|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 10:05 pm
I think it might, but I don't really care. As long as women retain or gain status. I definately think it will be tried. Rumors are they are going to try in Utah...
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 10:15 pm
The question is, is polygamy really such a bad thing? I mean, as long as all of the partners in the relationship are trated equally (or if not, are treated as such out of their own free will, as is the case in many monogamous, heterosexual relationships). In fact, there are several positive examples of polygamous relations in the bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:32 pm
I really don't care if it does, so long as everyone involved in the marriage knows about it. And I think that if polygamy is going to be legal it better be legal for women to marry more than one man as well as for men to marry more than on woman (and, of course, for a man to marry more than one man, or a woman to marry more than one woman, or a man to marry multiple men and multiple women, or a woman to marry multiple women and multiple men...)
But I don't think that gay marriage would lead to that. They're pretty seperate issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:16 pm
I don't understand the point of a polygamous marriage. Why would you spend all that money to not commit to someone? But beyond that, if both the adults were consenting to polygamy who am I to tell them they can't have it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 3:38 am
I guess the consensus here, for polygamy, is a resounding 'Why the hell not'.
Clearly, it's up to the people involved.
As long as it's consensual, hey, go right ahead and get married to 4 different people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:45 am
It's not my thing, but I'm not going to tell people they can't do it if it were to become legal in the US. I would prefer that there be a guideline of some kind that ensures that all partners are taken care of equally: health care, food, etc. If everyone's on food stamps, that's unfair to everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:04 pm
toxic_lollipop I don't understand the point of a polygamous marriage. Why would you spend all that money to not commit to someone? But beyond that, if both the adults were consenting to polygamy who am I to tell them they can't have it? It's different than the guys or girls who go out and cheat on someone becuase they aren't in love, it's a commitment made to more than one person. As long as everyone knows about it, what's wrong with it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:19 pm
It's not my idea of the perfect marriage, but hey, so long as everyone participating in the marriage both knew about it and wanted it, then I see no real problem.
But it doesn't really matter to me. I personally don't careone way or another if poligamy is legalized, so I wouldn't act upon it one way or another.
But just to throw it out there: There are some religions that have poligamist practicies, so there's a right of religion aspect in there as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 1:22 pm
While technically marriage is about monogamy, there IS polygamy around today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 7:58 pm
I dought that if Gay marriges are legalized would have make any change with polygamy. I don'g feel that one has to do anything with the other. I think that people who thing gay marriges with open up for things like polygamy, marring thing like pets or object are just plain odd. We all should have a right to marry who they are in love with. (Sorry if it didn't make sence at parts.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:21 pm
I don't see any large enough connection between poligamy and same-sex marriage. That's just me, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:25 pm
There'd be a problem with people marrying solely for certain benefits rather than love if polygamy was legal. For example--let's say a friend of a friend has a great company insurance plan that covers spouses. Hey, just marry him! It's not a problem, you can always marry someone else again later if you find someone.
However, I think certain rights (i.e. decision-making power in case of death, joint adoption/foster care/other stuff to do with children, right to visit a sick partner, etc.) could be shared polygamously. But what would happen if two wives disagreed over a medical decision regarding their husband if they were both given next-of-kin status?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 4:44 pm
Either the Field of Honor or a coin toss, I'd say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 10:54 am
BakaTulip While technically marriage is about monogamy, there IS polygamy around today. Best be acreful there. "Marrige is about monogomy." -Compared to- "Marrige is between a man and a woman!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:41 pm
See, while i have no problem with consentual polygamy (and i say consentual in refrence to mormon kidnappings in canada) i get really annoyed when i hear this comparision. The point is that the issue of gay marriage is just that, a social issue, its not an attack on good by the dark forces and it wont bring about a plauge upon the world in which humans are lead to extinction. I think tht roping the issue along side the much less accepted issue of polygamy is an obvious attempt to add a crusade-ish spin to the entire debate and shoulud be avoided at all costs. While it would be ideal if we could fight for the rights for all freedom of marriago, no matter what, the world is barely ready for us and if we want to suceed we have to push one issue at a time. Like how the womans rights movement couldn't fully work towards balck rights at the same time. We can't strech our effort to thin because then we will start to sound whiney and we wont be taken as seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
