If Polygamy Was Up For A Vote...

[zerinus]

I simply don't accept that assertion. Why do you need to tell the difference? It's none of your business -- and it's none of mine -- what adults do with each other, and how many of them they do it with. There is no valid need to legally recognize (or prohibit) personal relationships. The only valid need is to protect those who might be taken advantage of (children, etc.).

I guess you missed where I said "consenting adult." Besides, why not? Why should we care what ceremony a person wants to conduct? The important thing is what that person does with the dog in your example. It wouldn't harm the dog to sit through a stupid ceremony; what we need to prevent is sexual abuse of the non-consenting party, which can (and does) happen regularly without ceremonies.

You got that completely wrong. At the moment in most industrialized Western nations of the world (U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia) nobody cares what “consenting adults” do among themselves; so your requirement is already met. Marriage, on the other hand, is a legal contract; therefore it needs to be defined by law. And if something needs to be defined by law, it means that there has to be a recognized law making body to define it. In a democracy that lawmaking body is called Parliament, or Congress, or something along those lines. And they are agents of the people who elect them. They reflect the will of the citizenry who have elected them. So marriage is something that needs to be legally defined, and that definition is a reflection of the will or preference of society in general. It is not a question of what “consenting adults” do among themselves. It is a question of how society as a whole chooses to define the institution of marriage—and society has every right to make that collective decision.

No, it's not. It's not even close. It's more like the choice of religion. We don't have laws regulating religious beliefs, and there are a lot of different religions and beliefs as a result. But would you call that chaos? Maybe, but it's not harmful to society in general how or what people choose to worship. What if you want to worship your dog, or the trees in your garden? I just don't care, because it's none of my concern. Neither do I care if you want to call yourself married to them. But if you choose to rape your pet, I've certainly got a problem with that.

You are getting it all wrong. See above. Religion is a matter of personal belief. When you adopt a religion or a belief of some description, you are not entering into a legal contract with someone else. If you choose to have casual sex with another consenting adult, you are not entering a legal contract with someone either. And as I said, in most Western countries today there is no law against that. But if you do decide to enter into a legal contract with someone (which is what marriage is), then it needs to be defined by law, with all the ramifications it entails.

Again, government has no legitimate need to get involved in defining, prohibiting, or sanctioning adults' personal relationships. That goes for hetero-, homo-, poly-, whatever.

See above. Assuming you are living in the United States at the moment, does the government interfere with what kind of sexual relationships you want to have with other consenting adults, of whatever sex they might be, and how many of them there might be? The answer is obviously no. So what are you worrying about? But marriage is something different. It is a legally binding contract; therefore it needs to be defined by law. That is the difference.

Edited June 23, 2011 by zerinus

[thesometimesaint]

krose:

But you do, even if you don't particularly like a certain marriage one. Every four years we here in the US go through the ceremony of electing our President, we even go through the ceremony of the inaugural speach. We go to a just married couples Open House to help them celebrate. Heavens even the gathering of family to break bread together is a ceremony. The list is practically endless of ceremonies people engage in.

Edited June 23, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[elguanteloko]

I would vote that all women would find me irresistible and want to marry me, but why should I make one woman miserable when I could be making thousands happy?

A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle - Gloria Steinem

A man without a woman is like a fish run over by a bicycle - A wise man

LOL What a nice comment!

[elguanteloko]

The Lord's position is that it's not legal unless He says so.

....what? Where does "the Lord" state this position of "illegal until proven otherwise"?

Absent a revelation directing otherwise, Id have to support keeping it illegal.

I don't remember any revelation about Honda Civics, should we make them illegal too?

[elguanteloko]

Two men or two women living together in a gay relationship, is not illegal.

No one said it was.

I think that one man and more than one women, living together in a polygamous relationship, shouldn't be either.

Good!

There is no double standard there and my position is completly consistent, without supporting SSM.

Well, I didn't see "your position" at all in this comment regarding SSM (or anything I talked about) at all, so, what can I say?

[elguanteloko]

Why?

You quoted only a part of my comment, Pa Pa, and forgot to see the parameters that applied to it. I said that if one believes the Gov. has no business in the marriage business (and should be left to private institutions and/or religions), then voting for making same-sex marriage illegal doesn't make any sense.

[elguanteloko]

If "marriage" were not a governmental sacrament, homosexuals would not feel any need to be "married": the only concrete reasons ever given for wanting same-sex "marriage" to be rammed down the throats of the rest of us is for the benefits government gives to legitimately married couples.

Well, whatever. Some heterosexual couples marry also for convenience and I'm sure some SSMs could take place for convenience, too.... WHO CARES?!

In my view, homosexuals are idiots for wanting to put themselves under the thumb of the state. They're far better off without same-sex "marriage", and so are the rest of us. By entering in to such a legal arrangement, they invite the government into their bedrooms.

Tell The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that LDS couples would be better off without marrying under the "law of the land" but only under the "law of God". This, however, is irrelevant.

[elguanteloko]

"Marriage" for the record, is the union of two different kinds of things. "Marrying" two things that are (essentially) the same is completely foreign to the definition of the word. One may marry art and science. One cannot marry art and art. It makes no sense.

Using this silly definition that you made up, one could say the "marriage" between a man and a woman is NOT marriage since they are of the same kind, Homo sapiens.

[krose]

... a legal contract...

Essentially you keep repeating this one point, that marriage is a legal contract. Yes, that is true the way it is currently set up (although it hasn't always been). I have been trying to say that there is no valid reason for it to be.

I am close to a couple who have been in a committed relationship for over 27 years without any official legal licenses or rituals. They have lovingly raised two wonderful children to adulthood, and purchased homes and cars together. Their pairing is equal to their neighbors' pairings in every way except for one technicality.

And surely you would not claim that my great-great-grandfather's connections with his second, third and fourth 'wives' were any less real than the first, who was the only one with a legal contract?

Again, government sanctions and legal definitions are simply not necessary for successful relationships.

[krose]

In my view, homosexuals are idiots for wanting to put themselves under the thumb of the state. They're far better off without same-sex "marriage", and so are the rest of us. By entering in to such a legal arrangement, they invite the government into their bedrooms.

This is an intriguing comment. Please explain further.

How do married couples invite the government into their bedrooms, as opposed to unmarried couples?

[LeSellers]

How do married couples invite the government into their bedrooms, as opposed to unmarried couples?

Government is the third party to every "legal" marriage. If people who are married, but not according to the rules established by the state, they have not entered into the contract owned and controlled by the state. So, without the government's being a party to their contract (even though it is an informal one), they have not invited it into their bedroom.

Those of us who have submitted ourselves to the demands of the state by signing on the dotted line at the bottom of the contract written by the government have, because, you'll note, the other name on the document, in addition to the bride's and the grooms, is the government's. And they (through the representative of the county clerk) have signed, too.

Further, as I said earlier, the state can change the conditions of the contract at will. We cannot. Even if we have another contract (e.g., a "pre-nuptial agreement"), the state can, through its representative, the divorce court, ignore or modify the provisions it contains. It can pass laws that fundamentally alter the original contract and can do so without regard to the protestations of those whose contracts are changed.

None of this applies to the legally unmarried.

There are preachers/ministers who tell their congregations just this thing, too. In fact, there are such preachers who refuse to marry people who have obtained a marriage license for precisely the reason I mentioned: when they do so, they create a partnership where in the state is a party. In their view (and correctly, too) that a marriage ought to have three parties: the man, his wife, and God. But in the case where the state is also party, it’s a four-way split, and that’s not a good thing at all, especially since the state arrogates to its position being the highest of the four.

The reason the Church has the stipulation that we do have marriage licenses is to avoid false charges of Plural Marriage. It becomes, by incorporating the state into the contract and arrangements, the state’s concern that the parties are not marrying illegally.

Finally, look at the very idea of a marriage license. A license is granted to people so they can legally do what they would not otherwise have the right to do. If the state licenses marriage it is saying that people do not have the inherent right to marry, when, in fact, they do: People were marrying long before there was a state, They didn’t need permission to do so, they just did it (following the customs of their tribes and cultures). But, underlying each of these marriages was a contract. It’s just that it was their contract, and not that of the state.

Lehi

[zerinus]

Essentially you keep repeating this one point, that marriage is a legal contract. Yes, that is true the way it is currently set up (although it hasn't always been). I have been trying to say that there is no valid reason for it to be.

I am close to a couple who have been in a committed relationship for over 27 years without any official legal licenses or rituals. They have lovingly raised two wonderful children to adulthood, and purchased homes and cars together. Their pairing is equal to their neighbors' pairings in every way except for one technicality.

And surely you would not claim that my great-great-grandfather's connections with his second, third and fourth 'wives' were any less real than the first, who was the only one with a legal contract?

Again, government sanctions and legal definitions are simply not necessary for successful relationships.

So basically you want to abolish the institution of marriage. By what right? If you want to have sex with anybody and anything you like, without formalizing it through the institution of marriage, and nobody is stopping you; why are you trying to deny others who prefer that kind of formal arrangement the right to have what they want? What has it got to do with you how others choose to live their lives, when they are not interfering with yours?

Edited June 24, 2011 by zerinus

[Molloch]

Why do you feel like a government stamp on a marriage license gives a marriage more worth?

[cinepro]

Would you vote to legalize it or keep it illegal?

It all depends on whether my wife would get to know how I voted.

[LeSellers]

It all depends on whether my wife would get to know how I voted.

Do you talk in your sleep?

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Why do you feel like a government stamp on a marriage license gives a marriage more worth?

The marriage itself, not so much.

But homosexuals and their self-congratulating supporters want us to believe that it makes it "better" somehow. Legally married couples get to sign a form in the hospital to allow the staff to reveal the condition of the ailing spouse, and to make funeral arrangements. So that's what makes it of more worth.

Lehi

[zerinus]

Why do you feel like a government stamp on a marriage license gives a marriage more worth?

That is not the issue. The issue is, I am not trying to stop you from living your life the way you want; why are you trying to stop me from living my life the way I want?

[KevinG]

Why do you feel like a government stamp on a marriage license gives a marriage more worth?

Tax breaks.

[KevinG]

How did this turn into a homosexual marriage thread?

IMO if the government took away all benefits based on legally defined marriage (insurance, taxes, etc.) and leveled the playing field financially there would be much less debate over who could or could not get a government sanctioned marriage.

Let the government define benefits according to individuals and the Churches define marriage according to their own doctrines.

[krose]

So basically you want to abolish the institution of marriage. By what right? If you want to have sex with anybody and anything you like, without formalizing it through the institution of marriage, and nobody is stopping you; why are you trying to deny others who prefer that kind of formal arrangement the right to have what they want? What has it got to do with you how others choose to live their lives, when they are not interfacing with yours?

How strange. Your response here appears to have no relation to mine, even though you quoted it.

You are now babbling incoherently, inventing desires and motivations that are not there.

Drive-by personal insult posts get you removed from the thread.

[MorningStar]

Tax breaks.

There's also the matter of families needing government assistance and health benefits provided by employers for dependents. If polgyamy were legal, would just one wife be covered? Would they drop coverage for the family and only cover the employee?

[krose]

Government is the third party to every "legal" marriage. If people who are married, but not according to the rules established by the state, they have not entered into the contract owned and controlled by the state. So, without the government's being a party to their contract (even though it is an informal one), they have not invited it into their bedroom.

Those of us who have submitted ourselves to the demands of the state by signing on the dotted line at the bottom of the contract written by the government have, because, you'll note, the other name on the document, in addition to the bride's and the grooms, is the government's. And they (through the representative of the county clerk) have signed, too.

Further, as I said earlier, the state can change the conditions of the contract at will. We cannot. Even if we have another contract (e.g., a "pre-nuptial agreement"), the state can, through its representative, the divorce court, ignore or modify the provisions it contains. It can pass laws that fundamentally alter the original contract and can do so without regard to the protestations of those whose contracts are changed.

None of this applies to the legally unmarried.

There are preachers/ministers who tell their congregations just this thing, too. In fact, there are such preachers who refuse to marry people who have obtained a marriage license for precisely the reason I mentioned: when they do so, they create a partnership where in the state is a party. In their view (and correctly, too) that a marriage ought to have three parties: the man, his wife, and God. But in the case where the state is also party, it’s a four-way split, and that’s not a good thing at all, especially since the state arrogates to its position being the highest of the four.

The reason the Church has the stipulation that we do have marriage licenses is to avoid false charges of Plural Marriage. It becomes, by incorporating the state into the contract and arrangements, the state’s concern that the parties are not marrying illegally.

Finally, look at the very idea of a marriage license. A license is granted to people so they can legally do what they would not otherwise have the right to do. If the state licenses marriage it is saying that people do not have the inherent right to marry, when, in fact, they do: People were marrying long before there was a state, They didn’t need permission to do so, they just did it (following the customs of their tribes and cultures). But, underlying each of these marriages was a contract. It’s just that it was their contract, and not that of the state.

Lehi

Okay, but the implication of the term "bedroom" is that the state gets to tell you what you can and cannot do in your intimate moments, or at least know details of what's going on there.

[LeSellers]

the implication of the term "bedroom" is that the state gets to tell you what you can and cannot do in your intimate moments, or at least know details of what's going on there.

"Bedroom" is a euphemism that is broader then you seem to think.

Further, though, if by "bedroom", we mean reproduction in general, it is the case in China (and India to some extent) that the government is in the bedroom. It was the case here, too, when states made contraceptives illgal for married couples.

Lehi

[KevinG]

There's also the matter of families needing government assistance and health benefits provided by employers for dependents. If polgyamy were legal, would just one wife be covered? Would they drop coverage for the family and only cover the employee?

Yes. I think this strikes at the heart of the marriage debate. Who would really care what the government recognizes if it weren't for the financial or freedom of association implications of the law.

[MorningStar]

Yes. I think this strikes at the heart of the marriage debate. Who would really care what the government recognizes if it weren't for the financial or freedom of association implications of the law.

It's interesting to think about the many ways it would be a huge mess.