Nosmas Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 The Horror, the horror, the horror The man denied the chance to say good-bye to his dying gay lover, or the beaming faces of gay newlyweds in Massachusetts are used to make a powerful case for same sex marriage. Opponents (including Bush) fret about "undermining society's bedrock institution," must argue in the abstract. But, this may be about to change. Indeed, is ANY consenting union to "unorthodox" to be denied by the state? With legalized same sex marriage, should POLYGAMY be decriminalized any more than sodomy? Do not the same arguments for this "unorthodox" union apply to polygamists? Link to post Share on other sites
Dakini Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Nomas - I completely agree with you *in theory*. Any person should be able to make the decision of who she spends time with, and in this case whom she chooses to share legal unions. In theory, this works well when we idealistically imagine that all parties (one woman and 10 men, in my case ) are all in mutual agreement. However, I see two problems *in practice*: first, polygamy has historically been practiced with one man marrying many wives who often have no choice in the matter - (great for the perpetuation of the species, bad for the wives). Second, what would be the legalities of such shared unions? If divorce is required, who gets the $ and the assets, and the kids? Any thoughts? (Dyer, I am sure you have an opinion....!) Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 With legalized same sex marriage, should POLYGAMY be decriminalized any more than sodomy? The decriminalization of sodomy is a must. It's a practice common to heterosexuals and homosexuals, and has nothing to do with marriage at all. The legalization of polygamy doesn't present any ethical problems to me, because it's always been my opinion that religious adherence should be a result of rational volition and not legislative imposition. However, I think it creates more *logistical* problems than gay marriage, and since I'm in no rush to address those problems, mainly the economic ones, I won't be supporting legalized polygamy until they're isolated and solved. Link to post Share on other sites
hotgurl Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 I don't think it should be legalized because in many cause the women who are wives are very young like 15 or so and married to older men mostly against their will. So I think if it were legalized it would be harder to go after their pedofiles. Also while I support the idea of welfare and helping those more unfortunate these polygamist marriages usual result in many many children and the wives mostly don't work so they end up on welfare, which is not right. It' s one thing to get into a bad situation but to make the choice to have like 15 or more kids Taxpayers shouldn't have to support that with their money. Plus divorce and property division and wills,, social security benefits, etc.. would just be a mess. Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Nosmas Based on the logic of the gay marriage supporters, there is absolutely no logical reason why polygamy should be banned. I expect social, and economic problems to come with hand in hand with polygamy. There are enough problems with country, and I don’t want to let the genie out this bottle. Link to post Share on other sites
VivianLee Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Kind of a side note to the issue....(teasing nosmas) Nosmas.....can you begin to imagine having 2, 3,4 no 5 wives?? 5 marriages at one time?? Come on, breathe!!! 1 Kings 11:3....King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines!!! My husband always says King Solomon was either crazy or must have lost all that wisdom during this time! Link to post Share on other sites
Author Nosmas Posted October 22, 2004 Author Share Posted October 22, 2004 I cannot imagine myself with wives any more than I could imagine myself marrying a dude named Homer. Nonetheless, the insanity continues. Link to post Share on other sites
immoralist Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Nosmas, your slippery slope argument regarding polgamy, and its opposite polyandry is not farfetched. If the States, based on either the equal protection or due process clauses, are prohibited from refusing marriage licenses to [color=red]same[/color] sex partner unions why should licenses be denied to [color=red]multiple [/color]sex partner unions?[color=0][/color] In areas where the number of eligible women vastly outnumber the eligible men--in certain African-American communities or retirement homes--poly-unions make social sense. As long as everyone was at least 21, I'd have no problem forcing the States to license poly-marriages. Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 immoralist Polygamy is all fine and dandy until you end up paying the bill. How many of the Utah polygamist families are on welfare? Link to post Share on other sites
immoralist Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 In practice, massive polygamy would be scary. I see many cult/brainwashing scenarios involving sexual exploitation, statutory rape, child sexual abuse. Those unions do not strike me as particularly healthy for either our polity or the women/spouses and their children. Too much potential for fascist patriarchy. In 20 or 30 years, though, especially after same-sex marriage is Constitutionally legitimized, I foresee the equal protection and due process allowance of poly-unions. Feel good and amorphous penumbral privacy interests and the equal protection clause can wreck havoc with long established social institutions. It's social engineering mediated by constitutions. It's the revenge of the Law Review nerds. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Nosmas Posted October 23, 2004 Author Share Posted October 23, 2004 Flip: In practice, massive polygamy would be scary. I see many cult/brainwashing scenarios involving sexual exploitation, statutory rape, child sexual abuse. Flop: As long as everyone was at least 21, I'd have no problem forcing the States to license poly-marriages. <<<<<GASP>>>>> Is the immoralist running for office on a democratic ticket? Anyway, in 20-30 years anyone, Hetero, Homo, or Poly, or Trans- sexual being "married" will be nothing but a quaint social anachronism. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Spock Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Sounds good to me. Bring on the Husbands. (Only the very hot and rich need to apply, TUVM) Link to post Share on other sites
immoralist Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Sounds good to me. Bring on the Husbands. (Only the very hot and rich need to apply, TUVM) See that, Nosmas, now's our chance. You're hot, and I'm rich. Together we'll count as one! Link to post Share on other sites
Author Nosmas Posted October 23, 2004 Author Share Posted October 23, 2004 Sort of a volume discount, eh, immoralist? Just curious, Mr. Spock; is there any maximum number of "husbands" that you'd feel comfortable........ ummm......................"being with".......................from what I understand about your history, there is no.... ummm....................baseline experience for which to reference. Note to self: Why do you hesitate to be anything but brutally blunt with Mr. Spock? Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Spock Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Originally posted by Nosmas Sort of a volume discount, eh, immoralist? Just curious, Mr. Spock; is there any maximum number of "husbands" that you'd feel comfortable........ ummm......................"being with".......................from what I understand about your history, there is no.... ummm....................baseline experience for which to reference. Note to self: Why do you hesitate to be anything but brutally blunt with Mr. Spock? No limit. Vareity is the spice of life-and he who controls the spice, controls the universe. Perhaps you're hesitant because you fear I'd eat you alive RAWR Link to post Share on other sites
immoralist Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Perhaps you're hesitant because you fear I'd eat you alive RAWR Well, Nosmas, the challenge has been made. I'm afraid I'm jumping ship. You're on your own, good buddy. Spock, give me a call if you're still hungry after you've dined on Nosmas. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Spock Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Originally posted by immoralist See that, Nosmas, now's our chance. You're hot, and I'm rich. Together we'll count as one! See now, my mind is ALWAYS in the gutter. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Nosmas Posted October 23, 2004 Author Share Posted October 23, 2004 Interestingly, I've often..........QUITE OFTEN..................envied the fate of so many a male arachnids. Well then, I suppose I'd accept the offer only on condition that I would be eaten RAWR afterwards. Arachnids are spiders (for the "anti-intellectual" readers); The species often mate and then female the kills and or eats the male. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Spock Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Originally posted by Nosmas Interestingly, I've often..........QUITE OFTEN..................envied the fate of so many a male arachnids. Well then, I suppose I'd accept the offer only on condition that I would be eaten RAWR afterwards. Arachnids are spiders (for the "anti-intellectual" readers); The species often mate and then female the kills and or eats the male. Wouldn't you rather emulate the Tenodera Sinensis In captivity, the female tends to rip the male's head off during copulation. Link to post Share on other sites
immoralist Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Wouldn't you rather emulate the Tenodera Sinensis In captivity, the female tends to rip the male's head off during copulation. Man, talk about being selfish in bed. What a way to wreak a romantic evening. Nosmas, you go first. I insist. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Nosmas Posted October 23, 2004 Author Share Posted October 23, 2004 Mr. Spock, it comes as no great surprise that you'd be able to demonstrate nothing short of scholarship about this subject: However, immediate and painless it may sound (having ones head ripped off), my offer is ONLY GOOD IF EATEN AFTER COPULATION, NOT DURING. This is opposed to the decades of slow death from suffocation that is the alternative. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Spock Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Originally posted by immoralist Man, talk about being selfish in bed. What a way to wreak a romantic evening. Nosmas, you go first. I insist. Awww....the little guy still ENJOYS it he just doesn't KNOW it, because he's got no head left. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Nosmas Posted October 23, 2004 Author Share Posted October 23, 2004 Easy for you to say! Frankly Mr. Spock, I'm beginning to realize that you could probably be most satified with the "little guy".......................without ANYTHING ATTACHED! No all we need to do is legalize marriage between: "Mr. Spock, to you take these dildos as your lawfully wedded husbands" Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Spock Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 If I could stop breaking them, I'd never need to date again. Unfortunately, going through a 120$$ "Man replacement" every three months is a bit high for my budget. I really think they should be issued to women in highschool. I think that's another great debate. Marrying an inanamite object. Some men really do LOVE their trucks. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Nosmas Posted October 23, 2004 Author Share Posted October 23, 2004 I sounds like you should stick to the steel reinforced dildo. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts