patrick.net

Is this canard why you changed your avatar from a decrepit child molester to two anatomically sanitized silhouettes on a toilet sign?

Here is a link to the actual NPR story, which you didn't link to: "multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing." The issue of whether a person can have one spouse is a different issue from whether a person can have multiple spouses, whatever your opinion of either issue might be.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/28/175623980/in-light-of-high-court-arguments-what-does-gay-marriage-tells-us-about-polygamy

"The issue of whether a person can have one spouse is a different issue from whether a person can have multiple spouses, whatever your opinion of either issue might be."

I respectfully and adamantly disagree. The question is does government have the authority to define marriage?

Then do we want them to do so?

And them just how far will they then go in redefining it?

Vaticanus says

"The issue of whether a person can have one spouse is a different issue from whether a person can have multiple spouses, whatever your opinion of either issue might be."

I respectfully and adamantly disagree. The question is does government have the authority to define marriage?

Then do we want them to do so?

And them just how far will they then go in redefining it?

Agreed.

Et tu, Mell, et tu? Marriage was re-defined to exclude same-sex couples when Rome got forcibly converted to Christianity. Restoring same-sex couples' freedom to marry does not change the definition of marriage. It does scare the Vatican though, because where will they find new priests if they can't recruit closeted homosexuals? Recruiting will be limited to child molesters. If anyone is going to be excluded from marriage, maybe it should be churchgoing Catholics, whose children face a proven risk of being molested by priests.

curious2 says

et tu, Mel, et tu? Marriage was re-defined to exclude same-sex couples when Rome got forcibly converted to Christianity. Restoring same-sex couples' freedom to marry does not change the definition of marriage. It does scare the Vatican though, because where will they find new priests if they can't recruit closeted homosexuals? Recruiting will be limited to child molesters. If anyone is going to be excluded from marriage, maybe it should be Catholics, whose children face a proven risk of being molested by priests.

The problem is with citing risk for any form of adult consensual relationship is that you are playing into the hands of those that you don't want to succeed, those opposed to gay marriage. There is no doubt that the gender dynamic has an effect on kids, but it is likely neglegible, as 2 loving responsible gay parents surely can do much better than 2 deadbeat traditional parents and abuse and molestation happens everywhere. So there is no reason to not apply the same logic to polygamist families, they can raise their kids equally well if they are responsible. Of course the monetary issues are a different beast, but if government would get out of marriage entirely and solely provide incentives for kids it could solve that as well.

I am ok with polygamy, polyandry and gay marraige. In the middle east it is universally accepted. In india, Muslims are legally allowed 4 wives-though they banned Hindus and Christians from having multiple wives/husbands. In Tibet and many indigineous cultures, polyandry is practiced-where a woman can have more than one husband. In many cultures it was ok to have conucbines and high class whores on the side for successful/powerful men. I think the govt should get out of legislating what private consenting adults do and also should get out out of the divorce industry. it should be upto the couples . In some middle east countries, they actually set a "divorce" price during the wedding. So when getting married, they already decide how much alimony/divorce payment is to be given, in the event of a divorce. Such practicality is good and would serve us well instead of this one size fits all approach that this giant bureacracy takes.

We are supposed to be a "free" country.

Vaticanus says

Any thoughts? It seems changing laws and customs could easily become a Pandora's box.

I can think of dozens of reasons why we should outlaw religion. I cannot think of one reason why we should outlaw polygamous marriages. And evidently, neither can anyone else. Whenever I ask for the legal justification for a secular government outlawing polygamous marriages, everyone gets real quiet.

And I personally have no plans to get married once, nonetheless multiple times.

curious2 says

Et tu, Mell, et tu? Marriage was re-defined to exclude same-sex couples when Rome got forcibly converted to Christianity.

When in Rome...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History

"It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).

Furthermore, according to Susan Treggiari, "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."

Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period is obscure."

All about family and the heir to carry the family name.

Matrimonium - Roman Marriage

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/marriage/a/RomanMarriage.htm

Marriage was not a state affair -- at least until Augustus made it his business. It was private, between husband and wife, their families, and between parents and their children. Nonetheless there were legal requirements. It wasn't automatic. People getting married had to have the right to marry, the connubium.

Wikipedia is not a source, and doesn't even claim to be a source. I don't know why people cite it as a source, it seems to indicate they don't care enough about facts to read actual reliable sources. If you want to read a reliable source, read Yale history department chair John Boswell's book where he cites Cicero (an actual Roman lawyer) among others and says same-sex marriage was legal and well known in Roman law.

and who is John Boswell ?

thomaswong.1986 says

who is John Boswell ?

As I said, John Boswell chaired the history department at Yale. Also, I followed your Wikipedia link, and their link doesn't say what the anonymous Wikipedia text claims. Here is the footnote:

Corbett, The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford, 1969), pp. 24–28; Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford, 1991), pp. 43–49.; "Marriages where the partners had conubium were marriages valid in Roman law (iusta matrimonia)" [Treggiari, p. 49]. Compare Ulpian (Tituli Ulpiani 5.3–5: "Conubium is the capacity to marry a wife in Roman law. Roman citizens have conubium with Roman citizens, but with Latins and foreigners only if the privilege was granted. There is no conubium with slaves"; compare also Gaius (Institutionum 1:55–56, 67, 76–80).

Note the first reference is gender-neutral, the second reference says "capacity to marry a wife" but doesn't assume a male husband or that the capacity is being used to marry a wife, and there is no support for the text you quoted. The Knights of Columbus (expressly not a charity, i.e. they do the Vatican's dirty work) and the cult of Moroni (aka the Morons) have spent many millions of dollars trying to make the government stop gay couples from getting married, including misleading ad campaigns and apparently adding misleading text to Wikipedia.

curious2 says

Wikipedia is not a source, and doesn't even claim to be a source. I don't know why people cite it as a source, it seems to indicate they don't care enough about facts to read actual reliable sources.

Lazy people quote Wikipedia because they erroneously believe doing so makes them look smart. In contrast, it actually makes them look stupid and lazy. Not only is copy-n-pasting from the encyclopedia the archetypal example of intellectual and academic sloth, as every junior high teacher would tell you, but quoting the encyclopedia that claims Plato was taught by Barney the Purple Dinosaur is just plain pathetic.

The only purpose Wikipedia serves is to let you know which posts aren't worth reading. A Wikipedia quote is a flag that says "dumb comment coming!".

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

I was all for the Mormons until I heard each wife has a bedroom. I thought they gang fucked savagely in a single bed, stopping only occasionally to drive a hypodermic of nitro through the husband's sternum.

You're thinking of Charlie Sheen.

It's more than a little hypocritical for gays to demand the right to marry on one hand, and demand that right be withheld from those seeking to form polygamous marriages.
Are you for equality or not? Government exclusion or not? It really bothers me when I see people yammering on about inclusive ideals who prove they haven't the capacity for reason when it comes to formulating a cohesive set of principles.

Quigley says

and demand that right be withheld from those

They're different issues, but can you cite any example of the "demand" you're alleging? Excluding Larry Craig and his fellow Republican closet cases? Hypocrisy is not an allegation to be made so lightly, without any evidence at all. Believing that two otherwise identical couples should have the equal protection of the same laws doesn't say anything one way or the other about a group of five people.

Dan8267 says

Vaticanus says

Any thoughts? It seems changing laws and customs could easily become a Pandora's box.

I can think of dozens of reasons why we should outlaw religion. I cannot think of one reason why we should outlaw polygamous marriages. And evidently, neither can anyone else. Whenever I ask for the legal justification for a secular government outlawing polygamous marriages, everyone gets real quiet.

And I personally have no plans to get married once, nonetheless multiple times.

First amendment protects religion even from haters. Other than that I agree, polygamy is a personal choice, not under government jurisdiction. Ditto for marriage. But government seeks to own and control the peasants, the only reason government is even involved in marriage is for money and control.

Vaticanus says

First amendment protects religion even from haters.

It also protects other religions, including those that have been marrying same-sex couples since long before the arrival of cellular phones. First amendment protection isn't limited to a church that calls itself "universal" while insisting that marriage can only be defined by a cabal of elderly "virgins" whose only sexual experiences consist of abusing children. Conspiracy to commit and conceal child abuse is a crime, no matter who does it and no matter how funny their hats.

Vaticanus says

First amendment protects religion even from haters.

Ah, but why should religion be "protected"? Just because a bunch of Protestants and Catholics fought each other bitterly during the century before our country was founded is not a good reason to protect religion. If anything, it is a good reason to band it.

Furthermore, only certain religions are protected. Try getting government protection for Wicca or Satanism or Olympianism. We make exceptions to underage drinking laws for Christians. Try getting an exception for underage (or adult) marijuana usage. All those spiritual visions of the Bronze and Iron Ages were the result of drug use, but try getting the government to respect your religious right to smoke pot.

Hell, not even Islam is protected by our precious First Amendment. Muslim women were forced against their will to show their faces in public even though it is their passionately strong belief that doing so is immoral and an offense to their god. So why were they forced to not wear face coverings in public? Supposedly security. The same goes to Native Americans who did not want to be photographed. So, our government protects your religious beliefs as long as it's one of the few religions our government approves of.

And then there's the common sense argument. Why should delusions have special protection status in the first place? Just because historically we had our government bend over backwards to accommodate a few, and only a few, religions is no justification for continuing that today. After all, our government historically bent over backwards to protect slavery.

Finally, freedom of speech trumps free of religion, and the religious have made it well-known that we cannot have free speech for some speech offends their gods. That's why we cannot say "fuck" on television or walk around naked on the street even though the First Amendment clearly says

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Oh, and you need a permit to "peaceably assemble". That's right, you need the government's permission to peaceably assembly. So much for it being a right.

Vaticanus says

the only reason government is even involved in marriage is for money and control.

the only reason government is even involved in marriage anything is for money and control.

Speaking of religion. The government logically cannot protect religion or even tolerate it while banning polygamous marriages. This is a simple contradiction.

The Mormons gave up polygamy because they were forced to by Congress in order to get the protection of the U.S. army. If a subset of Mormons or any persons wanting to set up a new religion, decided that polygamy was a core part of that religion, the First Amendment's restriction on "prohibiting the free exercise" of that religion would go out the window faster than you can say "god is a fraud".

So, no, we don't have real religious freedom in this country and we never did. It was always a thin facade.

curious2 says

Conspiracy to commit and conceal child abuse is a crime, no matter who does it and no matter how funny their hats.

Even for cats?

curious2 says

Vaticanus says

First amendment protects religion even from haters.

It also protects other religions, including those that have been marrying same-sex couples since long before the arrival of cellular phones. First amendment protection isn't limited to a church that calls itself "universal" while insisting that marriage can only be defined by a cabal of elderly "virgins" whose only sexual experiences consist of abusing children. Conspiracy to commit and conceal child abuse is a crime, no matter who does it and no matter how funny their hats.

Let the church marry whoever they choose just leave the government out of it.

By the way folks this thread was established to discuss the NPR radio interview of a Georgetown University professor and lawyer ( a catholic/ Jesuit institution ) who is defending his clients right to live a polygamous lifestyle, and the extensive similarities between strate sanctioned polygamy and the agenda of those seeking state sanctioned "gay marriage." If you have not listened to the lawyers arguements I strongly encourage you to check it out. The link is posted in comment #2 above.

chanakya4773 says

100% agree with you. I have yet to f**ing see even one gay marriage rights
supporter who also supports all other alternative forms of marriage. Hypocrisy
to the core..assholes!

Huh-you don't read before going on your imaginary tirades? In this thread alone, you have me and Dan support both gay and other forms of marraige. On top of that I support prostitution and drug use too-so there.

Any thoughts? It seems changing laws and customs could easily become a Pandora's box.

hey man polygyny is biblical so the fundies, all 60M of them, can't object.

Vaticanus says

And them just how far will they then go in redefining it?

Well the Christians and Mormons should rise up and RETURN marriage to it's Biblical roots.

Fighting for multiple wives, concubines, slaves, and of course the requirement a widow be remarried to the next brother. It's right there in the Bible like the Good Lord wanted it.

I had a boss once . She would ask the most dumb, unconnected questions to the topic being discussed. One day I asked her, why she asked so many questions. She said, hey out of 10, if 1 question sticks that is fine.

chanakya4773 says

Also Its illegal for a brother to marry his sister in USA. Imprisonment can be up to 20 years in prison.

If there is a weirdly wired couple ( brother and sister) who want to marry and agree to not having a biological kid but adopt a kid, are we going to allow them to marry and change the definition of marriage ?

I am sure the world is screwed up enough that there are enough of these couples hiding in the closet somewhere just waiting to come out to fight for their rights.

Technically , all arguments that people are using today hold true in this case.

Incest is legal (but mostly not marriage supported although some even do that) in quite a few countries to various degrees. The medical risks of having kids within the family are commonly overestimated and can be fairly well managed with today's modern early detection. I would assume that in early times it was far, far more common as the world wasn't connected and people often never left their home village. let alone their neighborhood/family.

chanakya4773 says

i had a boss who would use this exact line when he was fucking clueless and
could not answer a question

Ahh typical. You don't even read a thread and throw out insults against gay marraige supporters, claiming they won't support other forms of marraige-but right in this thread two different people support polygamy and polyandry. So instead of that shutting you down-you go to the next question. Here, let me give you some ammo-The Creator's right Party's candidate for Governor of Georgia admits to having had sex with a mule.
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/georgia-candidate-for-governor-admits-to-bestiality/

I much like people like FortWayne or Bap33-they are honest in their opposition to gay marraige and are not hypocrites grasping for straws trying to appear like something else. If that is your position, then that is your position. My parents are against gay marraige-so?? That is their position.

chanakya4773 says

don't divert the topic here. We are talking about two consenting perfectly
normal HUMAN beings here who want to marry and live peacefully ..why does it
bother you so much ?

Hahahaha!!! You are diverting the topic. You brought other forms and threw out insults. Got shut down. Now, off to the next silly diversion. I answer this, you will bring animals -so I made it easy for you. I had that boss for 5 years-know their kind.

chanakya4773 says

do that) in quite a few countries to various degrees. The medical risks of having kids within the family are commonly overestimated and can be fairly well managed with today's modern early detection. I would assume that in early times it was far, far more common as the world wasn't connected and people often never left their home village. let alone their neighborhood/family

So looks like, we are primed for our next civil rights fight..lets get started while we are at it.

It goes to show that government best stayed out of marriage completely. But I don't think those won't be looming anytime soon as current public sentiment for those topics is not favorable like it is for same sex couples ;)

chanakya4773 says

perfectly normal HUMAN beings

Who decides what is normal? Bap and FortWayne (and a lot of others) don't think it's normal. I think people should be allowed to marry and bone their animals. All this outcry over bestiality while meat is for dinner, I bet the good ole mule prefers to have sex with a human anytime over being slaughtered and served at Ikea as meatballs.

mell says

Incest is legal (but mostly not marriage supported although some even do
that) in quite a few countries to various degrees. The medical risks of having
kids within the family are commonly overestimated and can be fairly well managed
with today's modern early detection. I would assume that in early times it was
far, far more common as the world wasn't connected and people often never left
their home village. let alone their neighborhood/family.

Yup, the Egyptians routinely practiced this to protect their bloodlines. Other cultures recoil at it. Even now, in many cultures it is ok to marry your uncle or cousin-it varies by culture. It did happen in European royalty. Throughout history, marraige has always been upto local cultures and most areas had homogenous cultures. Your village or those around you typically had the same beliefs and so it was never questioned. Shunning by the public when you crossed a line was bad enough. In today's world everything has become big government and rules and regulations that govern every part of our life.

chanakya4773 says

I don't see how i got shutdown

chanakya4773 says

shows how clueless you are

You don't let anything that opposes your viewpoint get into your head do you? LOL!!!!

mell says

Vaticanus says

"The issue of whether a person can have one spouse is a different issue from whether a person can have multiple spouses, whatever your opinion of either issue might be."

I respectfully and adamantly disagree. The question is does government have the authority to define marriage?

Then do we want them to do so?

And them just how far will they then go in redefining it?

Agreed.

Mel,
I believe you are in agreement that it would be best if government did not regulate/define/license/prohibit/encourage people from marrying who they choose. If this is so, I completely agree. There are plenty of people out there who want to tell us what to do and what not to do, we don't need a government with armed thugs taking that authority.

Quigley says

It's more than a little hypocritical for gays to [. . .] demand that right be withheld from those seeking to form polygamous marriages.

What gays are "demanding" this? I wasn't aware they were making a public stance? Or we just like to brandish red-herring trigger words like "hypocrite"?

Quigley says

It's more than a little hypocritical for gays to demand the right to marry on one hand, and demand that right be withheld from those seeking to form polygamous marriages.

Except that gays aren't protesting against polygamous marriages.

Actually, shouldn't your statement be that it's more than a little hypocritical for straights to demand the right to marry on one hand, and demand that right be withheld from those seeking to form same sex and/or polygamous marriages, especially since a good percentage of monogamous marriages include extramarital affairs.

http://www.catalogs.com/info/relationships/percentage-of-married-couples-who-cheat-on-each-ot.html

And yet, according to the Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, approximately 50 percent married women and 60 percent of married men will have an extramarital affair at some time in their marriage. And since it is unlikely that the people having affairs are married to each other in every case, the current statistics on the percentage of married couples who cheat on each other means that someone is having an affair in nearly 80 percent of marriages.

OK, 80% seems a bit high, but even if its off by a factor of two, it's still at least 40%. Yeah, blame it on the gays.

chanakya4773 says

100% agree with you. I have yet to f**ing see even one gay marriage rights activist who also supports all other alternative forms of marriage. Hypocrisy to the core..assholes!

I have yet to see one gay marriage rights activist who has taken a stance against drowning puppies in a river. Does that mean all marriage equality advocates want puppies to be drowned?

In any case, as lostand confused says, if you read this very thread, you'll see at least two "gay marriage rights activists" who support alternative forms of marriage including polygamy, at least if what you mean by support is a vocal objection to the government discriminating against them. As for polygamy itself, I would never recommend that a person get married even once. At least not with the family court system we have in this country.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

I think Polygamy should be legal but the wives should be held in a harem and sleep in the same bed and be monitored by webcam to entertain the rest of us when they have lesbian orgies on nights when the husband is off recruiting more wives or is sick or something.

I'm going to have to veto that on the grounds that this is what Mormon wives look like:

Vaticanus says

Let the church marry whoever they choose just leave the government out of it.

That was my solution. Of course that solution means immediately rescinding all laws that use the word "marriage" anywhere in it. Such laws would have to be replaced with marriage-agnostic laws. Furthermore, all employment benefits would have to be marriage-agnostic as well, which actually most business want because it's damn cheaper than maintaining two separate systems. And, of course, adoption agencies cannot ask about the marital status of applicants.

In fact, it would have to be illegal to demand the marital status of a person for any reason by any company or government agency just like a person's racial status cannot be demanded. (Yeah AA forms shouldn't be given, and that's another story, but at least they are voluntary.)