Topic: It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy - page 2. (Read 1437 times)
Why do people need the blessings of the state for a marriage to be official? Why do people even want to get married in the first place? IF you want a partner have one. If you want multiple partners and they're ok with it have them. Don't see why multiple 'marriage' has to be legalized. Just have a ceremony yourself if you really want.
To force mosques to have same sex marriages or be forced to loose all tax exemptions?
I don't believe the marriage-equality issue is about forcing religious organisations to conduct marriages which are counter to their inherent bigotry.
AFAIK marriage-equality deals solely with the issue of ensuring that all US States have to conduct and recognise marriages between two people, irrespective of their gender. It is a legal issue of ensuring gay couples can have the same rights in marriage as heterosexual couples.
The law does not concern forcing religious organisations to conduct gay marriages. Unless you know otherwise.
No, this is a correct interpretation as far as anyone can honestly represent. The government can't discriminate because it is the role of government to protect an individual's rights. Religious institutions are free to continue discriminating because they have no onus concerning rights, and it's a mutually voluntary association by the organization and the individual.
If your 'organization' gets tax exemptions, or any kind of government help while still opposed to ssm, wouldn't it be a violation of the law? Not just churches or mosques but universities with a catholic affiliation for example...
Wasn't polygamy the norm back in the old days... I mean the old old days.
Social evolution seems to tell us polygamy went out, based on structural reason, just like the dinosaurs...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Discrimination is discrimination. I believe we will see more and more cases like this one in the future.
The New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) has ruled that the Roman Catholic owners of an Albany-area farm violated the civil rights of a lesbian couple when they declined to host the couple’s same-sex “marriage” ceremony in 2012.
Robert and Cynthia Gifford, who own and operate Liberty Ridge Farm in Schaghticoke, were ordered by DHR Judge Migdalia Pares and Commissioner Helen Diane Foster to pay $10,000 in fines to the state and an additional $3,000 in damages to the lesbian couple, Jennie McCarthy and Melissa Erwin for “mental pain and suffering.”
Additionally, the Giffords must provide sensitivity training to their staff, and prominently display a poster highlighting state anti-discrimination laws.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-couple-fined-13000-for-refusing-to-host-same-sex-wedding-at-their
I don't know that it's a violation of the law, why would it be? First, I don't think any religious organization should have a tax exempt status, but nonetheless, I don't know how this has a bearing on the relevant circumstances of the situation. Taking a tax deduction doesn't make you an agent of the government.
The protection of rights is by the government, not individual organizations. I support gay marriage, but I don't support forcing any religious organization to perform a religious ceremony (and I, as an atheist, have no pony in that race. What religious organizations do privately affects me in no way.) Religious marriage and civil marriage are not the same, and this law should only be binding on civil marriage, and governments are the only institution involved in civil marriage.
These are the countries which have legalized polygamy as of now (in black). Countries in light blue allow polygamy only for Muslim citizens, while polygamy is a criminal offence in the deep blue nations. In the Middle East, only the countries of Israel, Turkey and Tunisia does not allow polygamy. Polygamy is illegal everywhere in the Americas and the Europe. :
So in some countries muslims have a different (better, more rights?) status than other citizens of that same country. Interesting...
Too bad that map is so small.
To force mosques to have same sex marriages or be forced to loose all tax exemptions?
I don't believe the marriage-equality issue is about forcing religious organisations to conduct marriages which are counter to their inherent bigotry.
AFAIK marriage-equality deals solely with the issue of ensuring that all US States have to conduct and recognise marriages between two people, irrespective of their gender. It is a legal issue of ensuring gay couples can have the same rights in marriage as heterosexual couples.
The law does not concern forcing religious organisations to conduct gay marriages. Unless you know otherwise.
No, this is a correct interpretation as far as anyone can honestly represent. The government can't discriminate because it is the role of government to protect an individual's rights. Religious institutions are free to continue discriminating because they have no onus concerning rights, and it's a mutually voluntary association by the organization and the individual.
If your 'organization' gets tax exemptions, or any kind of government help while still opposed to ssm, wouldn't it be a violation of the law? Not just churches or mosques but universities with a catholic affiliation for example...
Wasn't polygamy the norm back in the old days... I mean the old old days.
Social evolution seems to tell us polygamy went out, based on structural reason, just like the dinosaurs...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Discrimination is discrimination. I believe we will see more and more cases like this one in the future.
The New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) has ruled that the Roman Catholic owners of an Albany-area farm violated the civil rights of a lesbian couple when they declined to host the couple’s same-sex “marriage” ceremony in 2012.
Robert and Cynthia Gifford, who own and operate Liberty Ridge Farm in Schaghticoke, were ordered by DHR Judge Migdalia Pares and Commissioner Helen Diane Foster to pay $10,000 in fines to the state and an additional $3,000 in damages to the lesbian couple, Jennie McCarthy and Melissa Erwin for “mental pain and suffering.”
Additionally, the Giffords must provide sensitivity training to their staff, and prominently display a poster highlighting state anti-discrimination laws.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-couple-fined-13000-for-refusing-to-host-same-sex-wedding-at-their
These are the countries which have legalized polygamy as of now (in black). Countries in light blue allow polygamy only for Muslim citizens, while polygamy is a criminal offence in the deep blue nations. In the Middle East, only the countries of Israel, Turkey and Tunisia does not allow polygamy. Polygamy is illegal everywhere in the Americas and the Europe. :
To force mosques to have same sex marriages or be forced to loose all tax exemptions?
I don't believe the marriage-equality issue is about forcing religious organisations to conduct marriages which are counter to their inherent bigotry.
AFAIK marriage-equality deals solely with the issue of ensuring that all US States have to conduct and recognise marriages between two people, irrespective of their gender. It is a legal issue of ensuring gay couples can have the same rights in marriage as heterosexual couples.
The law does not concern forcing religious organisations to conduct gay marriages. Unless you know otherwise.
No, this is a correct interpretation as far as anyone can honestly represent. The government can't discriminate because it is the role of government to protect an individual's rights. Religious institutions are free to continue discriminating because they have no onus concerning rights, and it's a mutually voluntary association by the organization and the individual.
So looking at one of these scientific facts, no harm in polygamy legalization.
How about this harm I already pointed out?
Quote
I believe the reasoning behind keeping polygamy illegal is less to do with cultural distaste and more to do with the fact that polygamous marriages are generally driven by dysfunctional responses to human relationship power balances.
We are not talking about a group marriage of equals, we are talking about multiple people marrying a single person. That is inherently an unbalanced relationship open to abuses and usually the result of those involved having psychological issues which compel them to seek out a relationship which cannot possibly be consistent with an equal balance of power.
We are not talking about a group marriage of equals, we are talking about multiple people marrying a single person. That is inherently an unbalanced relationship open to abuses and usually the result of those involved having psychological issues which compel them to seek out a relationship which cannot possibly be consistent with an equal balance of power.
You see, coming up with vague notions of elements of polygamy which might not be harmful is not exactly useful in the presence of a reasoned fact of how polygamy is harmful.
By nature males and females are born in approximately the same ratio. During paediatric age however, in childhood itself a female child has more immunity than a male child. A female child can fight the germs and diseases better than the male child. For this reason, there are more deaths among males as compared to the females during paediatric age. So looking at one of these scientific facts, no harm in polygamy legalization.
To force mosques to have same sex marriages or be forced to loose all tax exemptions?
I don't believe the marriage-equality issue is about forcing religious organisations to conduct marriages which are counter to their inherent bigotry.
AFAIK marriage-equality deals solely with the issue of ensuring that all US States have to conduct and recognise marriages between two people, irrespective of their gender. It is a legal issue of ensuring gay couples can have the same rights in marriage as heterosexual couples.
The law does not concern forcing religious organisations to conduct gay marriages. Unless you know otherwise.
ooohh i get it, for the love of paperwork !! ^^
A part of it, yes. A small part.
ooohh i get it, for the love of paperwork !! ^^
why that desire to marriage eachother? does it makes you happier then you where with that person before marriage? or is it out of economic point of view? you know, taxes and stuff not about the golddiggers nor talking about those naturalisation marriages used and abused by lots of people. that would be another topic i think
For political reasons? For child adoption reasons? For inheritance reasons? To force mosques to have same sex marriages or be forced to loose all tax exemptions?
We shall see.
why that desire to marriage eachother? does it makes you happier then you where with that person before marriage? or is it out of economic point of view? you know, taxes and stuff not about the golddiggers nor talking about those naturalisation marriages used and abused by lots of people. that would be another topic i think
rather, loss of traditional muslim privilege to demand their right to discriminate against those they are conditioned to see as a threat to their traditional muslim privilege of expected deference and respect for their 'god-given' bigotry.
rather, loss of traditional theist privilege to demand their right to discriminate against those they are conditioned to see as a threat to their traditional theist privilege of expected deference and respect for their 'god-given' bigotry.
There, that should do it.
rather, loss of traditional muslim privilege to demand their right to discriminate against those they are conditioned to see as a threat to their traditional muslim privilege of expected deference and respect for their 'god-given' bigotry.
rather, loss of traditional theist privilege to demand their right to discriminate against those they are conditioned to see as a threat to their traditional theist privilege of expected deference and respect for their 'god-given' bigotry.
There, that should do it.
If gay marriage and sodomy can be allowed, I can't see a valid reason for why polygamy and polyandry should be banned for eternity. Polygamy is practiced by various societies and cultural groups, such as the Native Americans, Mormons and Muslims. A ban against it can't be justified, by saying that it goes against the teachings of Christianity.
This is the exact mindset and reasoning that will hit the court in the up coming years in the US...
. . .and lose.
The, 'slippery slope' argument is utterly absurd and, just like the idea that opposition to gay marriage is actually a defense of 'traditional' marriage, it is based, not on reasonable argument but, rather, loss of traditional Christian Privilege to demand their right to discriminate against those they are conditioned to see as a threat to their traditional Christian Privilege of expected deference and respect for their 'god-given' bigotry.
rather, loss of traditional muslim privilege to demand their right to discriminate against those they are conditioned to see as a threat to their traditional muslim privilege of expected deference and respect for their 'god-given' bigotry.
If gay marriage and sodomy can be allowed, I can't see a valid reason for why polygamy and polyandry should be banned for eternity. Polygamy is practiced by various societies and cultural groups, such as the Native Americans, Mormons and Muslims. A ban against it can't be justified, by saying that it goes against the teachings of Christianity.
This is the exact mindset and reasoning that will hit the court in the up coming years in the US...
. . .and lose.
The, 'slippery slope' argument is utterly absurd and, just like the idea that opposition to gay marriage is actually a defense of 'traditional' marriage, it is based, not on reasonable argument but, rather, loss of traditional Christian Privilege to demand their right to discriminate against those they are conditioned to see as a threat to their traditional Christian Privilege of expected deference and respect for their 'god-given' bigotry.
If gay marriage and sodomy can be allowed, I can't see a valid reason for why polygamy and polyandry should be banned for eternity. Polygamy is practiced by various societies and cultural groups, such as the Native Americans, Mormons and Muslims. A ban against it can't be justified, by saying that it goes against the teachings of Christianity.
This is the exact mindset and reasoning that will hit the court in the up coming years in the US...
Then after that, who knows...
If gay marriage and sodomy can be allowed, I can't see a valid reason for why polygamy and polyandry should be banned for eternity. Polygamy is practiced by various societies and cultural groups, such as the Native Americans, Mormons and Muslims. A ban against it can't be justified, by saying that it goes against the teachings of Christianity.
I believe the reasoning behind keeping polygamy illegal is less to do with cultural distaste and more to do with the fact that polygamous marriages are generally driven by dysfunctional responses to human relationship power balances.
We are not talking about a group marriage of equals, we are talking about multiple people marrying a single person. That is inherently an unbalanced relationship open to abuses and usually the result of those involved having psychological issues which compel them to seek out a relationship which cannot possibly be consistent with an equal balance of power.
We are not talking about a group marriage of equals, we are talking about multiple people marrying a single person. That is inherently an unbalanced relationship open to abuses and usually the result of those involved having psychological issues which compel them to seek out a relationship which cannot possibly be consistent with an equal balance of power.
Even so, it should be up to the individuals in question to decide what works for them or not. Bans on behavior because they are associated with certain undesirable traits are why marijuana is banned; it's why they tried to ban alcohol. The generalization that polygamous marriages are driven by dysfunctional responses is another instance in which individuality is supplanted by a generic set of supposed values. Polygamy may not work for most, that's not a justification to ban it for all.
Jump to: