Polygamy

[Bravus]

http://bravus.port5.com/blog/index.php?p=152

[Guest]

Hey are you going to tell those people that those GREAT DANES, donkeys, sheep and horses were not consenting?

Are you going to tell those 8-11 yr old and teenagers that they were not consenting?

Now the dead ones...I won't speak for..I am not into channeling

Shall we examine the artwork of Pompei too??

[Amelia]

At least the women in a poligamist relationship, have someone to talk to. ROFL

[Dr. Shane]

I don't know too many women that would want more than one husband. Most wives think thier one husband wants too much sex, I doubt they would want a line of husbands waiting.

Polygamy as practiced by most cultures do not have the wives living in the same house. Each wife has her own house where she lives with her children. No threesomes take place.

I would not want more than one wife. My wife is just what I need and fulfills everything God intended a wife to.

However if society allows homosexual marriage, polygamy is going to have to follow. As soon as homosexual marriage is made law, polygamy law suits will start being filed. Incest would also follow if there was much of a demand for that. I don't think genetic defects could be argued strong enough. However even if they could, if one of the two siblings or cousins was sterilized that would be a non-issue.

One man/One woman is the best policy for soicety to take. Civil unions should be legal to allow domestic "partners" basic rights like inheritance and visiting rights. However those in such unions should not recieve any tax or social security benifits because such incentives would result in more hetrosexual couples choosing civil unions instead of marriage.

[Nicodema]

Bravus:

The pattern in such Thelemic, Wiccan, and other pagan communities where polyamory is practiced is, just as often, for a central female to have several partners, sometimes of both genders. Among pagans, polygamy does not always equate to polygyny.

There are also some pretty solid rules of fair play regarding the interactions of polys with monogamous persons within those communities, to avoid frayed nerves and broken relationships on BOTH ends. For example: polys generally kept hands off of "taken" monogamous folks or pair-bonded monogamous couples. Relationships and personal preferences for them were kept above board with terms spelled out among all involved. Those who didn't "play well with others" soon found out the need to do so for their own sake as well as that of others'. Within communities these things were rather self-regulating, had their own built-in corrective mechanisms.

Nico

[there buster]

The first thing to recognize is that the debate about "gay marriage" is not about "extending a civil right," but about re-defining marriage. Once society takes upon itself the authority to re-define this foundational institution, which itself predates the state, then there is no way to limit that re-definition.

But it has nothing to do with "civil rights." The homosexual person has precisely the same right to marry as I do.

The answer to "who does it hurt?" is quite simple. 1)Children, 2)the next generation, and through them 3) the state itself.

[Bravus]

/me ties his mouth behind his back, or something - except long enough to nod to Nico and acknowledge his lack of math skills: there are clearly many more permutations than were dreamt of in my philosophy <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

The first thing to recognize is that the debate about "gay marriage" is not about "extending a civil right," but about re-defining marriage. ....

---

This old chestnut has been thrown into the arena before. This characterization is utterly false. Homosexuals do not want to redefine marriage; they want the right to life-partner with someone of their choosing like everyone else does.

Quote:

---

But it has nothing to do with "civil rights." The homosexual person has precisely the same right to marry as I do.

---

Again, utterly false. You, the heterosexual, have the right to life-partner whomever you choose; your preferences cause you to choose someone of the opposite gender (who shares your prefs and is willing, mind you). The homosexual does not have the right to partner with whomever he chooses, whom his prefs would dictate would be someone of the same gender (who shares his prefs and is willing, mind you).

For you to state that the homosexual has the "same right to marry" as you do is merely to loan yourself out as a mouthpiece to smarmy rhetoric driven by an agenda to deprive one group of people whom it is still socially-acceptable to discriminate against of their civil rights. You're a writer of no small talent and no narrow mind, Ed, from what I've seen in your articles, and frankly -- if you'll pardon me getting personal here -- I'm surprised to see you lend yourself out this way like a puppet to wordsmiths with not even half your wit and none of your insight. At the very least I'd expect you to come up with your own creative measure of characterising the situation rather than parroting the stale mantras of right-wing politicoes.

Quote:

---

The answer to "who does it hurt?" is quite simple. 1)Children, 2)the next generation, and through them 3) the state itself.

---

Sorry but there is nothing out there to substantiate this. In fact, studies have demonstrated gays who adopt children prove to be just as devoted and competent caretakers as heterosexual parents, and their children are NOT any more likely to be homosexual than the children of heterosexual parents.

Ah but maybe that's not what scares some. Maybe some are afraid that the mere fact of having been raised by two moms or two dads will leave the children deprived of having homophobia instilled in them from the cradle, thus "jeopardizing" the next generation by depleting it of its core homophobe elements, thus "jeopardizing" the state ultimately as the third generation beyond will no longer feel the need to trample gays in the dirt and treat them like second-class citizens. Oh my, whatever would we do without our targets and scapegoats.

[cricket]

I'm not certain that a child isn't harmed by having two parents of the same sex. It is a situation that would lend itself toward an unbalanced view of the sexes as a whole, wouldn't it?

In terms of poly "marriages" (for lack of a better understanding of the different root words), I would tend to think that the children wouldn't have equal access to both parents as they should. Either there'd be too much Mom time, or Dad time, or...Mom1 time vs. Mom2 time, or...Dad1 time vs. Dad2 time...

Truly, I believe that one father and one mother--dedicated to providing a well-balanced life for their children--is the most ideal situation.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

You, the heterosexual, have the right to life-partner whomever you choose

---

But that's not true. 1)Stories of unrequited love are commonplace. Lots of people can't marry the person of their choice because that person does not reciprocate.

2)I'm currently married, so I can't marry anyone. Why? Because we define marriage as one man and one woman. Should we care to change that definition, I might acquire another spouse.

(Here I must make an aside. During the Clinton/Monica fiasco, Dick Armey was asked if, should he be caught in the same situation, he should be impeached. His reply reflects something of my own status. "Impeached? No need. If that happened to me, I'd be lying in a pool of my own blood, while Mrs. Armey asked, 'How do you reload this thing.'" My dear Mavis is a gem, but her patience is not infinite.)

Even if I weren't married, and therefore eligible (according to our definition of marriage), I couldn't "life-partner" whomever I chose. 3)Unless we redefine marriage, all the married women out there would be removed from my choice.

I might choose my neighbor's 12YO daughter; she might even choose me (this is totally hypothetical, my neighbor's children are older than mine). 4)We would not be free to life partner, because she's underage, as we define marriage.

There is no blank on the marriage license concerning sexual orientation. Anyone applying for a license has precisely the same rights as anyone else. Homosexuals don't want to "do what everyone else does," that's why they're asking for marriage to be redefined.

When "race-mixing" laws were struck down, that was the extension of a civil right. Skin color and ethnicity are irrelevant to the ability of a man and a woman to form a household and reproduce. We didn't have to change the definition of marriage to accomplish it.

Any eligible person (defined by age and marital status) can marry any eligible person of the opposite sex, provided both are willing. Nobody asks the sexual orientation of either. Everyone has the same right. Homosexuals want to change the definition to remove the words "opposite sex." Logically and legally, that's a change of definition.

Now, if there was a compelling state interest in redefining marriage, we could certainly do so. But absent a compelling interest, we should realize that once we begin changing the definition in one way, there will be intense pressures to change it in other ways.

Please note that all my arguments here are strictly legal ones. I have made no appeal to morality or scripture.

You really should refrain from assuming motives.

[there buster]

Yes, there are more permutations.

You asked, "Who is hurt?" not, "List all the possibilities of those who might be hurt."

Besides, damage to the state has far-reaching implications.

[there buster]

Children need both a father and a mother. There's a mountain of evidence for this.

That "traditional marriage" sometimes fails to provide this ideal doesn't excuse instituting households where this will be impossible from day one.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

You're a writer of no small talent and no narrow mind

---

Many thanks for the kind words.

Assuming you're correct, how likely is it I would "lend myself" to anyone? My views may be popular, or may not be, but they are my own, arrived at through my own reasoning, education, and experience.

As a matter of record, I was assigned an article about the Biblical definition of marriage about a year ago, on a ten-day deadline. It was published in the July, 2004 SIGNS. Since they own the electronic rights for one year, I can't post it here. It does not address gay marriage directly, that was not the assignment. But it does have bearing on the issue.

[Guest]

And the bible says...

Aw who cares?

God is still despised and rejected in the church too.

Jer 17:9...Rom 8:7

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

You really should refrain from assuming motives.

---

This haughty-minded sneer is both inappropriate and irrelevant. Nowhere did I "assume" your motive and as far as I'm aware I sought to keep the dialogue civil.

[Guest]

IOW..

the woman at the well says...

GET YOUR OWN BUCKET IF YOU'RE THIRSTY!

I HAVE WORK TO DO....SHEESH!!

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

And the bible says...

Aw who cares?

God is still despised and rejected in the church too.

Jer 17:9...Rom 8:7

---

And it's a royal shame when those who see this and make as if to sigh and cry over it, will readily support tempting others to continue despising and rejecting by casting him in the disgusting image of a knee-jerking bigot who can't rest till he has trampled some poor sinner in the dust and persecuted him over his lifestyle. BY THE WAY you ARE aware, are you not, all you SMART gentlemen, that "the blood of the martyrs is seed of the gospel"? Well that SAME SPIRITUAL LAW WORKS IN OTHER PLACES TOO. When you make "martyrs" of any "cause" -- homosexuality, abortion, whatever -- you just add to the STRENGTH of what you are trying to oppose. Pretty dumb to shoot yer own feet if you ask me. But no one did, so I'll just shut up and pretend I'm a little girl who doesn't know anything, which is what would please everyone so I'll only do it for five minutes. HAH!

We all need to go see this sermon: How to Treat Lost Sheep No doubt Sir JimBob will bash it as some "NFDMTTS" (can't really say b'cuz I have never understood what he means by that exactly unless it's anything that doesn't go Genesis to Revelation, Old Cov to New in one fell swoop taking you to the utter degradation of hell for your sin and up to Heaven in Christ in the end if you would accept Him) but I think it is excellent. I also think it is timely and needed. THEN we need to go to this article in the Review: The #1 Christian Porn Site and get a taste of what outreach is about.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

IOW..

the woman at the well says...

GET YOUR OWN BUCKET IF YOU'RE THIRSTY!

I HAVE WORK TO DO....SHEESH!!

---

JimBob you know I would not turn away someone thirsting. When Jesus approached her, He ASKED her for a drink. He SAID He was thirsty. He did NOT come and say "buzz off with that bucket lady, not only am I filled and satisfied but I would not drink from your bucket if you were the last wench on earth." Which is essentially how I was approached if you read the ENTIRE post and not just what I responded to. Ed does not need me to draw water for him, nor has he asked me to. He is satisfied with his own bucket and unwilling to be given anything from me anyway.

[Gail]

When someone sets about to redefine marriage, is he in fact doing away with it? I think I see that as a possible outcome once all the possibilities are considered

[Guest]

Nico,

Understood

With you posting over 5000 times...even though I have not read all of them....I get a sense of what you are about...so I just threw up that goofy post , of course risking being obnoxious...but doing a take off on your nice avatar...and the latest back and forth on this thread.

Consider it a jimbob break in the dialog..

now where were we...??

oh...yeah..my other post...??

What do you expect from some SDA fundamentalist psycho nutcase???

[Guest]

Lost sheep sermon...

Link???

[Guest]

also...

I have been fairly clear several times in posts as to what that entails.

My NFDMTTS rant..still gets support from those who are sensitive and tuned into what that is about.

[Guest]

Now..back to the sinful degrading decadent obscene sexual perverted thread regarding polygamy...

Ouch!!!..watch that club will ya???

[Bravus]

Erm, I believe I addressed what the Bible says in the original blog post: it's basically completely fine with polygamy - as long as you don't want to be a deacon. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

When someone sets about to redefine marriage, is he in fact doing away with it? I think I see that as a possible outcome once all the possibilities are considered

---

Yes it could be, if redefining marriage is what is going on. I am not convinced that is the case, though.

Homosexuals seeking to marry are looking to pair bond monogamously with a life partner and enjoy the same HOUSEHOLD privileges and responsibilities that go with that: shared taxing, next-of-kin matters in hospital, etc. They are not looking to redefine marriage but to participate in it as homosexuals.

Polyamory is a completely SEPARATE ISSUE ENTIRELY and ought to be treated as such (IMO).