Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally

Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally (12/22/2013 6:49:05 AM)
Polygamy and all of the assorted offshoots are finally being re-addressed by our federal courts. Here Once any crimes or abuses are stripped away in cases like the Browns’, what remains is religious animus. Yet, polygamy is widely practiced around the world by millions of families and was condoned by every major religion — from Judaism to Christianity to Islam — at one time. While plural families are called polygamists in our popular lexicon, “polygamy” actually refers to a broad array of plural relationships, from polygyny (one husband and multiple wives, like the Browns) to polyandry (a single wife and multiple husbands) to polyamory (couples who reject the exclusivity of sexual relations). The vast majority of these families are based on consenting relations among adults without abusive or criminal histories. Personally I feel it is long since time these laws are struck down. The religious right are up in arms about freedom of religion...only when it suits them as this is every bit as much a...free exercise of religion, or not. What say you ?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally (12/22/2013 8:02:05 AM)
Let's start with "modern day" religions. As you point out; at one time or another, the "big three" were all okay with multiple marriages. So, when I use the word "religion" I am referring to the modern versions. The great thing about this country is that people are free to practice or not practice a religion as they see fit. That's the beauty of it. Unfortunately, we can't legislate morality. We've seen that fail all too many times. While I admit that the federal government giving its "blessing" to non-traditional unions will help speed the process, the next step is the winning of hearts and minds. That's going to take some doing. So, take someone like myself, who was raised in a very devoutly religious family, and then add in the fact that my Creator (in whom I have a strong belief) made me a person who just cannot practice monogamy. I tried it for 20 years of my life (ages 14-34) and it just didn't work. Religions have every right to "tell" their followers how they must live their lives. It is up to the individual to choose to follow that religion or not. Because of my proclivities, I am no longer a traditional Catholic. I had to do some deep soul-searching and decide if the God that touched my heart would damn me for not remaining with one partner for my entire life. Individuals need to decide for themselves if a particular religion "feels" right to them or not. Conversely, I don't think this should mean that religions should change if that isn't what they want to do. Whether someone is right or wrong, I always respect that they are willing to stand by their beliefs. I could not be happier that the courts may finally lift the yolk of Victorian sexual oppression but I think we should all remember that not everyone is going to agree with us. There should be room for all. Peace, Michael

MsMJAY -> RE: Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally (12/22/2013 12:24:22 PM)
I say that I am very happy that these changes are taking place with this issue and also with the marriage equality issue concerning homosexuals. And I agree with DaddySatyr that it will take time to change hearts and minds. I dare say we are moving into a period almost like "reconstruction" when you consider that we are completely changing a legal and social construct that has been in existence for hundreds of years. History is being made and we have a front row seat. These are very exciting times we are living in. I am feeling like this: [sm=yahoo.gif]

leonine -> RE: Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally (12/22/2013 12:40:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I could not be happier that the courts may finally lift the yolk of Victorian sexual oppression It's very white of them, but they'll have egg on their faces if there's a scramble. Still, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.

MsMJAY -> RE: Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally (12/22/2013 12:43:04 PM)
ROFL funny....but stop picking on him![:D] quote: ORIGINAL: leonine quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I could not be happier that the courts may finally lift the yolk of Victorian sexual oppression It's very white of them, but they'll have egg on their faces if there's a scramble. Still, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.

ResidentSadist -> RE: Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally (12/22/2013 2:34:15 PM)
The thing about the religious influences is that in the same book, you can find that it is both for poly and against it . . . depending on how old the edition is. Only the latest versions of the those religious books are against poly. The older books and scrolls have poly references in a positive and acceptable light. Morality flag wavers . . . I wish there were dye packs on the flags and anyone stained would be prohibited from voting. That would set the law makers free to do the right thing in a lot of matters.

truckinslave -> RE: Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally (12/22/2013 3:14:45 PM)
I have great respect for Johnathan Turley, but he is something of a publicity hound. The only thing struck down was the Utah cohabitation clause. Polygamy remains illegal, including in Utah. And an appeal might reverse this narrow ruling.

blacksword404 -> RE: Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally (12/22/2013 5:23:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Polygamy and all of the assorted offshoots are finally being re-addressed by our federal courts. Here Once any crimes or abuses are stripped away in cases like the Browns’, what remains is religious animus. Yet, polygamy is widely practiced around the world by millions of families and was condoned by every major religion — from Judaism to Christianity to Islam — at one time. While plural families are called polygamists in our popular lexicon, “polygamy” actually refers to a broad array of plural relationships, from polygyny (one husband and multiple wives, like the Browns) to polyandry (a single wife and multiple husbands) to polyamory (couples who reject the exclusivity of sexual relations). The vast majority of these families are based on consenting relations among adults without abusive or criminal histories. Personally I feel it is long since time these laws are struck down. The religious right are up in arms about freedom of religion...only when it suits them as this is every bit as much a...free exercise of religion, or not. What say you ? It should be changed. Christians don't really have a biblical opposition to it. It's mostly a cultural one. In the bible god take credit for the amount of wives david had.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally (12/22/2013 6:24:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Polygamy and all of the assorted offshoots are finally being re-addressed by our federal courts. Here Once any crimes or abuses are stripped away in cases like the Browns’, what remains is religious animus. Yet, polygamy is widely practiced around the world by millions of families and was condoned by every major religion — from Judaism to Christianity to Islam — at one time. While plural families are called polygamists in our popular lexicon, “polygamy” actually refers to a broad array of plural relationships, from polygyny (one husband and multiple wives, like the Browns) to polyandry (a single wife and multiple husbands) to polyamory (couples who reject the exclusivity of sexual relations). The vast majority of these families are based on consenting relations among adults without abusive or criminal histories. Personally I feel it is long since time these laws are struck down. The religious right are up in arms about freedom of religion...only when it suits them as this is every bit as much a...free exercise of religion, or not. What say you ? Actually, Polygamy, polygyny and polyandry refer to marriages. Polyamory refers to consenting multiple partners. Historically, when a woman has multiple husbands, it is for population control. If you are going to try to make a point, at least get your facts right.

Phydeaux -> RE: Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally (12/22/2013 7:40:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Polygamy and all of the assorted offshoots are finally being re-addressed by our federal courts. Here Once any crimes or abuses are stripped away in cases like the Browns’, what remains is religious animus. Yet, polygamy is widely practiced around the world by millions of families and was condoned by every major religion — from Judaism to Christianity to Islam — at one time. While plural families are called polygamists in our popular lexicon, “polygamy” actually refers to a broad array of plural relationships, from polygyny (one husband and multiple wives, like the Browns) to polyandry (a single wife and multiple husbands) to polyamory (couples who reject the exclusivity of sexual relations). The vast majority of these families are based on consenting relations among adults without abusive or criminal histories. Personally I feel it is long since time these laws are struck down. The religious right are up in arms about freedom of religion...only when it suits them as this is every bit as much a...free exercise of religion, or not. What say you ? Actually, Polygamy, polygyny and polyandry refer to marriages. Polyamory refers to consenting multiple partners. Historically, when a woman has multiple husbands, it is for population control. If you are going to try to make a point, at least get your facts right. Please provide some backup for the statement: Historically, when a woman has multiple husbands its for population control.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally (12/22/2013 10:15:56 PM)
Historically, that is why it was done. Feel free to research it yourself. It is taught in almost any college level Sociology class. This is not popular in the US, but in over populated countries, and is pure logic, which you apparently lack. A woman can have only one baby every 40 weeks. Theoretically, a man can impregnate a woman 365 days a year. Again, common sense. Since you are obviously too lazy to look it up, or simply think I'm making it up: Polyandry CLIP: Polyandry is believed to be more likely in societies with scarce environmental resources, as it is believed to limit human population growth* and enhance child survival* Polyandry, or the practice of taking multiple husbands CLIP: Polyandry evolved, like many other marriage systems, as a pragmatic way of property management and population control. Just because you are unfamiliar with something, and too lazy to look it up, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So now you have "backup" for the statement.

Phydeaux -> RE: Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally (12/22/2013 10:54:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Historically, that is why it was done. Feel free to research it yourself. It is taught in almost any college level Sociology class. This is not popular in the US, but in over populated countries, and is pure logic, which you apparently lack. A woman can have only one baby every 40 weeks. Theoretically, a man can impregnate a woman 365 days a year. Again, common sense. Since you are obviously too lazy to look it up, or simply think I'm making it up: Polyandry CLIP: Polyandry is believed to be more likely in societies with scarce environmental resources, as it is believed to limit human population growth* and enhance child survival* Polyandry, or the practice of taking multiple husbands CLIP: Polyandry evolved, like many other marriage systems, as a pragmatic way of property management and population control. Just because you are unfamiliar with something, and too lazy to look it up, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So now you have "backup" for the statement. So in other words, you don't have any historical backup. Funny, coming on the heels of a quote by you saying if you're going make a point get your facts straight. Also interesting: I inquired on the off chance that you might actually know of a society where that occurred, as I did not. Interesting was your assumption that I was hostile to your point of view; that I was lazy, and lacked common sense, and logic. My general bullshit detector goes off when someone is so touchy. Edit: And from your link it seems as if it is done more for retaining land in family than for population control. Meh meh: After reading some of the papers which the wiki article seems to border on plagiarism with the third paper. But after reading this and discarding the dross, polyandry the most statistically significant reason for occurance was a very high ratio of men to women. Which seems logical. It was also noted that polyandry was less stable than monogamy or polygyny. Which also seems intuitive.

kalikshama -> RE: Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally (1/11/2014 10:44:03 AM)
Someone on another thread mentioned reading "Wife No 19" by Ann Eliza Young and I thought I'd bring my question here: A few years ago, I read The 19th Wife: A Novel, which has two narratives - Ann Eliza Young and a modern day story of a young man who was thrown out of his fundamentalist sect. I'm not opposed to polygamy in general, but where do you draw the line to prevent abusive situations such as historically and the not long ago Warren Jeffs case?

evesgrden -> RE: Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally (1/11/2014 11:26:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama Someone on another thread mentioned reading "Wife No 19" by Ann Eliza Young and I thought I'd bring my question here: A few years ago, I read The 19th Wife: A Novel, which has two narratives - Ann Eliza Young and a modern day story of a young man who was thrown out of his fundamentalist sect. I'm not opposed to polygamy in general, but where do you draw the line to prevent abusive situations such as historically and the not long ago Warren Jeffs case? Rape, pedophilia and abuse are prevalent in monogamous relationships too. Polygamy doesn't cause that. Marriage is about contractual relationships of a personal/familial (rather than business) nature which ultimately has fiscal and legal implications. It's an agreement to become family. Marriage in the eyes of God requires an oath but no signature; but if you want to be next of kin, get in on the family plan, inherit and so forth (if the spouse dies intestate) then you need a license from city hall.

EdBowie -> RE: Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally (1/11/2014 5:45:45 PM)
Polyamory isn't illegal anywhere in the US. Getting a marriage license for multiple partners is... and in the wake of same sex marriage, polygamy seems destined to follow the same path. quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Polygamy and all of the assorted offshoots are finally being re-addressed by our federal courts. Here Once any crimes or abuses are stripped away in cases like the Browns’, what remains is religious animus. Yet, polygamy is widely practiced around the world by millions of families and was condoned by every major religion — from Judaism to Christianity to Islam — at one time. While plural families are called polygamists in our popular lexicon, “polygamy” actually refers to a broad array of plural relationships, from polygyny (one husband and multiple wives, like the Browns) to polyandry (a single wife and multiple husbands) to polyamory (couples who reject the exclusivity of sexual relations). The vast majority of these families are based on consenting relations among adults without abusive or criminal histories. Personally I feel it is long since time these laws are struck down. The religious right are up in arms about freedom of religion...only when it suits them as this is every bit as much a...free exercise of religion, or not. What say you ? Actually, Polygamy, polygyny and polyandry refer to marriages. Polyamory refers to consenting multiple partners. Historically, when a woman has multiple husbands, it is for population control. If you are going to try to make a point, at least get your facts right.

Rule -> RE: Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally (1/11/2014 6:28:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers What say you ? Let's see: 1. Civilization of a kind started in Greece when Orpheus with his lyre convinced the savages in the forests to adopt the monogamous marriage. 2. The ancient Jews were polygamous. They got conquered by the monogamous Romans. 3. Muslims have polygamy. They also have six times more inherited diseases than do the monogamous Christians. 4. The monogamous European Christian peoples have for centuries been - and still are - the dominant civilization on Earth. Umm, I rather think that I see a winning ticket...

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally (1/11/2014 10:03:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Polygamy and all of the assorted offshoots are finally being re-addressed by our federal courts. Here Once any crimes or abuses are stripped away in cases like the Browns’, what remains is religious animus. Yet, polygamy is widely practiced around the world by millions of families and was condoned by every major religion — from Judaism to Christianity to Islam — at one time. While plural families are called polygamists in our popular lexicon, “polygamy” actually refers to a broad array of plural relationships, from polygyny (one husband and multiple wives, like the Browns) to polyandry (a single wife and multiple husbands) to polyamory (couples who reject the exclusivity of sexual relations). The vast majority of these families are based on consenting relations among adults without abusive or criminal histories. Personally I feel it is long since time these laws are struck down. The religious right are up in arms about freedom of religion...only when it suits them as this is every bit as much a...free exercise of religion, or not. What say you ? Right...and soon enough we'll all be buying cars that you enter on the passenger side....what's next? Reading newspapers from the sports section forward? What fucking kind of chaos are you proscribing?

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally (1/12/2014 6:43:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers What say you ? Let's see: 1. Civilization of a kind started in Greece when Orpheus with his lyre convinced the savages in the forests to adopt the monogamous marriage. 2. The ancient Jews were polygamous. They got conquered by the monogamous Romans. 3. Muslims have polygamy. They also have six times more inherited diseases than do the monogamous Christians. 4. The monogamous European Christian peoples have for centuries been - and still are - the dominant civilization on Earth. Umm, I rather think that I see a winning ticket... Indeed it is a winning ticket. I think there is anecdotal evidence that monogamy strengthens society. However, it appears this thread is about legislation, and courts interpretation of that legislation. (Rather than which relationship model is best)

slavekate80 -> RE: Courts address morality 'marriage' laws...finally (1/13/2014 9:15:44 PM)
Looks kind of cherry-picked to me. Hundreds or thousands of civilizations have fallen to others over the past few millennia, and of course some of them are going to be polygamy-tolerant societies conquered by polygamy-intolerant societies. There are many explanations for why Muslims might have more inherited diseases than Christians - the greater degree of ethnic diversity among Christians with a larger gene pool seems like it could be a bigger factor (though it's partly related to marriage patterns as well). Not to mention that humans no longer require a high birth rate to balance out high infant mortality and lower life expectancy even after infancy. With no pressing need for large families, the possibility of sex without making babies and even making babies without sex thanks to technology, and high rates of divorce and "serial monogamy," any societal benefits of restricting relationships to monogamy-only that might exist are very small. I don't think one can say that, in the abstract, monogamy is better than polygamy. For an individual, one may be superior to the other, but I'd think that in the general case, they're about the same.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875