed to run off to Paris together to find the perfect man, one for each of us. Neither of us would be candidates to marry if that were to happen, according to the NOM Cliff notes - he because of the same sex thing, me because of the "past childbearing age". Also, on the way home I saw a couple out for their evening walk. He pushing her in her wheelchair. They were both of advanced age and I saw the story as a couple who met late in life. (I don't know why I saw it that way - just did.) They would not be candidates to marry according to the NOM Cliff notes either. (Though to be fair, many "older" couples in Germany do not marry - has to do with benefits, I think.)
Anyway, enough asides. Back to the grind... carry on. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 03:40:38 PM · #2504 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Children aren't "full citizens"? I'm not sure what that means. They can't vote until they reach 18? I'm not sure "full citizen" is the right way to describe this. By this standard, a felon is not a full citizen either, since he can't vote... Not being difficult, just questioning the terminology. |
Yup, but it is a reasonable standard. Also, I'm not a full citizen either, as I just get to pay taxes, but not vote. Even if I became a naturalised citizen, I'd still be a second-class citizen, not protected by the full extent of the rights and constitution that covers full citizens, born in the US. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 03:43:12 PM · #2505 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Polygamists are not a protected minority group subject to discrimination, but it's an excellent example of relative social values. Perhaps that will be the next taboo to fall. Polygamy laws are probably intended to protect multiple spouses from unequal treatment (and as a matter of practicality for the government). Beyond that, where is the harm? |
Lack of ability to collect taxes as efficiently as previously. It wouldn't surprise me if that was a concern. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 03:49:42 PM · #2506 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This seems different from you statement that "polygamists are not a protected minority subject to discrimination". Are you retracting that statement or are you shifting your stance? |
They're not. 200 years ago, neither were blacks. |
And currently in 47 states and federally gays are not either. At least not per "marriage". In fact I'm not positive sexual orientation is a protected employment criteria. So I'm still not sure how you are differentiating between polygamists and homosexual couples with one being "subject to discrimination" and the other not. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 03:58:34 PM · #2507 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
As far as I'm concerned, there's no reasonable social argument against polygamy, just a "moral" one based on religious tenets entirely. And I don't see offhand where the state has any business meddling in that, any more than it does in same-sex marriages. It even seems to me, with the way the economic cycle is spinning, there may be real-world arguments for the "greater security" of multiply-partnered unionsâ„¢...
R. |
Since all polygamy currently practiced is of the one man with many wives variety, polygamy has a wide ranging effect on a society, increasing sexual role definitions, turning young females into a valuable and salable commodity, limiting the genetic pool since most men will be without a spouse, and increasing homosexual activity among young men. It consolidates power and money in the hands of the few. As practiced in Arabia and certain parts of Texas, it drives most of the young men out of the home in their early teens, before they can "spoil" the girls, but also before they are ready to go out into the world unsupported by their families. Divorced women in these cultures can not work, nor are they likely to find another husband (which is ironic, since the Koran intended polygamy to be allow a marriage to absorb widows who would be without support otherwise). There are alot of societal results of allowing polygamy to become the norm. |
Every civil right you grant produces a societal result so I'm not sure where you are going with this. If your point is polgamy produces a bad societal result one of which you list is an increase in homosexuality, how is this any different than the person arguing against gay rights because it too produces a bad socetial result when you allow gays to marry, adopt, teach, etc, etc.
Message edited by author 2009-04-21 15:59:25. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 03:59:17 PM · #2508 |
I think the polygamy issue is a valid one to debate HOWEVER, as its been said before, one person marrying one other person is a right we are trying to get for everyone, regardless of gender. Polygamy is a separate issue entirely because NO ONE, regardless of gender can have a polygamous marriage.
To discuss it as a separate issue from gay marriage, I have wavering opinions on polygamy. I don't agree with the way it is used to oppress women (see Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day), however I do believe that there are other polygamous relationships that can be functional, and that those abusive groups should not ruin it for others. So, if it came down to a vote, I wouldn't ban it. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 04:02:12 PM · #2509 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Polygamists are not a protected minority group subject to discrimination, but it's an excellent example of relative social values. Perhaps that will be the next taboo to fall. Polygamy laws are probably intended to protect multiple spouses from unequal treatment (and as a matter of practicality for the government). Beyond that, where is the harm? |
In societies where there is a history of polygamy (or even more unusual arrangements such as polyandry) the rules exist and it is already lawful. I would not say that those societies are morally any better or worse than the modern Western society in which monogamy is standard.
There would be lots of financial and legal issues - so a fair bit of work would be required to permit polygamy in a common law system, but it is very easy to forget that there is a whole world out there of people getting along perfectly well with a completely different way of life.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2009 04:02:26 PM · #2510 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I think the polygamy issue is a valid one to debate HOWEVER, as its been said before, one person marrying one other person is a right we are trying to get for everyone, regardless of gender. Polygamy is a separate issue entirely because NO ONE, regardless of gender can have a polygamous marriage. |
It's not a separate issue. Before any state allowed gay marriage, NO ONE, regardless of gender could have a gay marriage either. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 04:04:00 PM · #2511 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I think the polygamy issue is a valid one to debate HOWEVER, as its been said before, one person marrying one other person is a right we are trying to get for everyone, regardless of gender. Polygamy is a separate issue entirely because NO ONE, regardless of gender can have a polygamous marriage. |
Naw, that's just looking at it funny. Up until Mass. NO ONE could have a same-sex marriage. Not men. Not women. What's the difference? |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 04:06:41 PM · #2512 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Since all polygamy currently practiced is of the one man with many wives variety, |
This is a situation in which you would be co-opting a word in a meaningless fashion. Polygamy is the word used to describe multiple wives. Polyandry is the word used to describe multiple husbands. Both are practised and lawful in various places in the world today (admittedly, polygamy is more prevalent).
|
|
|
|
04/21/2009 04:10:20 PM · #2513 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I think the polygamy issue is a valid one to debate HOWEVER, as its been said before, one person marrying one other person is a right we are trying to get for everyone, regardless of gender. Polygamy is a separate issue entirely because NO ONE, regardless of gender can have a polygamous marriage. |
Naw, that's just looking at it funny. Up until Mass. NO ONE could have a same-sex marriage. Not men. Not women. What's the difference? |
You and Yanko just asked the same question pretty much so I'll answer it here. The difference is polygamy is different. Not saying its better or worse, or immoral or not, just that it is a different issue, with different factors involved. A change in the system to allow ANYONE into a 1 to 1 partnership involves very little changes. When you add in another party, there are more factors to consider. That is all I meant to say.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2009 04:11:38 PM · #2514 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Since all polygamy currently practiced is of the one man with many wives variety, |
This is a situation in which you would be co-opting a word in a meaningless fashion. Polygamy is the word used to describe multiple wives. Polyandry is the word used to describe multiple husbands. Both are practised and lawful in various places in the world today (admittedly, polygamy is more prevalent). |
Polygamy is either way. Polygyny is a man with multiple wives. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 04:13:09 PM · #2515 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Since all polygamy currently practiced is of the one man with many wives variety, |
This is a situation in which you would be co-opting a word in a meaningless fashion. Polygamy is the word used to describe multiple wives. Polyandry is the word used to describe multiple husbands. Both are practised and lawful in various places in the world today (admittedly, polygamy is more prevalent). |
I think you are confusing polygyny with polygamy, which is quite common.
Message edited by author 2009-04-21 16:14:19. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 04:26:10 PM · #2516 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Since all polygamy currently practiced is of the one man with many wives variety, |
This is a situation in which you would be co-opting a word in a meaningless fashion. Polygamy is the word used to describe multiple wives. Polyandry is the word used to describe multiple husbands. Both are practised and lawful in various places in the world today (admittedly, polygamy is more prevalent). |
I think you are confusing polygyny with polygamy, which is quite common. |
You are quite right.
Polygamy is divided into polgyny (multiple wives) and polyandry (multiple husbands).
Both are practised in the world today, however.
wiki: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
|
|
|
|
04/21/2009 04:27:02 PM · #2517 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This seems different from you statement that "polygamists are not a protected minority subject to discrimination". Are you retracting that statement or are you shifting your stance? |
They're not. 200 years ago, neither were blacks. |
And currently in 47 states and federally gays are not either. At least not per "marriage". In fact I'm not positive sexual orientation is a protected employment criteria. So I'm still not sure how you are differentiating between polygamists and homosexual couples with one being "subject to discrimination" and the other not. |
The same way you just did. At some point, society collectively slapped its forehead and realized that it was discriminating against women. Then it did the same thing with race. Until that point, neither were recognized as groups who were denied rights as a result of oppression from another group. Now we're at a similar point with gay rights. Maybe at some time in the future the same will happen with polygamy, but our society currently limits relationships to one per customer. It's an arbitrary restriction based largely on religious tenets. If you're single, you can date more than one person with little more than a raised eyebrow! |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 04:34:17 PM · #2518 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This seems different from you statement that "polygamists are not a protected minority subject to discrimination". Are you retracting that statement or are you shifting your stance? |
They're not. 200 years ago, neither were blacks. |
And currently in 47 states and federally gays are not either. At least not per "marriage". In fact I'm not positive sexual orientation is a protected employment criteria. So I'm still not sure how you are differentiating between polygamists and homosexual couples with one being "subject to discrimination" and the other not. |
The same way you just did. At some point, society collectively slapped its forehead and realized that it was discriminating against women. Then it did the same thing with race. Until that point, neither were recognized as groups who were denied rights as a result of oppression from another group. Now we're at a similar point with gay rights. Maybe at some time in the future the same will happen with polygamy, but our society currently limits relationships to one per customer. It's an arbitrary restriction based largely on religious tenets. If you're single, you can date more than one person with little more than a raised eyebrow! |
OK, I get it. Don't get ahead of yourself though, although I agree the conversation is being had nationally, it's far from being decided in favor of gay marriage. Perhaps it will eventually, but that's making an assumption that may not be true. At best I see the issue being decided on the state level causing a patchwork of solutions for decades. The DOMA is the federal precedent for now and I do not think it would be wise for the pro-gay marriage camp to challenge that in the Supreme Court while Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas are there. They'd have to run the board with the remaining five and that's not a sure thing. I'm guessing Ginsberg and Stevens would support an overturn, but any one of Kennedy, Souter, and Breyer could bolt for their own reason and then you'd be screwed.
Message edited by author 2009-04-21 16:41:11. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 04:35:41 PM · #2519 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Since all polygamy currently practiced is of the one man with many wives variety, |
This is a situation in which you would be co-opting a word in a meaningless fashion. Polygamy is the word used to describe multiple wives. Polyandry is the word used to describe multiple husbands. Both are practised and lawful in various places in the world today (admittedly, polygamy is more prevalent). |
Where is polyandry practiced today? last I've ever heard of it was in pre contact Polynesia. The only form I've heard of polygamy in the last 250 years is polygyny. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 04:49:46 PM · #2520 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The DOMA is the federal precedent for now and I do not think it would be wise for the pro-gay marriage camp to challenge that in the Supreme Court while Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas are there. They'd have to run the board with the remaining five and that's not a sure thing. I'm guessing Ginsberg and Stevens would support an overturn, but any one of Kennedy, Souter, and Breyer could bolt for their own reason and then you'd be screwed. |
The current supreme court would have trouble making torture illegal, let alone over turning the DOMA. Our marriages will be stripped of this "defense" through the legislature, after another 30 or so states come into the Vermont/Iowa camp. 10-15 years I'd bet. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 04:53:38 PM · #2521 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Don't get ahead of yourself... it's far from being decided in favor of gay marriage. At best I see the issue being decided on the state level causing a patchwork of solutions for decades. The DOMA is the federal precedent for now... |
Probably not this year, but within the next few years I assure you DOMA will be overturned. If (admittedly an IF) New York legalizes gay marriage and Prop 8 goes down, national legalization won't lag far behind. Homosexuality has become "standardized" and tacitly acceptable in our society (look no further than prime time television). Change is inevitable, particularly with a professor of constitutional law running the show now. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 04:59:53 PM · #2522 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Since all polygamy currently practiced is of the one man with many wives variety, |
This is a situation in which you would be co-opting a word in a meaningless fashion. Polygamy is the word used to describe multiple wives. Polyandry is the word used to describe multiple husbands. Both are practised and lawful in various places in the world today (admittedly, polygamy is more prevalent). |
Where is polyandry practiced today? last I've ever heard of it was in pre contact Polynesia. The only form I've heard of polygamy in the last 250 years is polygyny. |
Nepal and Tibet. According to wikipedia it is legally outlawed in Tibet but still socially accepted - I read a couple of papers a few years ago about it (cannot find them online). Fraternal polyandry (two or more brothers married to the same wife) is a way of avoiding division of inherited lands and provides extra income because there is more than one worker per family, making life sustainable in some poor areas.
The papers I read included some interviews, and a common theme was the frustration of the younger brothers who tended to be seen as children when the relationship was first established and so did not see much "action"...!
Message edited by author 2009-04-21 17:00:42.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2009 05:10:09 PM · #2523 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Don't get ahead of yourself... it's far from being decided in favor of gay marriage. At best I see the issue being decided on the state level causing a patchwork of solutions for decades. The DOMA is the federal precedent for now... |
Probably not this year, but within the next few years I assure you DOMA will be overturned. If (admittedly an IF) New York legalizes gay marriage and Prop 8 goes down, national legalization won't lag far behind. Homosexuality has become "standardized" and tacitly acceptable in our society (look no further than prime time television). Change is inevitable, particularly with a professor of constitutional law running the show now. |
Well, let's just say you are more optimistic than I am. New York and California do not necessarily reflect the country as a whole. Iowa is much more interesting, although that was legislated instead of being a reforendum. I still think the DOMA is going to be hard to overturn given the makeup of the SC. You should read the book The Nine. I highly recommend it. It talks about each justice in depth. The author does a great job of keeping his personal views on the sideline and I learned (unfortunately) that justices are as human as you and I. They will often decide how they want to vote and then look for support for this decision. Bush definitely pushed the court to the right and did it with some young guns that are going to be there for a while. Ginsberg will be the next to go and Obama will likely replace her, but I don't think any of those conservative four will retire (unless surprisingly) in the next 8 years. The dems haven't been able to hold the white house for 12 years for a long time. The court is likely to remain in its current form for a while. Most of the time that annoys me, but here it may not.
EDIT to add: I think above I got Breyer and Stevens mixed up. Stevens is likely to vote to repeal. Breyer is more of a wildcard. Kennedy would be the swing vote and his stance is unclear. He did, for example, vote to uphold the Boy Scouts right to not allow gay scout leaders. On the other hand he wrote the decision for Lawrence vs. Texas which finally did away with sodomy as a crime.
Message edited by author 2009-04-21 17:21:21. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 05:22:08 PM · #2524 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Maybe at some time in the future the same will happen with polygamy, but our society currently limits relationships to one per customer. It's an arbitrary restriction based largely on religious tenets. If you're single, you can date more than one person with little more than a raised eyebrow! |
Not only that, if you're *married* there's nothing to keep you from introducing other adults into your household. You just can't legally *marry* them.
R. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 05:22:26 PM · #2525 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
.... I do not think it would be wise for the pro-gay marriage camp to challenge that in the Supreme Court while Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas are there. |
These are the same "conservatives" who believe is minimizing government interference in people's private matters? |
|
