• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Group Marriage on the Way?

knowell said:
Wrangor crushing it. The only one using logic. Funny since he is the "religious" and the other side claims to love science.
Click to expand...

Yep. I disagree with Wrangor about gay marriage, but he is definitely the most logical person on this thread and has clearly given the most serious thought to the subject. But none of that matters to the name-calling "You're a bigot!" crowd.
 
Wrangor said:
Of course sir. I see where you are coming from just disagree with your premise. We will see which side our culture stands with. I predict that marriage will continue its current trend of inclusion to previously uncomfortable relationships. I am not sure how far it will go but I am very sure that polygamy will be included in the umbrella in the fairly near future (decade or so) and down the road see even more unusual unions becoming acceptable to the public and therefore codified into law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I mean maybe that's ok though. Maybe we'll come to understand that plural marriage now isn't as harmful as it's been in the past.

I understand where you're coming from, but you have to see that your exact same post could have been made about interracial marriage 70 years ago. And statements like it were widespread in that context.

Doesn't mean that plural marriage isn't different. But also doesn't mean that its is either.

ETA: The fact that a relationship is "uncomfortable" to some people isn't a reason to prevent it. The only question should be whether it's harmful to society.
 
Wrangor said:
No. I am completely comfortable with gay marriage as someone else's choice. I CHanged my view on it several years ago. My current view is more libertarian. The government shouldn't get involved. Everyone assumes I am against gay marriage because they know my faith, but just because I am personally averse to a 'lifestyle' (I say that with full recognition of my differences on what that means to other people) doesn't mean I think the government should be involved. I think it was the religious rights push against all this that dropped it on their head. So I am not against gay marriage. A decade, or probably 5 years ago I would have said differently. I have matured in my political philosophy. My faith stance hasn't changed but I have a better (in my opinion) view on how to relate my faith and it isn't through political oppression.

One of the main issues I have the Republican Party (and this is true with democrats as well) is that we can't disagree with a philosophy or life choice without making it a personal or character attack. I am aiming to do better. That is the only way I can see to make a positive impact with my faith amongst a culture that is clearly at odds with my beliefs. If I try to politically or otherwise fight with everyone then my witness (and life) is useless. That isn't the model of Jesus. He held firm to the truth but welcomed everyone to discuss and have friendship. He only people Jesus didn't befriend were the people who thought they already knew it all. I don't want to be one of those people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well I stand corrected, I don't disagree with Wrangor about gay marriage. Impressed that you were willing to change, especially given how central religion is to your life.
 
Kennedy should've written a better opinion.

Now it is about tax rates and deductions. Don't see this one coming in the code anytime soon - unless you want to look at corporations, LLCs, and a myriad of other organations that could effectively marry 3,4,5 or 95 of you.
 
MysteryMen said:
I mean maybe that's ok though. Maybe we'll come to understand that plural marriage now isn't as harmful as it's been in the past.

I understand where you're coming from, but you have to see that your exact same post could have been made about interracial marriage 70 years ago. And statements like it were widespread in that context.

Doesn't mean that plural marriage isn't different. But also doesn't mean that its is either.

ETA: The fact that a relationship is "uncomfortable" to some people isn't a reason to prevent it. The only question should be whether it's harmful to society.
Click to expand...

The reason plural marriage is seen as harmful is that it has been, and would continue to be, a result of oppressive, sexist religious beliefs ( and not the result of gay marriage).
 
Junebug said:
You are sidestepping the point that polyamory is immutable at least in the same way homosexuality is immutable. Call it what you want -- I prefer attraction -- but the trait that courts are concluding is immutable about the gays is their attraction/desire/affinity for people of the same sex. If the attraction to those of the same sex is immutable in the gays, then the attraction to many different people is immutable in polygamists.
Click to expand...

Even if that point is granted - and there are several good arguments against it - the issue of negative externalities still exists and forms a basis for government regulation of polygamy that does not exist in the gay marriage context.
 
MysteryMen said:
I mean maybe that's ok though. Maybe we'll come to understand that plural marriage now isn't as harmful as it's been in the past.

I understand where you're coming from, but you have to see that your exact same post could have been made about interracial marriage 70 years ago. And statements like it were widespread in that context.

Doesn't mean that plural marriage isn't different. But also doesn't mean that its is either.

ETA: The fact that a relationship is "uncomfortable" to some people isn't a reason to prevent it. The only question should be whether it's harmful to society.
Click to expand...
Lots of stuff is harmful to society but is still legal.
 
Shooshmoo said:
The reason plural marriage is seen as harmful is that it has been, and would continue to be, a result of oppressive, sexist religious beliefs, and not because of gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Who are you to judge the women who enter into these relationships? All the ones I've seen interviewed say they did so voluntarily. The situation is not always monstrous for the women and children. I think the hijab is the result of "oppressive, sexist religious beliefs", but many of you thought it was wonderful that someone chose to wear that symbol of oppression at the Olympics. And as Barca said, those who choose to wear it do so voluntarily.
 
Deacon923 said:
Even if that point is granted - and there are several good arguments against it - the issue of negative externalities still exists and forms a basis for government regulation of polygamy that does not exist in the gay marriage context.
Click to expand...

Was it not a prevailing argument many years ago that homosexuality was a negative for society? It seems like the same argument with the exception that homosexuality is now an acceptable norm. The fact that oppressive people in the past practiced polygamy does not mean that it would have to be that way in a more enlightened culture.
 
I can see how two consenting persons, say Citi Group and Goldman Sachs Group, getting married could be considered group marriage.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Who are you to judge the women who enter into these relationships? All the ones I've seen interviewed say they did so voluntarily. The situation is not always monstrous for the women and children. I think the hijab is the result of "oppressive, sexist religious beliefs", but many of you thought it was wonderful that someone chose to wear that symbol of oppression at the Olympics. And as Barca said, those who choose to wear it do so voluntarily.
Click to expand...

I say that as an equal opportunity organized religion hater. I understand the argument that the hijab is an expression of diversity in that it shows integration of Muslims , but I see it as a symbol that women are not treated as equals. I also don't think it compares to polygamous marriage.
 
Shooshmoo said:
I say that as an equal opportunity organized religion hater. I understand the argument that the hijab is an expression of diversity in that it shows integration of Muslims , but I see it as a symbol that women are not treated as equals. I also don't think it compares to polygamous marriage.
Click to expand...

I agree it's not the same thing, but the point is that women can voluntarily choose to do things that we consider "the result of oppressive, sexist religious beliefs" and lead happy and content lives. It's not our place to force them to take off that hijab or tell them they can't marry this man who already has a wife. None of us are experts on polygamy, but I'm sure we've all seen documentaries where the spouses and children seem happy and healthy. If it works for them who are we to judge.
 
This has turned into a good thread. Good arguments being advanced by most involved.

I'm with Wrangor on this. They will have to essentially rewrite Kennedy's opinion to deny polygamists the right to marry multiples. Using the thinning of wife options as a viable reason for denying polygamy? Yeah, maybe in some Egyptian village in the year 1238 that argument would fly. Or maybe even more recently among Mormon settlers in the middle of nowhere in the 1800s. But if we are to assign ambiguous touchie feelie requirements like dignity to the equation, then who can be denied such a thing? The immutable characteristic thing is an interesting differentiation, but Wrangor is right. Is it not an immutable characteristic to bang as many women as possible? Who is to say that one is valid and the other is not? The deviance and abuse we see from polygamous sects now is largely due to them being marginalized and having to live in their own culture where they make their own rules. I mean, it's pretty well established that homosexuals have mental problems at a higher rate than their hetero counterparts. Are we supposed to believe that living outside the fringes of society for most of their lives has nothing to do with that?

I don't think the world will collapse if we recognize polygamy anymore than I thought it would with the recognition of gay marriage. Whether a state government can regulate such things was the issue. I see no compelling reason why a state government can deny polygamy given how it has chosen to recognize gay marriage. It will have to jump through semantic hoops to deny such a claim. Or gay incestuous marriage (since 2 headed children would not be an issue) for that matter, even though I don't ever anticipate that argument being advanced in a court of law.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
I agree it's not the same thing, but the point is that women can voluntarily choose to do things that we consider "the result of oppressive, sexist religious beliefs" and lead happy and content lives. It's not our place to force them to take off that hijab or tell them they can't marry this man who already has a wife. None of us are experts on polygamy, but I'm sure we've all seen documentaries where the spouses and children seem happy and healthy. If it works for them who are we to judge.
Click to expand...

If truly voluntary, I have no issue. I judge as someone who is able to have opinions about sexism and discrimination.
 
Polygamy doesn't carry the same problems that incest carries.

Consent is relevant here, and for the sake of being consistent ideologically and applying the same mindset, I don't see how you can allow gay marriage and deny polygamy from a legal standpoint.

Open to legal arguments that detail otherwise though.
 
BillBrasky said:
if any western nation allows Islamic (or any grown men) to actively rape 13-14 year old girls in the name of tolerance, then we need to immediately break diplomatic relations with them.

Fuck any pederass who does that shit, regardless of religion. I hope their dicks fall off and they are raped in whatever the consider Hades for eternity.
Click to expand...

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Or, at least, the word I assume you meant to use.

Wrangor said:
What are you talking about? Why is incest a crime against humanity?
Click to expand...

Likewise, do you even know what incest is -- and does -- to "humanity" ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top