Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Since it appears that our society is going to allow gays to legally marry shouldn't the same right be afforded to polygamists?

I would think so. Doesn't hurt anything as far as I know.

It would be polyamoury more than polygamy, but sure, why not?

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Since it appears that our society is going to allow gays to legally marry shouldn't the same right be afforded to polygamists?

Only gay polyamorous types, imo.

I, like dadudemon, find the separation of the term marriage and the contracts & benefits that currently go with it, would be a good thing to have. In our current system though, yes, I do think people should be allowed to be in greater than binary configurations.

Polygamists - specifically Mormons/Mennonites don't need a marriage certificate .
As long as they complete the marriage qualifications that are set out in their religion, they're good. They don't need to be recognized as legal in the government's eyes.

It's illegal, but it's not unlawful. No government has the lawful right to stop you from being with whom you want to be with, whether that be 1 person or several, as long as everybody is consenting and old enough you're not breaking any laws, only the rules of your country.

Originally posted by samhain
the rules of your country.

that is the definition of a law...

I think you mean to say they aren't doing anything wrong...

Originally posted by samhain
you're not breaking any laws, only the rules of your country.

What? Forbidding polyamory isn't a social convention, there are laws against it.

Interestingly, I think this latest rules could be interpreted as requiring the government to recognize a polyamorous relationship if it were by approved by state law. This ruling is broader than just gay marriage.

Originally posted by Oliver North
that is the definition of a law...

Law only pertains to harm or loss caused by another, anything else is an act of parliament, and can only be given the force of law when consented to by the governed. Legal and lawful are 2 different things, you have to give your consent for the police/courts, etc to enforce statutes upon you.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Polygamists - specifically Mormons/Mennonites don't need a marriage certificate .
As long as they complete the marriage qualifications that are set out in their religion, they're good. They don't need to be recognized as legal in the government's eyes.

This is exactly how I feel it should be for everyone. It's not just Mormons/Mennonites, many muslim cultures practice polygamy as well.

Originally posted by samhain
Law only pertains to harm or loss caused by another

That's adorable.

Of course. As I've stated, more or less, for years: "Who cares what consenting adults do with each other."

The keyword is "consent".

And what Bardock42 said because it makes sense.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Polygamists - specifically Mormons/Mennonites don't need a marriage certificate .
As long as they complete the marriage qualifications that are set out in their religion, they're good. They don't need to be recognized as legal in the government's eyes.

Mormons don't practice polygamy.

Yes (with the addendum that others have pointed out--that it be polyamory, not just polygamy).

No moral dilemma here.

Originally posted by samhain
Law only pertains to harm or loss caused by another, anything else is an act of parliament, and can only be given the force of law when consented to by the governed. Legal and lawful are 2 different things, you have to give your consent for the police/courts, etc to enforce statutes upon you.

what legal system is this?

Originally posted by Oliver North
what legal system is this?

I believe it is a "natural law" argument.

Ah the old 'free man of the land' nonsense. So far as I know not one of them has ever had an argument stand up in court.

Originally posted by Oliver North
what legal system is this?

All of them.

Originally posted by dadudemon




Mormons don't practice polygamy.

The mainstream Mormon church officially condemns it. They gave it up in the 19th century to become a state (politics influencing religion). However there are many sects who claim to follow the original teachings of Joseph Smith who still practice polygamy.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
However there are many sects who claim to follow the original teachings of Joseph Smith who still practice polygamy.

Emphasis mine. "Many" implies there are a lot. There aren't. There are just a handful of breakaways and they are not "Mormons" nor do they call themselves, such. They specifically give themselves alternative names as to not be confused for the main "sect". RLDS, for example (they no longer do polygamy, either, as I understand them).

Originally posted by jaden101
Ah the old 'free man of the land' nonsense. So far as I know not one of them has ever had an argument stand up in court.

That's cos those Freemen aren't as well versed in the law as they'd like to believe, they show up to court thinking they know how to handle themselves but usually by the time they get to court they've already made themselves susceptable to sanctions on various fronts.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Emphasis mine. "Many" implies there are a lot. There aren't. There are just a handful of breakaways and they are not "Mormons" nor do they call themselves, such. They specifically give themselves alternative names as to not be confused for the main "sect". RLDS, for example (they no longer do polygamy, either, as I understand them). Yeah, Big Love was a pretty good show in the early seasons.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Emphasis mine. "Many" implies there are a lot. There aren't. There are just a handful of breakaways and they are not "Mormons" nor do they call themselves, such. They specifically give themselves alternative names as to not be confused for the main "sect". RLDS, for example (they no longer do polygamy, either, as I understand them).

I believe there are more than you think, the FLDS being the most infamous, but I concede the point that they do not refer to themselves as "Mormons" even though they still often use The Book of Mormon.

Originally posted by samhain
All of them.

right, so none of them at all

Okay. So, some Mormons believe in polygamy.

Everyone should be allowed to do what they want as long as what they do does not infringe on other people.

Originally posted by GCG
Everyone should be allowed to do what they want as long as what they do does not infringe on other people.

That implies an extremely restrictive society.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That implies an extremely restrictive society.

That implies freedom to act as they (polygamists) want to, as long as they consent to living together in a household with 3 or more.

If they all agree, there should be no problem and it's none of anyone's business what they do.

However societies are defined as a group of people acting together to achieve a common goal. If some people are born in a society, and they disagree with what 'rules' (culture) that society has, they have to right to live their own life as they wish as long as their actions do not infringe on other people.

Originally posted by GCG
That implies freedom to act as they (polygamists) want to, as long as they consent to living together in a household with 3 or more.

No, all someone has to do is claim they don't like it and polygamy will be banned.

"Their choices infringe on my desire to not have polygamists within 3000 miles of me!"
"Send in the SWAT team!"


Sidebar: I think freedom is dumb and fails even basic tests of self consistency.

Sym hated freedom before it was cool!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, all someone has to do is claim they don't like it and polygamy will be banned.

"Their choices infringe on my desire to not have polygamists within 3000 miles of me!"
"Send in the SWAT team!"


Sidebar: I think freedom is dumb and fails even basic tests of self consistency.

I don't understand what the problem is. If one does not like polygamy, then all they need to do is not be a part of it. It's that simple.

.... Because that totally worked out for people who "just didn't want to be a part of" homosexuality.

I think the only limits on marriage should be:

1. Parties involved are all adults.
2. Parties involved give their free mutual consent and are coherent and have all of their faculties about them.
3. Parties involved are human (at least until we encounter other humanoid species which are genetically compatible with us, at which point just limitations 1 & 2).

Beyond that, have at it.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
(at least until we encounter other humanoid species which are genetically compatible with us, at which point just limitations 1 & 2).

Should genetic compatibility even be an issue?

And what do you mean by "genetic compatibility"? Do you mean compatible for sex, or compatible for producing offspring? Because the latter is almost certainly impossible.

Originally posted by GCG
I don't understand what the problem is. If one does not like polygamy, then all they need to do is not be a part of it. It's that simple.

It has infringed on their personal comfort. You never defined what "infringed" meant. Of course you didn't, I don't blame you for that, I'm sure you just don't want to own up to the fact that what you really want is the restrictions that make you happiest. The rights of polygamists to be marry are not a priori any more legitimate than the rights of those who do not wish polygamy to be legal. You must choose to restrict one group or other other, they cannot both be satisfied at once. Once you do you can step past the idiotic notion that you care about having a free society.

We should infringe on a murderer's right to kill.
We should infringe on a government's right to prevent polygamy.

To never allow anyone to "infringe" on anyone else is nonsense designed to manipulate stupid people. It just means you want to infringe on things you don't like. Guess what, everybody wants that. Don't fool yourself by dressing it up in soundbytes.

I mean compatible as in introducing their genome to our own won't cause crazy viral mutations which could make us all go extinct via a pandemic. Procreation isn't an issue. Marriage isn't solely for procreating. It's about sharing your life with someone you love.

*edit

Or money. Let's be real.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
I mean compatible as in introducing their genome to our own won't cause crazy viral mutations which could make us all go extinct via a pandemic. Procreation isn't an issue. Marriage isn't solely for procreating. It's about sharing your life with someone you love.

*edit

Or money. Let's be real.
Well, the thing is that there's no danger of any kind of gene pool contamination because barring some crazy cosmic coincidence where a species evolves to be exactly like humans down to the same genetic code and chromosome count there's no chance of a humanoid alien species interbreeding with humans. Humans can't even interbreed with chimpanzees (although IIRC there are theories that early humans did interbreed with chimps about a million years ago)

I agree with the rest of your post.

a virus that could jump between two species from different planets might be even more unlikely than the chance of interbreeding between those species... Viruses tend to be very tailor made, unless they are the flu, that ***** is crazy

Originally posted by Oliver North
a virus that could jump between two species from different planets might be even more unlikely than the chance of interbreeding between those species... Viruses tend to be very tailor made, unless they are the flu, that ***** is crazy

Science, bitches.

I like the scene in Enterprise where Dr. Phlox gets all excited about telling Earth schoolchildren how many viruses there are that can survive (and thrive) within the vacuum of space.

Originally posted by Oliver North
a virus that could jump between two species from different planets might be even more unlikely than the chance of interbreeding between those species... Viruses tend to be very tailor made, unless they are the flu, that ***** is crazy

You say that now, but wait til you get Explosive Targ Pox.

But seriously, if there is intelligent life out there disease would be my main concern, whether it be virulent, some bacteria, or some kind of auto-immune issue. If those aren't issues I'd smash a green or purple chick.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
You say that now, but wait til you get Explosive Targ Pox.

But seriously, if there is intelligent life out there disease would be my main concern, whether it be virulent, some bacteria, or some kind of auto-immune issue. If those aren't issues I'd smash a green or purple chick.

fair enough, viruses and bacteria tend to be very specifically designed for their hosts though. Its rare to find ones that can jump across species (and after a long enough infection, across individuals within a species), but I suppose it isn't impossible