That was a world regional thing. Most men were poor and didn't have the means to support a family. Those with more money, could support more wives and children.
Today, we can do the same thing in the USA. We just cannot marry. , men do it all the time. Knock up three, four, or more women. That is morally wrong by most people, but what is really criminal in my eyes, is having children you cannot provide for! I see that as Child Abuse!
That was why marriage first entered the government eyes. Well before MLK, the government started to register and regulate marriages. It started as a racist ideal, to control who blacks could marry.
Try to stay on point here.
Polygamy was traditional.
In the Bible.
Why did you go and mess with the definition of marriage?
And I'm not sure that you can argue against excluding sexual couples from marriage as "arbitrary" while maintaining an arbitrary line against polygamy. Polygamy has been practiced throughout human history, as has sexual relationships. It has been excluded from the state definition of marriage due to religious biases against its practice. So potential polygamists might cons ute a small portion of the population? Do sexuals cons ute anything larger than, say, 5%?
The reason proponents of liberalizing the state definition of marriage to include sexual couples do not want to recognize that polygamy is just as worthy of inclusion is the fear of the impact on public support as it relates to their cause, though logically there's no difference.
Hey, you'd piss off a lot of evangelicals by legalizing polygamy. Though some might like to try it.
The age of consent is 17 in some states, and I think 16 in others.
One you start changing the definition, others will want their way with it.
I am among several people who will never tolerate the idea if redefining marriage. Call it something else.
You already changed it.
We see it from different perspectives. Look at it from the point of view that the government never had the right to interfere with a traditional church activity.
Does this mean anything to you:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Polygamy won't get play because it doesn't upset the patriarchal order of traditional marriage with the man as the head of the household as much as defining marriage to include sexual couples will. Some will likely see polygamy as an attempt to revert back to the old school patriarchal order with men free to set themselves up as mini-potentates with a bevy of wives to do their bidding.
in the US? Probably 10% are out and there should be an 8 % closeted still...
Of course, religious practice for some does include polygamy. Why must their religious liberties be infringed upon? Because of some arbitrary definition of marriage as between a couple?
60 million? Highly doubtful. Even 30 mil is stretching it, unless you believe Kinsey's studies...
Oh trust me -- I'm an absolutist when it comes to the Establishment Clause. But we're not talking about a religious issue with same-sex marriages. If it were a religious issue, we'd be talking about government insisting that no church or temple or mosque or other worship group recognize same-sex marriages (or that they all do it). If and when same-sex marriages get universal recognition, there's nothing about that to make religious groups marry same-sex couples. The whole issue is whether a government that recognized marriages -- whether religously sanctified or simply done through civil ceremonies performed by public officials -- can narrowly define marriage and accord benefits to those who are married that are unavailable to those who are not.
Surely you're not insisting that all marriages are religious in their nature? If so, are ceremonies performed by judges without any religious significance nevertheless religious unions? And, if so, into what religion do those non-religious ceremonies fit?
I do believe they are religious in nature. I have always taken that stance. I say those who were married by a judge are not married.
Again, the government should not be involved with marriage.
[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown;3425434]
After all, no sane person would argue that allowing that definition of marriage would suggest that one man should be able to marry 10 women or vice versa.QUOTE]
you totally miss the point. once you change the definition for one group -- the polygamists or the triad will bring their cause and demand the change and "right" (marriage is not a right).
the NAMBLA argument is also a valid one - but more to the point is the agenda to bring law suits against religious organizations under "hate speech" with intent to remove tax-exempt status' and further remove diety from the fabric of our society.
No consent.the NAMBLA argument is also a valid one
As FWD mentioned, I'm perfectly fine with trading one arbitrary definition for another.
That's ridiculous. There are plenty of legal activities and lifestyles that some religions condemn, why haven't lawsuits been brought on behalf of them?
There are a great number of churches who would deny Eldership to a man who has had children out of wedlock, or who smokes, or any variety of other LEGAL activities that the church disagrees with. There are still PLENTY of churches who will not grant leadership positions to women! They can't even lead worship, lead a prayer or so much as give announcements in front of the congregation. When are we going to see the onslaught of feminist lawsuits to remove those churches' tax exempt status??
Well, first of all, the Supreme Court has defined marriage as a right -- and a fundamental one at that. Zablocki v. Redhail makes that pretty clear.
Nevertheless, I'm sure that you've missed my point. The definition of marriage as being limited to one man and one woman is just as arbitrary as it would be to limit marriage to two people (which the current definition already does). The point is that we draw arbitrary lines in this area; the question is whose arbitrariness should carry the day. My ultimate point is that an arbitrary line that says marriage is an ins ution between two consenting adults strikes me as more reasonable than removing any line to define marriage as the polygamy/NAMBLA red herrings suggest. In other words, there seems (to me) to be a reasonable arbitrariness to saying that marriage is limited to two adults (regardless of gender) -- I think while still arbitrary, that line is far more reasonable than saying only a man and a woman or saying as many men and women as want to be married.
So, you're cool with dowries and forced marriages, right?That was the traditional setup, IIRC?
Not personally, but it happens in some cultures.So, you're cool with dowries and forced marriages, right?
If we are going to go by the laws as wanted by the majority, then we will not have such things. We will also not have same sex marriage.
If we go by customs, and don't interfere with family beliefs, then whats the problem with it?
Now forced marriages have happened in this country. They were called shot gun weddings. However, a forced marriage cannot be made valid, simply because of the rights extended to individuals by the cons ution.
Yes, I'm just pointing out that the 'traditional marriage' definition has never been set in stone. It's meant polygamy, it's meant politics, it's meant many different things.
Why can't the discussion of gay marriage in California end? Seriously, the people voted and they voted to ban gay marriage in California. You may not like and you might even hate it but the people voted and that's how it is. Accept it. Besides, if you want to get married, you don't have to do it in California. There are states in America where gay marriage is legal. Go to a state where gay marriage is legal.
The people can vote again.
And bring lawsuits.
You might not like it, but that's how it is.
Personally, I could care less about gay marriage. I don't give a if gays want to get married. If they want to get married, fine by me. I was just saying that the people of California voted and they voted against gay marriage. And yes, they can vote again on it but from what I've heard it won't be for a while. I just don't get why gays are still protesting Prop 8. It's done. Protesting is not going to have it overturned. They should just wait until the next time it is on the ballot. And if they really want gay marriage to be legal in California, then all the gay marriage supporters need to get off their asses and convince/persuade/pressure/bribe voters to vote their way.
Gotta start sometime. The legal challenge has already begun, so they might as well keep it on the frontburner.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
