PDA

View Full Version : On the marriage debate...



OnePimpTiger
07-16-2011, 11:49 AM
Just read an article (http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/2011/07/14/kody_brown_and_his_four_wives/page/full/) that presents an interesting perspective:


prosecutors opened a criminal investigation.

So Brown went to court claiming that his constitutional rights have been violated in various ways. Though it may come as a surprise to hear, he's got a perfectly reasonable argument.

Brown and his lawyer, George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley, don't say the state must sanction such arrangements in law. Nor did Brown try to get multiple marriage licenses, in defiance of the state ban on polygamy.

His case is about freedom, not state recognition. Unlike gay couples who say they should be allowed to legally wed, Brown isn't asking the state to officially accommodate his chosen form of matrimony. He's just asking to be let the hell alone.

Other people, after all, are exempt from such control. Turley says Brown and his women "would not be prosecuted if they claimed no religious obligation and merely had casual or purely sexual associations."

He notes, "Monogamists are allowed an infinite number of sexual partners, and consequently have the right to bear children with multiple partners, so long as they do not claim to be committed to such partners in a union or family."

The law doesn't prevent any man from living with several women, having sex with them and siring their offspring. This behavior is a problem only when a man claims to be permanently wedded to the women -- only, that is, when he behaves more responsibly than a tomcat.

He does make a very good point. I have little question how those who oppose gay marriage will feel about this...I assume supporting marriage being between a man and a woman in the gay marriage debate would lend itself to supporting marriage between only one man and one woman.

The first question that came to mind is how do those who support gay marriage feel about polygamy?

The second question is how people feel about the point made that government should have nothing to do with "marriage," that it is a spiritual/religious institution, not a legislative one? Anti gay marriage folks offer the option of civil union instead of marriage for gays...what about civil unions for everyone in the eyes of government and "marriage" completely taken out of it?

duane1969
07-16-2011, 12:23 PM
I have a couple of thoughts on this quote and the marriage subject as well.

First, the guy makes a good point. A prime example of his point is Hugh Hefner who regularly has 3 or more women living with him as his "girlfriends" and is apparently intimate with all of them. Not only is the state/Fed OK with it, he even got his own TV show about it. So a bias based on religion or terminology is clearly present in this situation. I do not see this as relevant to the gay marriage issue, perhaps someone can relate it for me.

As for the gay marriage issue. I honestly believe that the issue with gay marriage is terminology. If it is called a "union" and they are joined by the state then nobody seems to have much issue with it.

The glitch seems to come along when the term "marriage" is introduced into the equation. Marriage has meant a union between a man and a woman for thousands of years. Now that homosexuality has become more socially acceptable along with it has come this expectation that this socially accepted concept of what marriage is is supposed to suddenly change.

The simple fact is this. When you meet someone and they tell you that they are married you naturally assume that their spouse is someone of the opposite sex. When you see someone wearing a wedding band you naturally assume that the other person is of the opposite sex.

What is being expected is not an acceptance of homosexuality. What is expected is an entire societal paradigm shift. It simply isn't going to happen in a year or two.

mrveggieman
07-16-2011, 01:14 PM
Both of ya'll have made excellent points. I totall agree that the state should sanction civil unions between consenting adults and leave the definiation of marriage to religion. As far as polygomy is concerned I feel that you should only have 1 legal civil union to one person but if your relgion allows you to be married to mutiple people that is entirely between you and your god.

OnePimpTiger
07-16-2011, 08:27 PM
I do not see this as relevant to the gay marriage issue, perhaps someone can relate it for me.

They're both concerning marriage...


Both of ya'll have made excellent points. I totall agree that the state should sanction civil unions between consenting adults and leave the definiation of marriage to religion. As far as polygomy is concerned I feel that you should only have 1 legal civil union to one person but if your relgion allows you to be married to mutiple people that is entirely between you and your god.

But why?

mrveggieman
07-17-2011, 01:18 AM
@OnePimpTiger, people marry not only for love but also for the benefits. My personal view is that if you want to get married to mutiple men, women or a mix of both that is between you and your god. But as far as marital beneifts such as insurance, retirement, social security etc only one person should be entitled to that, the person one true person who they have a civil union to.

OnePimpTiger
07-17-2011, 01:28 AM
@OnePimpTiger, people marry not only for love but also for the benefits. My personal view is that if you want to get married to mutiple men, women or a mix of both that is between you and your god. But as far as marital beneifts such as insurance, retirement, social security etc only one person should be entitled to that, the person one true person who they have a civil union to.

I can see that point, civil union being taken advantage of for the benefits, but it is already.

gatorboymike
07-17-2011, 02:22 AM
If people want to engage in polygamy, I don't care. As long as they're doing it in private and all parties are of age and consenting, there is no reason not to let them.

But legally recognizing polygamous marriage is a tricky situation. There are just too many questions. Is everyone marrying each other all at once, or is one person marrying everyone else? What if one of the partners wants to split up with a second partner but stay married to a third partner? It's too much of a headache.

duane1969
07-17-2011, 12:31 PM
I honestly can't imagine wanting more than one wife anyway. Talk about a glutton for punishment...

OnePimpTiger
07-17-2011, 02:42 PM
If people want to engage in polygamy, I don't care. As long as they're doing it in private and all parties are of age and consenting, there is no reason not to let them.

But legally recognizing polygamous marriage is a tricky situation. There are just too many questions. Is everyone marrying each other all at once, or is one person marrying everyone else? What if one of the partners wants to split up with a second partner but stay married to a third partner? It's too much of a headache.

My understanding of it (at least in the case of fundamental Mormons) is the male is married to each of the females, but the females are not in any kind of "marriage" with each other. So if the man and one wife split up, the other "marriages" would still be in tact. Of course that's only for fundamental Mormons...I'm sure different situations would arise. I would say that would have to be worked out between the people just like a normal divorce...only more complicated.

pghin08
07-18-2011, 12:46 PM
If people want to engage in polygamy, I don't care. As long as they're doing it in private and all parties are of age and consenting, there is no reason not to let them.

But legally recognizing polygamous marriage is a tricky situation. There are just too many questions. Is everyone marrying each other all at once, or is one person marrying everyone else? What if one of the partners wants to split up with a second partner but stay married to a third partner? It's too much of a headache.

Not to mention the tax headache. How on earth would the IRS handle polygamous marriages? Woof.

Star_Cards
07-18-2011, 01:55 PM
I actually think polygamy should be legal as well. I guess I get that people can argue that it would increase the number of people that would marry just for benefits, but people can take advantage of those benefits as the system sits now.

duane1969
07-23-2011, 10:53 PM
Not to mention the tax headache. How on earth would the IRS handle polygamous marriages? Woof.

I am just speculating, but they would probably just consider them dependants and leave it at that.