Polygamy is the new marriage-rights frontier

[_Fiannan]

You guys are missing BC's point in the original post, namely that polygamy gives women the opportunity to have sex with one another, or at least maintain romantic relationships. Yet is women/women sex really considered sex as defined in the Bible? WHile males could be sentenced to death in the Old Testament for having sex with a same-sex partner no mention of women being subject to punishment is made. Of course there are some who might say that women were not mentioned in the Mosaic Law out of their delecate nature, yet the Old Testament does note that a woman having sex with an animal is a death sentence, along with hte animal.

That said we also have to remember that in the 10th Century a woman could go to a female mid-wife or doctor and be treated for psychological distres (hysteria) by having the practicioner apply clitoral massage until orgasm. The electric vibrator was invented because doctors were complaining of having sore hands. Yet nobody consdiered this sex!

I have seen such arrangements in fiction in only two examples (female polygamists). One was in Caprica where the high priestess had both husbands and wives and in a book called "Freedom From Conscience" where a female serial killer marries her female high school sweetheart and a Mormon man. Maybe in the future we will see this become more a theme in fiction?

[_Gunnar]

I am fine with the idea of legalizing polygamy if there are sufficient safeguards and sanctions in place against coercion and physical or sexual abuse (especially involving children), and as long as both polyandry and polygyny are equally permitted and protected under the law. Polygamy as practiced by some "Mormon Fundamentalist" groups, in which women and young girls have little or no say in the matter of whom or whether they marry, definitely ought to be outlawed! And, of course, bigamy, in which someone is married to more than one spouse without the knowledge and consent of any and/or all of the other spouses ought to remain illegal!

[_just me]

Yet the actual science shows there are far more risk factors involved with the lifestyle, easily outweighing negative (nothing) intrinsic to heterosexual ones. There is no reason for the state to benefit anything but the ideal and natural relationship which is heterosexual.

Which risk factors are involved in same-sex marriages?

That's just the thing! If the anti-gay crowd is truly concerned over some sort of dangerous "lifestyle" you would think they would PROMOTE gay marriage.

But, no. That's not what we see. It's truly bizarre. Truly.

[_honorentheos]

BC-

I don't think the major criticism is regarding polygamy as a practise. I can speak only for myself but for me it has to do with how it was practised. I don't believe any decent human being can be familiar with how Joseph treated Emma in relation to this issue and consider him moral.

Add to that the power dynamics (ex. With Helen Mar Kimball) and the picture becomes that more complete.

I'm not concerned about polygamy between consenting adults as a legal issue.

The glaring flaw in the view polygamy alone is a critical issue to church critics is how familiar most were with Brigham's polygamy without leaving. Clearly the details of how it was being practised matter to critics.

[_honorentheos]

While the state has no compelling interest in recognizing gay marriages (let them marry all they want just don't recognize them), they would have a compelling interest (the possibility of children raised in an ideal heterosexual marriage plural or otherwise) in this case.

I don’t think you should get away with this comment, either.

There is a compelling interest for the United States of America to recognize same-sex marriages. That interest is based on the extension of civil liberties and equal rights to all men and women regardless of their position of privilege in society. To not extend that right based on unsupportable criteria is to damage the foundational idea that the US is a model for human rights and a beacon of democracy.

Your notion of basing practice on an ideal is flawed as the current practice does not discriminate against heterosexuals from marriage or child rearing in less-than-ideal conditions. It’s also misinformed to claim a child reared in a two-parent same-sex relationship is worse off than offspring from many socially accepted heterosexual relationships.

As we’ve discussed elsewhere, to claim child-bearing has any impact on this decision reduces the argument to one of two outcomes:

Either the state should interfere with marriages where offspring can not result regardless of gender pairing.

Or the practice of marriage is reduced to fertility ritual, where what matters is the male is able to place his sword in the woman’s chalice. The ritual itself is what society is protecting, not the results.

[_bcspace]

While the state has no compelling interest in recognizing gay marriages (let them marry all they want just don't recognize them), they would have a compelling interest (the possibility of children raised in an ideal heterosexual marriage plural or otherwise) in this case.

I don’t think you should get away with this comment, either.

And yet I will time and time again. Gay marriage is already essentially legal in every state. The only question is which relationships should the state recognize, benefit, and protect.

As we’ve discussed elsewhere, to claim child-bearing has any impact on this decision reduces the argument to one of two outcomes:

Either the state should interfere with marriages where offspring can not result regardless of gender pairing.

Or the practice of marriage is reduced to fertility ritual, where what matters is the male is able to place his sword in the woman’s chalice. The ritual itself is what society is protecting, not the results.

Completely incorrect. The state need not second guess, and therefore not interfere, with child bearing/rearing decisions. The simple fact of male female pairing is good enough to show the ideal relationship as an example.

[_honorentheos]

While the state has no compelling interest in recognizing gay marriages (let them marry all they want just don't recognize them), they would have a compelling interest (the possibility of children raised in an ideal heterosexual marriage plural or otherwise) in this case.

I don’t think you should get away with this comment, either.

And yet I will time and time again. Gay marriage is already essentially legal in every state. The only question is which relationships should the state recognize, benefit, and protect.

"Get away with"? I don't think so. As to the question, yes that is essentially at the heart of the issue. It's probably not the first time you've been on the wrong side, given the basis for your opinion.

History Lesson

As we’ve discussed elsewhere, to claim child-bearing has any impact on this decision reduces the argument to one of two outcomes:

Either the state should interfere with marriages where offspring can not result regardless of gender pairing.

Or the practice of marriage is reduced to fertility ritual, where what matters is the male is able to place his sword in the woman’s chalice. The ritual itself is what society is protecting, not the results.

Completely incorrect. The state need not second guess, and therefore not interfere, with child bearing/rearing decisions. The simple fact of male female pairing is good enough to show the ideal relationship as an example.

"The simple fact of male female pairing is good enough to show the ideal relationship as an example."

HAHAHAHAH! WTF kind of argument is that?!!

"The simple fact of male male pairing is good enough to show the ideal relationship as an example."

Guess we all have to get the gay now. That statement is just as valid.

[_palerobber]

Yet the actual science shows there are far more risk factors involved with the lifestyle, easily outweighing negative (nothing) intrinsic to heterosexual ones.

care to cite any specific studies on that?