Gay rights advocates score wins in NY, Calif.

[chri'stina 190]

I find it hard to believe, and a little sad, that two men marrying one another is considered easier to swallow by the general public than a man having two wives. As far as I know, no govt has ever accepted gay marriages before recently but plural marriages have been an accepted way of life in communities for thousands of years.

Typically (fundamentalist) religious communities.

I'm not sure about that. Kings had multiple wives for political reasons in various countries over time. Also in many cultures it was the norm for financial and farming reasons.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

1. I wonder how someone can be so anti-gay yet be perfectly content with the idea of multiple wives.

Because I don't believe it's morally wrong to have more than one wife. I believe it's much worse that men having mistresses and openly committing fornication and adultery is so widely accepted but the idea that he actually marry that other woman he wants to have a relationship with is found to be distasteful.

2. How is it a bogus law?

Because, it's a religious law enacted and enforced in order to prevent another religious group from practicing their religion (Mormons).

3. They are most assuredly free to have "flaiming parades to draw attention to their plight" as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America (the right to peaceably assemble). They may not choose to apply for a parade permit, but they are free to do so.

They're not because when polygamists put their names down as active polygamists they bring an investigation on themselves and their families. They tend to lay low so they can live in peace.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

I find it hard to believe, and a little sad, that two men marrying one another is considered easier to swallow by the general public than a man having two wives. As far as I know, no govt has ever accepted gay marriages before recently but plural marriages have been an accepted way of life in communities for thousands of years.

Typically (fundamentalist) religious communities.

Many pagan tribes were known to accept multiple partner marriages throughout history. It's not just us "fundies"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I find it hard to believe, and a little sad, that two men marrying one another is considered easier to swallow by the general public than a man having two wives. As far as I know, no govt has ever accepted gay marriages before recently but plural marriages have been an accepted way of life in communities for thousands of years.

Typically (fundamentalist) religious communities.

I'm not sure about that. Kings had multiple wives for political reasons in various countries over time. Also in many cultures it was the norm for financial and farming reasons.

OK - leaving religion out of the equation you're still mostly talking about (relatively) ancient and/or male-dominated cultures.

As I say - slightly broadening what should fall under marriage but keeping it within the bounds of monogamy is far less socially transformative (and therefore controversial) than opening it up to an archaic practice like Polygamy. The internal logic of that practice assumes an attitude toward the possession of women that is simply incompatible with a modern society.

I find it hard to believe, and a little sad, that two men marrying one another is considered easier to swallow by the general public than a man having two wives. As far as I know, no govt has ever accepted gay marriages before recently but plural marriages have been an accepted way of life in communities for thousands of years.

Typically (fundamentalist) religious communities.

Many pagan tribes were known to accept multiple partner marriages throughout history. It's not just us "fundies"

Well this is why I said "typically".

In any case - "throughout history" again refers to societies that were male-dominated.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

I find it hard to believe, and a little sad, that two men marrying one another is considered easier to swallow by the general public than a man having two wives. As far as I know, no govt has ever accepted gay marriages before recently but plural marriages have been an accepted way of life in communities for thousands of years.

Typically (fundamentalist) religious communities.

I'm not sure about that. Kings had multiple wives for political reasons in various countries over time. Also in many cultures it was the norm for financial and farming reasons.

OK - leaving religion out of the equation you're still mostly talking about (relatively) ancient and/or male-dominated cultures.

As I say - slightly broadening what should fall under marriage but keeping it within the bounds of monogamy is far less socially transformative (and therefore controversial) than opening it up to an archaic practice like Polygamy. The internal logic of that practice assumes an attitude toward the possession of women that is simply incompatible with a modern society.

I find it hard to believe, and a little sad, that two men marrying one another is considered easier to swallow by the general public than a man having two wives. As far as I know, no govt has ever accepted gay marriages before recently but plural marriages have been an accepted way of life in communities for thousands of years.

Typically (fundamentalist) religious communities.

Many pagan tribes were known to accept multiple partner marriages throughout history. It's not just us "fundies"

Well this is why I said "typically".

In any case - "throughout history" again refers to societies that were male-dominated.

Many of those pagan societies were actually more female dominated and centered around the worship of a female diety. The women had multiple husbands as well.

I don't see how you can consider polygamy "archaic" while it's openly practiced throughout the world today.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think I could seriously care less for actual, legal polygamy based on historical or even legal grounds. To be honest it should be legally permissible within obvious statutory limits of age of consent.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

To me, why does a public debate have to be the reason to consider something? I am not for polygamist marriages but the argument that b/c something isn't being widely debated then it's not an issue doesn't make sense to me. If marriage is going to be redefined, it's only going to be so that homosexuals can marry b/c they are making more noise about it than polygamists? Or do ppl still support that marriage is between 2 ppl only, even if they are supporting homosexual marriage? There has been much more polygamy(multiple marriage) in history it seems than homosexual marriage. So what's the diff between supporting one over the other? How do you explain it to a polygamist?

Stina, the way I see it is marriage is not so much being redefined from being between 2 consenting adults, but removing any discrimination. Forty years ago, mixed marriages like yours and mine were against the law in many states until the courts ruled it as unconstitutional. While we can define marriage by non-discriminating means (between 2 consenting adults, not 3 or more), to define by race, color, religion or sex is discrimination.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

If you start from the premise that some folks find same sex marriage repulsive and immoral, then the logical response by those who believe that leads them to deduce that anything repulsive and/or immoral in their eyes is fair game to be permitted the same rights under the law. Which is a valid argument. If A equal B and B equal X, then why shouldn't A equal X. Especially since the standard of what is moral and socially acceptable has change and is now translated into a change in the interpretation and implementation of the laws. It's all based on who set the standards of what is socially and legally moral, proper, and acceptable.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

Stina, the way I see it is marriage is not so much being redefined from being between 2 consenting adults, but removing any discrimination. Forty years ago, mixed marriages like yours and mine were against the law in many states until the courts ruled it as unconstitutional. While we can define marriage by non-discriminating means (between 2 consenting adults, not 3 or more), to define by race, color, religion or sex is discrimination.

Many mormons believe that having more than one wife gives them more reward in heaven and even consider it their religious duty to marry more than one.

Many ppl of other religions also believe it to be a better alternative than all the sex outside of marriage that is rampant in this country.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm already married to my laptop so all the rules have been broken anyway.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you start from the premise that some folks find same sex marriage repulsive and immoral, then the logical response by those who believe that leads them to deduce that anything repulsive and/or immoral in their eyes is fair game to be permitted the same rights under the law. Which is a valid argument. If A equal B and B equal X, then why shouldn't A equal X. Especially since the standard of what is moral and socially acceptable has change and is now translated into a change in the interpretation and implementation of the laws. It's all based on who set the standards of what is socially and legally moral, proper, and acceptable.

No, that's faulty logic. It's as simple as recognizing our civil rights - that we cannot be discriminated against because of our race, color, religion, gender, or orientation. Equal protection under the law...as per the US Constitution.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What about men and women who are biologically hardwired sluts?

Do they not deserve the same protections?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Stina, the way I see it is marriage is not so much being redefined from being between 2 consenting adults, but removing any discrimination. Forty years ago, mixed marriages like yours and mine were against the law in many states until the courts ruled it as unconstitutional. While we can define marriage by non-discriminating means (between 2 consenting adults, not 3 or more), to define by race, color, religion or sex is discrimination.

Many mormons believe that having more than one wife gives them more reward in heaven and even consider it their religious duty to marry more than one.

Many ppl of other religions also believe it to be a better alternative than all the sex outside of marriage that is rampant in this country.

That may well be the case, but the courts, IMO, would never rule that limiting civil marriage to being only between two consenting adults as discriminatory towards someone's religious views of polygamy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I find it hard to believe, and a little sad, that two men marrying one another is considered easier to swallow by the general public than a man having two wives. As far as I know, no govt has ever accepted gay marriages before recently but plural marriages have been an accepted way of life in communities for thousands of years.

Typically (fundamentalist) religious communities.

I'm not sure about that. Kings had multiple wives for political reasons in various countries over time. Also in many cultures it was the norm for financial and farming reasons.

OK - leaving religion out of the equation you're still mostly talking about (relatively) ancient and/or male-dominated cultures.

As I say - slightly broadening what should fall under marriage but keeping it within the bounds of monogamy is far less socially transformative (and therefore controversial) than opening it up to an archaic practice like Polygamy. The internal logic of that practice assumes an attitude toward the possession of women that is simply incompatible with a modern society.

I find it hard to believe, and a little sad, that two men marrying one another is considered easier to swallow by the general public than a man having two wives. As far as I know, no govt has ever accepted gay marriages before recently but plural marriages have been an accepted way of life in communities for thousands of years.

Typically (fundamentalist) religious communities.

Many pagan tribes were known to accept multiple partner marriages throughout history. It's not just us "fundies"

Well this is why I said "typically".

In any case - "throughout history" again refers to societies that were male-dominated.

Many of those pagan societies were actually more female dominated and centered around the worship of a female diety. The women had multiple husbands as well.

I don't see how you can consider polygamy "archaic" while it's openly practiced throughout the world today.

Well if you're going to get into specifics here - it might be worth citing actual examples of these "many pagan societies", though I'm willing to bet those societies are almost completely alien to our own.

Its archaic from a western point of view - this being a western country and all - this is surely the one that counts in this context. The polygamy that's practiced here is generally of a very singular variety (no pun intended), which of course - you know. It wouldn't work here because it requires a fundamental paradigm shift in the design of our society - far, far more radical than same sex marriage.

In fact the reason is even simpler than that. We live in a society that recognises equal rights between the sexes - what this would essentially mean (and this is entirely hypothetical of course - just to illustrate how radically ridiculous the idea is) is that every man and every woman could have as many married partners as they like regardless of the pre-existing marital status of those partners. In short, everyone could potentially be married to everyone else which makes that little lot out for the purpose of taxation, immigration or what have you rather difficult. Not that I'm suggesting that everyone would buy into this lifestyle of course - but you could quite easily run into problems of figuring out how to submit (and process) a tax return because a person is married into several immediate families. To call it a headache doesn't do it justice I think.

As I say - this idea is fundamentally even more radical than the people in this country who actually practice polygamy. They might want their multiple partner marriages legitimised by law - but I suspect even they would not be prepared to follow the idea through to what would be its natural conclusion.

Edited May 29, 2008 by Number 6

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What, you don't think swingers are aching to marry each other?